Wailing against whaling is political opportunism

FOR many people it seems whales are an animal above all others, deserving of reverence and never to be slaughtered for the sustenance of humankind.

Fair enough. Hindus have the same feelings toward the cow, and some tribal traditions assign a similar status to totemic animals.

But for policy-makers in our secular world, we should expect the whaling issue to be considered with a modicum of rational analysis. Instead, the major Australian political parties focus on a populist, emotional approach to whaling in a race to the bottom that only undermines serious debates about future conservation and natural resource management.

In an age where media-driven politics encourages MPs into an endless pursuit of online and on-air endorsement, decrying whaling is the lowest hanging fruit. Wailing about whaling is a safer bet to win popular agreement than attacking the taxman or defending motherhood.

WikiLeaks cables reported this week underline the political opportunism at play. The Howard government resisted taking action against Japan through the International Court of Justice because it was futile. Now, cables reveal the Rudd government was advised of this futility but proceeded regardless to relieve political pressure.

In other words the ICJ legal action, undertaken at considerable cost to Australian taxpayers and some cost to our diplomatic relations with Japan, was a political stunt. And, in a backflip any dolphin would be proud of, the opposition now supports that stunt.

Before he was elected, Kevin Rudd talked about sending the navy to Antarctica to disrupt whaling: "It's time Australia got serious when it comes to the slaughter of our whales in the Australian whale sanctuary." As prime minister he was more circumspect. But the Liberals, who opposed interventions while in government, now demand naval surveillance.

Howard government environment minister Ian Campbell included a "Save the Whales" logo on the bottom of his press releases and wrote a newspaper article referring by name to "Migaloo" the albino humpback whale. Liberal spokesman Greg Hunt now says: "We will stand against whaling wherever it occurs, whenever it occurs."

In opposition Peter Garrett issued a release headed "We must end whaling for all time" which referred to humpbacks as the "playful, giant jumpers of the sea". Bob Brown says Japan's whaling fleet is on a "disgusting, bloody mission".

Little wonder that public expectations are high. Overblown rhetoric has placed the political class at the public relations mercy of the Sea Shepherd activists who deliberately seek controversy and provide distressful footage to fuel public anger. In response politicians such as Garrett say it's cruel, barbaric and unnecessary.

The truth is, of course, that our politicians can't end all whaling and probably never will. In fact, they are not even really trying to do that. All they are working towards at the moment is to end Japan's scientific whaling.

Perhaps they ought to stop playing the populist game and change the tone to a reasonable debate. Because while the skipper of the Sea Shepherd plies the Antarctic waters, it is really the political currents further north that he is navigating with ease.

When I tell people I once was served whale-meat as part of an official, multi-course feast in Japan, they invariably inquire about the taste. And I respond with the old line that it's similar to koala.

However the point is a serious one. People the world over eat a wide variety of foods involving the killing of a vast array of animals; celebrity chef Luke Nguyen showed a cooked dog's head and ate dog's intestine on television this week. Much of what others kill and eat does not sit well with our palates or our sensibilities.

But unless we have a blanket rule against the killing of all animals for food, we need to approach the issue from a rational standpoint. After all, not even the strictest vegan can claim no animal is killed to sustain the production of their diet.

The main points to focus on should be conservation and cruelty. If a species is threatened, we should argue for any hunting to be banned or strictly regulated until its population is sufficiently recovered.

Apart from that, if people want to hunt a species for food, whether it's rabbit, deer, snapper or kangaroo, we should try to ensure it is done as humanely as possible.

While whaling is an ugly and disturbing process for us to watch, and no doubt for the animals to endure, a trip to the local abattoir presents similar trauma. We need to decide where to draw the line.

There is no question that action against whaling has been a force for good over the past three decades. Some species, such as the humpback, had been hunted close to extinction and are now recovering strongly. The question now is whether all whaling should be stopped. And if so, then which animals will be next: kangaroos, goats or buffalo?

The schedules of the International Whaling Commission provide detailed regulation banning commercial whaling, and restricting the species, quotas, locations, seasons and methods of other forms of whaling.

Iceland and Norway have flouted the IWC rules and conducted commercial whaling regardless, yet have tended to escape international opprobrium.

Japan has at least abided by the letter of the schedules by issuing scientific permits. This has been a thinly veiled attempt to disguise a limited ongoing commercial harvest. But it is a compromise that has controlled the catch and preserved the international consensus against commercial whaling.

Correspondingly, whale populations are monitored closely and continue to recover.

After all, not even the IWC seeks to stamp out all whaling. Under its so-called Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Catches, indigenous people in Russia, Alaska, Greenland and the West Indies are allowed to slaughter hundreds of grey, minke, and even some humpback whales.

While this is supposed to accommodate only traditional subsistence demands, modern methods are sometimes employed and there are claims some of the meat is sold commercially.

Presumably if the Sea Shepherd and the compliant Australian politicians ever put an end to Japanese whaling, they'll then turn their attention to Norway, Iceland and the indigenous whalers.

If the Sea Shepherd activists' tactics of emotional blackmail work there and all whaling is ended, perhaps they'll switch to four-wheel-drives so that the kangaroo cull can be their next crusade. They might receive plenty of donations from Japan.