A giant compromise? A pragmatic effort to tackle an emotional
issue has started making waves WHALES seem to stir up strong
feelings. For conservationists, the majestic mammals have been
in urgent need of protection ever since factory ships began
slaughtering them in the middle of the last century. But
advocates of whaling present themselves as protectors of
traditional culture, diets and the rights of indigenous people.
It is difficult to find any common ground, even when—as has just
happened—an honest attempt is made. Nobody can deny that the
present arrangement is messy and hypocritical. In theory, a
global moratorium, proclaimed by the International Whaling
Commission (IWC), has been in force since 1986. But the
creatures are still killed in large numbers; in recent years the
annual slaughter has reached almost 2,000, about a third of the
pre-moratorium level. Roughly half are killed by whalers from
Japan, mostly off Antarctica; the cull is permissible, Japan
says, because it amounts to “scientific” rather