A whale of a controversy
Yan Wei

WHEN the Japanese whale-hunting fleet set sail for the Antarctic waters on November 18, the crew members must have known that their voyage would not be smooth sailing. Japan’s annual whaling program routinely sets off a firestorm of protest from anti-whaling countries and organizations. In January 2006, Greenpeace’s icebreaker Arctic Sunrise collided with the Japanese whaling ship Nisshin Maru in the Australian Antarctic in an anti-whaling campaign, damaging both vessels.
But the international pressure this year seemed to be stronger than ever. About one month after the fleet started its controversial journey, Japan said it was suspending its planned taking of 50 humpback whales, which would have made this year’s mission the first major hunt of the endangered species since the 1960s. The country made the decision at the request of the United States, the chair of the International Whaling Commission (IWC), the Japanese Government said.
Humpbacks are large whales whose adults are 12 meters long to 16 meters long and weigh approximately 36,000 kg. A main target for the whaling industry, they were nearly harpooned to extinction before the IWC introduced a ban on humpback hunting in 1966. Humpback stocks have since partially recovered. They are now sought after by whale watchers, particularly off parts of Australian and U.S. coasts. Despite the concession, Japan still plans to take as many as 935 minke whales and up to 50 fin whales in the Antarctic in what its Fisheries Agency said would be its largest-ever scientific whale hunt. Given its time-honored history, whaling has become a cultural tradition in Japan. The country insists on catching whales in spite of widespread international criticism mainly to assert its cultural identity, international affairs experts in China said.
A controversial tradition
Whales have long been a source of food, oil and crafts’ material in Japan. The oldest written mention of whaling in Japanese records is in Kojiki, the oldest existing Japanese book written in the 18th century. In the 17th century, traditional whaling techniques made great headway in Japanese coastal communities. As food was scare in the poverty-stricken years following World War II, whales, as a cheap source of protein, became an important part of the Japanese diet. However, their popularity had plummeted as other types of meat such as beef became widely available.
Today, most young people in Japan do not like whale meat, said Zhao Gang, an assistant research fellow with the Institute of Japanese Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Zhao, who spent a few years in Japan during his academic career, said Japan’s unrelenting approach to whaling provides evidence of its “cultural stubbornness.” In Japanese society, agriculture and fisheries are flagship industries that the nation takes pride in, Zhao said. If the government publicly opposes whaling, it will lose votes from farmers and fishermen, who are the major supporters of the incumbent Liberal Democratic Party, he said. With its insistence on whale hunting, Japan subconsciously wants to show its distinctive cultural characteristics to challenge U.S. and European cultures, he said.
Zhou Yongsheng, a professor specializing in Japanese studies at the China Foreign Affairs University, echoed Zhao’s views. The ongoing pro-environment movement has dealt a severe blow to Japan’s whaling industry. No whale meat has been sold in Japanese supermarkets since the mid-1990s, he said. Japan catches hundreds of whales every year, mainly from the South Pacific’s population of minke whales. In 1982, the IWC, the primary international mechanism for the protection of all whale species and of which Japan is a member, voted on a moratorium on commercial whaling to take effect in 1986. Japan initially intended to oppose the moratorium, but withdrew its opposition after the United States threatened to impose economic sanctions on it.
While it continues hunting whales today under a scientific research permit, Japan has wrestled with the IWC for years to overturn its 1986 ban on commercial whaling. Its desire to restart commercial whaling is evidenced by its annual petition to the IWC, requesting that the commission set a quota for commercial minke whale hunt. Although the IWC General Committee is split roughly 50-50 on whether commercial whaling should recommence, the petition has not yet come close to passing, because any significant change to the moratorium requires a 75 percent majority under IWC rules.
Japan also has recently called for a “normalization” of the IWC to return to its original mission of managing marine resources, rather than monitoring whaling activities. At an IWC meeting in 2006, a Japan-backed resolution calling for the eventual return of commercial whaling was adopted by a majority of just one vote.
Scientific whaling
The Japanese public shows little interest in whale hunting since whale meat is no longer a popular food, Zhao said. The meat sold under the country’s scientific whaling program often ends up as pricey items in specialty restaurants. Also, Japan’s scientific whaling is a subsidized government operation with almost no commercial significance, Zhao said. Apart from arguing that whaling helps maintain an important Japanese cultural tradition, Japan firmly believes that a commercial hunt of minke whales, and potentially other whale species, would be sustainable.
The reliability of existing data on whale populations has been a major point of contention in the implementation of the IWC’s commercial whaling moratorium. Critics believe that the existing data were inappropriate for estimating whale demographics. They argued that the data were derived mostly from commercial sources, which are unrepresentative in terms of age, sex and distribution. This criticism provided another justification for Japan to push for whaling for scientific purposes.
Japan says that it seeks to ascertain whether commercial whaling is sustainable by carrying out scientific research aimed at finding answers to questions about the whale population and the mammals’ age distribution. Some Japanese officials also pointed out that whales deplete fish stocks. Japan conducts its scientific research in two areas-the North Pacific and Southern Hemisphere-under the auspices of the Institute of Cetacean Research, a privately owned, non-profit research institute founded in 1987.
Zhou said Japan should reduce the quantity of the whales it catches to better protect this vulnerable species, because the current amount is too large for scientific research. This year’s high-profile whale hunt plunged Japan into diplomatic disputes with a number of countries, particularly Australia. Canberra said it would dispatch surveillance planes and a ship to gather evidence for a possible international legal challenge to the hunt. Also, Australia’s ambassador to Japan presented a formal diplomatic protest in Tokyo to mark the start of Japan’s whaling season. The protest, signed by 30 countries and the European Union, represented the largest international protest of its kind against Japanese whaling, according to media reports. The escalating international pressure finally forced Japan to back down by dropping its planned catch of humpbacks. But Zhao said the compromise is not a substantial one, because conservatives who work in Japan’s Fisheries Agency still hold on to their traditional beliefs about whale hunting. “The compromise may be a result of the coordination between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Fisheries Agency,” he said.

(The Daily Mail-Beijing Review Articles Exchange Item)



Pakistan’s best chance
Wendy Chamberlin

RARELY in situations of such volatility as Pakistan faces today is the objective so clear. Pakistan needs stability. The greatest threat to the country derives from internal terrorism, lawlessness and fractured regional politics. Can national stability best be secured through a strongman government of the kind offered by President Pervez Musharraf? Or is stability best guaranteed through a democratic election that restores civilian rule committed to cracking down on extremist violence, building the rule of law and delivering services to the people? Benazir Bhutto promoted the second option. Tragically, she died doing so.
The former prime minister’s assassination is being called a victory for the forces of extremism and a heavy setback for the cause of democracy. Her murder brought down an eloquent advocate for both a progressive state and society and more aggressive policies against Al-Qaeda and domestic terrorists. Many may argue for proceeding with the parliamentary elections scheduled for Jan. 8. The hope is that free and fair elections could calm the anger over the events of this week and prevent a return to military dictatorship.
The trouble with this thinking is that most Pakistanis believe the election process is already unfree and unfair. Changes Musharraf made to the courts and constitution during the six-week period of emergency rule this fall had tilted the process in his favor long before Benazir’s death. These elections are already too tainted to win public credibility. We believe the path to a stable Pakistan does begin with elections, but not through the process that is unfolding. What Pakistan needs is a pause and then a bold regrouping. Elections are an opportunity, however challenging, to change the tenor and course of Pakistani politics — of being a transforming event.
If Musharraf is to remain president, he should quickly reach out to all political parties in a spirit of national reconciliation. This represents the best hope of saving Pakistan from an extended period of instability. His first step should be to name a neutral caretaker government, one whose members are selected on the basis of consultation with the major political groups. Musharraf would instantly win national approval if he reappointed the Supreme Court justices he deposed during emergency rule; this would be a magnanimous gesture of his commitment to building an independent judiciary. A new federal election commission, willing and capable of enforcing its own regulations, must be named, and the present campaigning restrictions must be lifted. The authorities should also update the gerry-built electoral rolls to better insure against disenfranchising some voters and allowing others to cast fraudulent ballots. Government limitations on media coverage of politics should be lifted. Most critical, the administration of elections must be taken out of the hands of local officials, many of whom are loyal to the governing party above all else.
Ideally, out of this new political chemistry, another breed of leaders will emerge — one defined by a commitment to democratic principles and values rather than family or regional affiliation. From its current low point, Pakistan has a rare chance for renewal or, even more boldly, reinvention. An election held without these changes would result in victors who lack credibility and would almost certainly provoke a violent backlash. Reforming the process and establishing ground rules among the parties in a new political compact will take months. But these changes can be conducted in a spirit of inclusion and transparency so that a longer process of change does not appear as just an excuse for extending Musharraf’s dictatorial powers. Above all, the military must stand back from the political scene and exercise its legitimate role of defending the nation and constitution.
The US role in Pakistan is delicate. Our relationship is with the Pakistani people, not one man or one institution. Our close embrace of Pervez Musharraf (and, to an extent, Benazir Bhutto) contributes to his unpopularity and to low US approval ratings in Pakistan. We must support honest attempts to foster reconciliation across civil society. Above all, the US administration must not be seen to be engineering a political outcome. This is the surest way to undermine what we are hopeful of achieving. The United States has a high stake in Pakistan’s stability, but we must leave the selection of Pakistan’s leaders to the Pakistani people.—Arab News






Teetering on the brink of total chaos
Joyce Njeri

THE just concluded General Elections in Kenya can be summed up in one word: Sham. For the first time, I felt ashamed of being a Kenyan after seeing ugly scenes of street battles being flashed on major international news channels. And as you read this, life in all major towns and cities in this East African nation has virtually ground to a halt. Most businesses have closed for fear of rioting and looting, public transport has been disrupted and public places like eateries, bars and hotels have closed down, thanks to a sense of insecurity.
Already, according to news sources, the number of people who have been killed in street protests has risen to more than 200 over the past three days, and curfews have been imposed on some areas to contain the violence. Last week’s voting process in Kenya was relatively calm, but all hell broke loose after results from the various constituencies started trickling in to the main tallying station. The reason? Allegations of vote falsification and rigging by the two main rival parties, the Party of National Unity (PNU) that is headed by President Mwai Kibaki and the opposition Orange Democratic Movement (ODM), whose chief captain is Raila Odinga. If the current skirmishes persist, the country could plunge into bloodshed and anarchy.
Kenya remains a peaceful nation in a conflict-ridden region, although ethnic rivalries constitute a recurrent problem. The country has been steadily recording improved economic, social and political development since Kibaki took the helm five years ago. Equally, it has been playing a very important role in the East African regional development. The state has also acted as a refuge for thousands of African refugees who have fled their various countries due to political instabilities or famine, besides sending peace troops to other trouble-ridden regions in the continent. And if the current bloody situation is anything to go by, this nation will get into the bad books that most African nations are in. Raila, who does not mince words, has even suggested that any declaration of a Kibaki victory on the back of fake results would lead to an Ivory Coast-type situation. Well, this is a scenario too terrible to contemplate.
By all counts, the just concluded elections were the most closely fought in the country’s history and the verdict was totally unexpected. After a two-day delay and a stand-off that threatened to short-circuit the completion of the election process, Electoral Commission of Kenya (ECK) chairman Samuel Kivuitu finally came out with the final presidential election figures amid a flurry of disclaimers. Kivuitu declared President Kibaki duly elected with 4,584,721 votes against ODM presidential candidate Raila Odinga who had 4,352,993 votes. Kibaki had carried the day beating his rival by over 200,000 votes! I say the outcome was unexpected because from the first day of vote counting, the incumbent, President Kibaki, was trailing Raila with a clear margin of over 500,000 votes. So, how the tables were turned on Kibaki’s favour just beats logic.
Get this picture. Kenya is divided into eight geographical provinces, and as a rule, a presidential candidate needs to garner a good number of votes from at least four of these provinces. In this case, Raila raked in the required numbers from Nyanza, Coast, Western and Rift Valley Provinces with a wide margin compared to his rival. Kibaki, on the other hand, only managed to get votes from Central and Nairobi. All odds were stacked against the president as he suffered even more embarrassing situations. This was the first election in which the winner lost more than half his Cabinet, while the opposition gained almost 100 new seats and therefore will have the majority in Parliament. President Kibaki was sworn in last Sunday for a second term as the head of state as riots and protests erupted in parts of the country over the disputed presidential results.

—Khaleej Times