Oh, how quickly smug, self-righteous smiles can turn into outraged gasping. I was quite pleased to see Japan, Norway, Iceland and others eventually get one over the woolly-thinking Western mouth-foamers at the recent International Whaling Commission meeting in St Kitts & Nevis. Of course, this is a mostly symbolic victory for those in favour of harvesting resources. In a practical sense, it may improve the pro-whaling camp’s ability to set the agenda at future IWC get-togethers. This achievement was dwarfed, however, by the far more notable victory enjoyed by the anti-whalers earlier in the conference. The Japanese attempted to enact secret ballot voting at IWC conferences, and failed. This is a considerable strategic defeat, because secret ballots would have significantly enhanced the appeal of Japan’s chequebook diplomacy in the eyes of swinging IWC members, who might otherwise be concerned about domestic political consequences should they choose to vote with the Japanese. Regardless of the relative unimportance of the Japanese camp’s win – and the relative importance of the anti-whaling bloc’s success at the meeting – the usual suspects are up in arms, like they always are. More on that later.
I believe Japan would require a two-thirds majority of members to overturn the moratorium on whaling that is currently in place, and they have no hope of mustering those kinds of numbers any time soon. Personally, I think Japan should simply follow Norway’s lead and unilaterally discard the moratorium. Stop using this ‘scientific research’ nonsense as a pretext for a perfectly legitimate operation. The Japanese – and any other nation – have an absolute right to harvest the whale resource in international waters. They do not need to make excuses to anyone. It is time they looked the anti-whaling hysterics like Australia, Great Britain, New Zealand and their shrieking NGO allies in the eye and told the lot of them to get stuffed.
Take Greenpeace genius Danny Kennedy, walking the usual carping course:
It would be a stupidity really for civilisation to go back to this old barbaric business – which there is no demand for, I’ll note, in this day and age – and actually deplete the asset that the whale-watched business is based on.
Stupidity? How is this for stupidity, you stupid, stupid, stupid man; if there is no demand for whaling, why do you work for an organisation that helps make the dispute more intractable by whipping up ‘pro’ and ‘anti’ mobs and creating political obduracy in Japan over the issue? Can you not see why Japan subsidises its whaling industry? How long would the Japanese government subsidise its whaling industry if the passion was sucked out of the debate? Why not let whaling die a natural death – as it otherwise would in a decade or so – if left unperturbed by environmental crusaders? Do you revel in being counterproductive towards your stated aims, Danny Kennedy?
If anyone is interested, I have previously made the case for dropping the moratorium on whaling here.
The Economist has an interesting article about this.
Naturally they favour letting market forces loose at the problem, at letting the IWC get back to its initial purpose of regulation whaling to preserve stocks.
The suggestion was putting whaleing rights on the open market, thus letting pro and anti people put their money where their mouth is and buy rights which they can choose to exercise or not.
The numbers of people who actually want to eat whale meat are in decline, so why not do this, encourage the Japanese to stop subsidising their whaling fleet and let the industry stand on its own feet. If there is sufficient public demand then they will be able to hunt and provide food, otherwise they won’t be able to.
It should also get beyond the hyperbole of the environmentalists. Nobody is suggesting hunting the rare whales such as the Blue Whale, but listening to them you’d think that the Japanese want to hunt all whales to extinction.
As an addition to Tristans comment, letting market forces loose on the whole of the fishing industry (I know whales aren’t fish) would solve most of the problems.
No farmed animal is close to extinction, if the whales/cod/et al could be “privatised” and actually owned either by sea area or actual schools, then numbers would rise not fall.
I am sure that out there someone with more inteligence than moi can devise a scheme that will work.
Why not then apply to elephants etc for ivory
If you look at the way stocks of certain once-abundant fish have been depleted to the brink (or even over the brink) of non-recovery, by rapacious state AND private fishing concerns, can you really think that commercial whaling would be so different, if left purely to The Market?
Or do you not care, because nothing must stand in the way of commerce? I am no dirigiste or communist, but there is a big difference when considering the exploitation of wild natural resources like whales. There is no overiding incentive to fish (or whale) sustainably. To maximise the shareholder return in the short term, there is a rather a strong factor for “hunting to extinction”.
But to imagine that whales can be farmed like salmon….well, you would need to fence off an area rather bigger than the average loch….
John Ellis, you have a decent point in that farming whales is obviously going to be different than farming salmon, and I am not sure the former could always work, but I don’t think it is a lust for commerce that explains interest in using market forces; rather, it is borne out of the idea that regulations often achieve the opposite of the intended result. The ivory issue being a good example.
This comment:
“Japanese – and any other nation – have an absolute right to harvest the whale resource in international waters. They do not need to make excuses to anyone. It is time they looked the anti-whaling hysterics like Australia, Great Britain, New Zealand and their shrieking NGO allies in the eye and told the lot of them to get stuffed.”
…. is not what I normally expect at Samizdata.
Constitutions, treaties, laws, mean what they same. To “discard” such obligations because a country or a group or a person CAN, does not make it right or wise, and is in large part the reason for such much mischief in the world.
Countries, groups, and people must carefully understand and review such binding undertakings because to do otherwise will turn them into liars, cheats, and amoral dirty, rotten, contract breachers. The problem is much of the worlds laws, treaties, constitutions, are now seen as fascinating historical artwork upon the wall, not as the binding social and moral contracts they are supposed.
It is hard to feel sympathy for countries that enter into a treaty and the wish to ignore same when it suits their immediate desires. Either withdraw from the treaty or follow it.
The loss of secrert balloting is hardly a win for the anti-whaling crowd. The fact that Japan is known for “cheque book diplomacy” is corrupt and repulsive. Transparency is almost always good.
Finally, to base resource extraction, whether it is buffalo, whales, or trees, on anything OTHER than a sustainable yield basis is not just irresposible and short sighted – it is suicide.
James Waterton –
But that puts him out of a job. As was mentioned in here some time ago, the point of Greenpeace and thousands of other such organisations isn’t to fulfill stated aims, but to bring attention to themselves, keep the crusading going and, most impotantly, keep that filthy lucre coming in.
My only real concern regarding Whales is to get a definitive answer on whether you should serve red or white wine with them..
Whaleburger ho!
I remember eating whale at the appropriately named “Yoken’s Thar She Blows” restaurant in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, in the ’60s, before the ban. I liked it. It tasted like a cross between baby seal and bald eagle! No, really it tasted like beefy swordfish. Quite good.
I think Japan is playing a long game. They don’t just want to go their own way, they want to tear the ban down, because then they could export ships, expertise, meat etc across the world.
Plus, it’s a way to play the old game of empires without needing an army.
Wouldn’t it be better if the Japanese had to somehow buy the ocean territory that it wishes to mine for sea life? That way, they’d have to be mindful of the capital value of the resource, rather than simply trying to maximise current income. I don’t know how this could be done, but I have seen similar ideas proposed for privatising all forests – which would encourage higher rates of conservation.
There is an issue that the commenters have so far ignored, which is, I think, why most of the people who oppose whaling do oppose it.. a matter of ethics.
The major problem, as I see it, is that ethics are just assumptions; so if you make the assumption that killing a highly-sentient animal is wrong then consequently you view whaling as wrong. If you don’t, then, well, you don’t (you should consider what happens if a far more intelligent species were to evolve and decide what morals you would want them to have).
Ethics must have caused more bloodier wars than anything else… including religion (many of the problems arise due to people basing their ethics on a religion – or, more accurately, what some version of a book supposedly written by a prophet to god (of which there are many, all with their own different versions…) – or gods – says… often in a briefing, if you can’t be bothered to read the whole thing).
Admittedly, much of the posting was devoted to whether the laws were actually helping… however, this could be viewed as a lack of enforcement or – alternatively – as something that needs to be accepted.
The latter might sound rather odd, yet it must be realised that it is very easy to make a mistake in calculating the cost/benefits. Consider, say, making murder legal because the murder law is viewed as actually creating more murders (as an assination industry was created, and they advertised very heavily – removing the murder law, any old person can do it; so no need for assasins, and no adverts for it, so less people get muredered…). Well, if it’s true, then – maybe – it’s better (it depends on who will then be murdered, in a way). Yet, what if that’s wrong? Big problems… maybe.. not, if the society isn’t reliant on a state enforcer, probably.
So, sometimes things that are wrong – or, better put, in contradiction to certain assumptions that a person holds – should be prevented, even if the prevention may make it worse. Think of it being wrong to murder someone even if the countrys standard of living is vastly improved as a result of which… too much potential for abuse.
Of course, there don’t appear to be many environmentalists crying about the poor fish being killed by the whales…
Sorry for the double post…
@Steve Edwards: Well, it would give incentive to conserve what is being mined.. not necessarily other things (that could be argued hold no human value – and so are worthless, could be argued hold intrinsic value, could be argued hold potential human value that may be used by future human generations and so should be preserved). So, whether that is better than a perfect, non-abusive violence-enforced control (be it via private enterprise or state) of the resources is dependent, I suppose, on whether you get a warm fuzzy feeling for saving things even if they aren’t of direct use for you.
Which reminds me of the possible ‘problems’ (depends how you view it whether they are problems) of a short-term based economy.. I hear Japan takes a longer term approach in economic decisions. Interesting.
I find the tone of this post – less than objective. Leaving that aside I must admit I have a significant concern that some species of whales may too close to some sort of self aware sentience for comfort. Bush meat anyone? How about long pig?
I think the problem of whaling could be fixed by allowing the “branding” of whales using a transponder of some kind. People could only harvest whales they owned. This would turn the whales into a form of property and prevent the tragedy of the commons. Auctioning off the rights to brand the whales could fund enforcement and conservation.
People who really valued whales just as critters could buy them up and just let them roam. If you extend ownership automatically to calves born to owned mothers then after a short period conservationist would own most of the whales in the world. Best yet, the enforcement for protecting the whales would be automatic and immune to the winds of politics.
I’m not too wild about the idea of free reign of whaling (or any) countries in International Waters. I fear this could be another form of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard). So some louts could harvest (fill in marine resource here…) rapaciously in “International waters” because there are no societal checks and balances as there would be if they were doing the same in *National Waters*.
Just wondering if the the concept of International Waters anarchism is not really a libertarian concept but one that favours the corrupt and well connected……
Right now there’s an over supply of whale meat in Japan, such that some gets used in pet food. Surprised to see you guys going to bat for Japan, but perhaps you simply get off on disagreeing and being politically incorrect. Japan will never get its cherished seat (permanent or non-permanent) on the top table (UN Security Council) at this rate. Of course there are other reasons: Yasukuni Shrine visits by serving prime ministers, text book issue, treatment of comfort women, POW groups. All of which add up to a less than perfect image in the field of human rights.
Just wondering if the the concept of International Waters anarchism is not really a libertarian concept but one that favours the corrupt and well connected……
Depends on the flavour of libertarianism I suppose. I would say common property is not.
Need to deal with the tragedy of the commons somehow, and that is what “International Waters” leads to in every area of exploitation.
Adopt a propertarian solution and the problem largely goes away. Organisations (including families) with long term, multi generational economic interests tend to adopt long term multi generational strategies.
Please note, I said “tend to”, not “always in all circumstances do”.
My first reaction was that this was one person who was not destined for a posh position in the oily smooth world of diplomacy.
Did you recall about thirty years ago when Jack Diamond, owner operator of Vancouver*s horse racing operations, was caught with full storage vats of whale oil?
That was oil that came from many whales, not just a few. Amazing what the really wealthy can get away with… eh?
It makes me dispair and laugh at human nature when it comes to the wise harvest of any natural resource.
We humans have a choice of wise husbandry so the resource never fails or one of simple greed where we try to grab it all before the next guy and then apply for government financial relief when the resource, the cod or the lobster run out.
Add to this greed the convienient practice of dumping vast amounts of poisons into our oceans because it*s *cheap* and you have the makings of great comedy, but only if you have another clean and fresh planet to move to.
I am no bleeding liberal animal activist, but rather a conservative with respect for the bottom line.
http://TonyGuitar.blogspot.com
There is plenty of profit in doing things properly. What good are profits if shortcuts come back and bite us all collectivly in the ass?
We humans are such a wise and noble bunch, don*t you think? TG
Japan will never get its cherished seat (permanent or non-permanent) on the top table (UN Security Council) at this rate.
Japan will never become a permanent UNSC member, period, and whaling has nothing at all to do with the reason why.
Mark: I think you wasted your time writing out that comment, because every point you mentioned has been countered in this post or the one I linked to earlier. Ie
I clearly said they should withdraw.
Why not read my earlier post? I discuss sustainability there. The numbers of minkes currently being harvested by Japan is obviously sustainable, and as we’ve seen, demand continues to fall.
Oh, and your contention that
because
Is a non-sequitur. Anyway, secret balloting was never “lost”. Its imposition was blocked, and that constitutes a big win for the anti-whaling crowd, for the reason I mentioned; despite your assertion that chequebook diplomacy is corrupt and repulsive (and I don’t entirely disagree with you), it is practiced by all countries in one form or another.
Anonymous, P. Andrews : you can believe that whales are the incarnation of god almighty if you want, but why do you have the right to impose your morality on others? I personally don’t see why whales should be treated differently to any other mammal, bar humans.
Andrew Milner : Why are you discussing human rights? We’re talking about whales.
Steve, Chris and others : I agree, some kind of propertarian solution would be ideal.
TonyGuitar:
What a relief! Have you seen the kill rates versus the population figures of minke whales (overwhelmingly the most common breed caught)? It’s most probable that for every one taken, natural population growth is adding five. And that’s a conservative figure.
Johnathan,
Sorry for my long delay replying. I was happily surprised not to get branded (by you or subsequent posters) as anti-libertarian because I was unconvinced that market solutions could always work perfectly in such cases.
I have the same default bias as most here – that regulation is more often than not the wrong answer – but some regulation is sometimes needed. Call it contracts between nations around common or global resources if you prefer.
As an aside, I too am uncomfortable with hunting a species that is, or is close to sentient, but from a purely hard-nosed view unrestricted whaling in international waters doesn’t make sense. We all remember what happened last time it was practiced….
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19420597-2703,00.html
Maybe this is why they want to get whaling again??Hardly any market to sell product will be negated by the availability of so much protein in a time of need.
“Anonymous, P. Andrews : you can believe that whales are the incarnation of god almighty if you want, but why do you have the right to impose your morality on others?”
We don’t, presumably, in your morals. However, for your view to be consistent (that is, people do not have a right to impose our morals on others) you must support anarchy with no violence-enforced consequences (so, if someone steals from you and they consider that morally right, no naughty shooting them or taking it back). Or is it just people with morals different from you?
As I said, ethics are just assumptions. Of course, as mentioned previously, trying to ban whale hunting will almost certainly make them hunted more…
(Oh, by the way, I believe whales are an evolved lifeform which – due in part to them being a high predator – are more intelligent than the average evolved lifeform which, while there being little evidence that I know of to indicate they are at the same level as us, is at a level I arbitarily decide to view as sentience)
” I personally don’t see why whales should be treated differently to any other mammal, bar humans.”
Ok. That’s your ethical assumptions. Ok.
I haven’t read the Economist’s article, but the obvious problem is what to do with the funds received from auctioning off licenses? Given how difficult it is to reach multi-lateral agreements in other fields, it seems highly unlikely that such a diverse group of countries (including both pro- and anti- whalers) could agree the purpose of funds raised (for example, where this money would geographically be split).
Anony-mouse. “Just when you thought it was safe…”
I must have missed the bit where I was apparently imposing my morality on others – silly me – and I though was just voicing a reasonable note of caution. Touched a nerve?
I am not saying whales are self aware in some way, just that the possibility shouldn’t be rejected out of hand and ought to be considered.
If you want to discuss what gives any one the ‘right’ then leaving aside morality, it must logically be, say, my ability to make any right I wish to assume stick, in the face of, say, your objections.
You can say what you please. Just don’t try to stop me, unless I’m infringing upon your individual rights. I’ll do the same for you.
By the way, holding the satisfied knowledge that whales not belonging to you are swimming around in the ocean is not a right you can enforce on me to stop me altering that situation. The owners of the whale/s, however…
This seems to have diverged a little from the whale thing…
The point is that when you get right down to it there are no absolute, natural, universal “rights”.
Any and all rights derive from an individual, or group defining/agreeing them and successfully enforcing them. That includes property rights.
I never claimed any differently. Of course liberal values are not inalienable rights, otherwise we’d live in a liberal society. However, this is a liberal site, thus we tend to approach issues from a liberal perspective.
Huh?!
A *liberal* site??? Here I’ve been thinking this is a
Libertarian site.
The site is also somewhat Britain-oriented, so we frequently use the British (and uncorrupted) definition of ‘liberal’. It’s about time you Americans took back the word ‘liberal’ from the collectivists.
Well now you know. This is clearly a liberal site, just as Hayek et al were liberals. Classical liberals.