REACTIONS to Iceland鈥檚 resumption of whaling this week highlight once again the shambles of international whaling policy. Iceland has begun what it says will be an annual hunt for 38 minke whales. It gets round the International Whaling Commission鈥檚 moratorium by claiming the whaling is for research purposes, though few doubt that Iceland鈥檚 real aim is commercial whaling. Dishonest as this stance may be it is no worse than that of opponents such as the British and US governments.
The Bush administration threatens trade sanctions. The UK 鈥渄eeply regrets鈥� the 鈥渨holly unjustified鈥� hunt. But what makes the hunt unjustified? Icelandic waters contain a quarter of the North Atlantic鈥檚 150,000 minkes 鈥� more, according to the IWC鈥檚 calculations, than before modern commercial whaling began. Even recent gene-based estimates suggest minkes have recovered to more than half their historic numbers. In short, there is no conservation case for Iceland not to resume this hunt.
Is there a moral case? Greenpeace says it opposes whaling 鈥渇orever鈥�. That is honest and clear. But what do the governments with voting rights at the IWC think? In opposing whaling, countries like the UK have always been hazy about whether their objections are scientific or moral. With the population crisis for many whale species now past, it is time for some clarity from the opponents of whaling. Only then can the IWC start a sensible debate about the future of the world鈥檚 greatest and most inspiring marine mammals.
Advertisement