Dear Editor,

Reference is hereby made to the two articles in the Sunday, June 18, 2006 edition of your paper, titled “The Japanese water carrier and the Caribbean ants” by John Maxwell and “Please save the whales” by Chief Emeka Anyaoku, president of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).

Both articles intended to prove the validity of the anti-whaling position in an emotive way. While the article by Chief Anoyaoku, addressed to Excellencies of the Commonwealth, sought to outline how the anti-whaling position is in the interest of marine conservation and Japan’s position is not, Mr Maxwell’s article tends to marginalise Japan’s Official Development Assistance (ODA) as a bribery mechanism and that Caribbean nations on a whole have no real association with whaling issues.

In preserving both the cultural integrity of our people and the sincerity of our generosity through ODA, we find it necessary to explain our position on this issue clearly.

Both articles reinforced the fact that the issue of whaling is normally debated on an emotional level with not much credence given to supportive scientific evidence.

Mr Maxwell states that Greenpeace and the Japanese represent two poles of the argument, he further went on to legitimise and support Greenpeace’s position by degrading the Japanese’s position to the level of being ‘novel’ and its scientific evidence of ‘not being science’ according to unnamed reputable scientists.

Other ‘evidence’ in support of the anti-whaling position includes the declaration of Japanese scientific whaling as illegal according to lawyers hired by the WWF. We do realise that it is difficult to respond not to an argument supported by facts and figures but a verbal assault based on emotion; however, we will briefly take this opportunity to explain our position and hope that in so doing the Jamaican people will better understand the issue from a logical perspective.

Our basic position on whaling is as follows:

(1) Support of the Principle of Sustainable Development:

Based on the Principle of Sustainable Development, which was agreed at UNCED, reproducible natural resources should be managed. The whale as a reproducible resource is not an exception to this principle.

(2) Scientific fact as a ground for discussions:

We are proponents of the position that the dispute should be dealt with within the ambit of scientific evidence with an aim towards the management and preservation of marine resources and the conservation of the ecosystem.

This is reflective of Greenpeace’s and WWF’s position, the difference, I think, is a matter of the extent to which all stakeholders will go to achieve this position. The solution cannot be arrived at on dialogue based on the emotion of conservationists and or the public opinions of a few developed countries, without any regard or understanding of the culture and practice of whaling countries, like Japan.

There are more than 80 species of cetaceans in the world; some species of whales, such as minke whales, are recovering enough. Japan supports the protection of endangered whale species, and sustainable use of whale species, the number of which is proven to be in abundance.

In order to obtain and keep current and accurate scientific data which cannot be obtained by sighting survey of whale resources, and in an interest to support the preservation of the whaling stock, Japan has implemented minimum volume of scientific whaling in accordance with the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.

(3) Long-term measure for food security:

As the world population is increasing, the sea, as a place of world production, which covers about 70 per cent of the earth, is taking on importance. Japan has a long history of management of marine resources. We therefore have to display our leadership in the conservation and management of marine food resources as our tradition dictates such responsibility.

(4) Respect for traditional culture of each country:

Dietary habits and food culture, which have been formulated by area and environment of each country for a long time, should be respected under the spirit of mutual understanding.

One position of particular concern in Mr Maxwell’s article is that the Japanese Government provides the ODA for the sake of getting enough support in the IWC. Japan as a responsible world citizen is the second largest donor of ODA in the world. It (ODA) has been the main vehicle of Japan’s goodwill since 1954.

Japan’s ODA provides continuous support that has made an essential contribution to economic and social development in many developing countries. Mr Maxwell’s position that ‘Japanese ODA is like a measure for collecting support from developing countries for the sake of resumption of commercial whaling’ goes against the time honoured principle of the people and Government of Japan.

In Jamaica alone, alongside bilateral aid, technical and cultural co-operation, Japan has provided support for over 50 projects to Jamaica’s grassroots communities covering the length and breadth of the island. Mr Maxwell’s choice of one such small project to support his position is not supportive of the spirit of fair play.

It should be noted that more and more countries are beginning to support the concept of sustainable use of marine living resources, including whales; Caribbean countries too are now sharing this idea. Japan’s efforts will continue to be toward supporting the IWC to recover its original function in order to solve the issue of whaling through scientific and sober discussions within the ambit of the guidelines outlined by the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.

Katsumi Maruoka

Counsellor

Embassy of Japan