Sea Shepherd battles with Japanese Whaler. Credit: guano/flickr

By Alex Schlotzer:

It would seem that whales will soon join many other species and be lost from our world.

This slide towards inevitable extinction of many whale species begs the question: why do countries continue to slaughter whales and dolphins, for what amounts to unadulterated commercial gain?

This is not a 19th century tragedy — this is happening today. There is no excuse for harvesting whales for “scientific” purposes, in fact Australian scientists recently illustrated how it is possible to study whales without having to kill them.  There’s no Moby Dick man against beast fantasy about how whales are killed — these days the tips of the deadly harpoons have grenades attached.

Moreover the International Whaling Commission (IWC) has recently indicated a significant softening of their stance against commercial whaling. A plan being seriously considered by member nations to the IWC, would see the re-introduction of commercial whaling in exchange for lower catch limits.  But how could such a plan ever work?  There are countries that continue to flaunt IWC rules slaughtering thousands of whales illegally each year. So what makes the IWC think these countries would stick to “agreed” catch limits?

While Peter Garrett says the Australian government will not support the IWC’s proposal for the re-introduction of commercial whaling, the US government and other influential IWC member states appear to be seriously considering the change in rules. Australia, for all its bluster, remains a two-bit player at the IWC table and if other more influential nations such as the US support the proposal, most will happily follow.

Whale meat on sale in Tokyo. Credit: malias/flickr

Surely if the Australian government is serious about ending the annual whale slaughters, then there should be no reason stopping it from taking Japan to the International Courts? Those that champion “diplomatic” measures must also be tired of spouting this gem with more than 15 years of “diplomatic” efforts resulting in no outcomes; just more and more whales slaughtered.

But then this particular criticism could be levelled at every IWC member state that does nothing other than write vigorously worded letters asking politely that whaling be stopped.

Efforts by organisations like Sea Shepherd, while at times thuggish, are necessary to ensure that the slaughter remains in the mainstream media.  The cat-and-mouse games between whalers and activists caught in this year’s near fatal shenanigans illustrate again the lengths to which some countries zealously guard their commercial whaling industries. It’s dangerous and reckless but then all parties involved are to blame. It’s a shame that neither the Australian or New Zealand governments felt compelled to send out observation teams to minimise risk to human lives during the protests. Another indictment on the Australian government’s stance on whaling. The tough talk is not matched by the actions.

In my humble opinion, even Australia could support the IWC’s commercial whaling proposal if leaned on, ever so slightly, by the US or even Japan (especially in light of Australia and Japan entering into a new and supposedly lucrative free trade agreement). Such an outcome will surely see whale numbers decline to extinction.

This article originally appeared in different form in Alex’s blog.

Alex Schlotzer is a straight talker when it comes to politics and loves to vent his spleen. Actively involved in Australian and international politics with a keen understanding of the dynamics of the political machine, Alex has a prolific online presence and has been a cyber activist for over 15 years. Regional editor of theangle.org, he can also be found at his blog and his exciting online project Australian Politics TV.