It happened during an annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) about 20 years ago. A lady of the Swedish delegation, who happened to be sitting in front of us, turned back and threw a keen look of reproach at me as if she was saying "What nerve does this Japanese have to speak so bluntly? Does he deserve to be called a diplomat, this barbarian eating whales?" I was not daunted at all by this challenge. Rather, her blaming look incited me to think that we have to crash this kind of unreasonable assertion of anti-whaling people. However, the fight itself was not our goal. The task before the Japanese delegation was to resist hard against the pressures from anti-whaling forces and make Japan's whaling survive.

Upon coming back to Japan after my lengthy duty in scorching Saudi Arabia, I was told to serve as Director of the Fishery Division of the Foreign Ministry. I resisted, saying "Why should fishes come out from the desert?" But I had to give in because it was the Ministry's order. Probably not only myself but other people as well had thought how a person like me--an outsider to the studies of whales or without knowledge of the whaling industry--could carry out this assignment. Experts at the Fisheries Agency, researchers at the Institute of Cetacean Research and people in the whaling industry must have thought the same way. Yet I had to be up on the stage--with a heavy heart.

Top runners in the anti-whaling bloc were the United States, Britain and Australia--in other words, Anglo-Saxon countries. Not only non-governmental organizations, such as Greenpeace, but also the governments of those countries used every possible tactics to impose pressure on the whaling nations. In the end, they managed to have countries that had nothing to do with whaling join the IWC in an apparent bid to push their assertion through by the strength of numbers. Some delegations had their expenses for travel and accommodations paid by anti-whaling groups and showed up only at the time of voting to raise their hands to say "No" to whaling. I then wondered if this was the ideal of "liberty and democracy" which Western nations have advocated so ardently. This kind of process can be observed in many other instances in the present international scene. This means that the majority groups having superiority in numbers try to make things go as they wish. That is to say, the imposition of values is infesting the world.

It is surprising that this self-centered way of thinking is exercised with impunity, that anything would be possible with power even when a sufficient number is not mustered. A sense of resignation seems to be spreading in the world that such a development cannot be stopped because it is the reality of international society or there is no gain in resisting the powerful. I am one who harbors a grave concern over such an atmosphere.

In recent years, there is a tendency in Japan to literally adore the cultures of Anglo-Saxon countries in many ways, such as the United States and Britain. This is understood to be an extension of Japan's policy "to separate itself from Asia and join the Western nations" and following in the footsteps of Western countries in every area--a policy that the Japanese government promoted during the Meiji Period (1868-1912). Some Japanese obviously think that we need not eat whales in this age of affluence or that we should not resist the U.S. that presses Japan to abandon whaling by saying "no fishery if continue whaling. " It is a sad fact indeed that there are people in Japan who deny their own food culture. What worries me is that the tendency of going along almost blindly with Western nations at the sacrifice of Japan's national pride and following every path after America and Britain for the sake of looking-good and profit does not seem to cease even today.

In the essays I wrote more than 20 years ago, when I was in the Foreign Ministry's Fishery Division, I find such subtitles: "Are whales not saddened by complacent debate by humans?," "Abnormality (in and out of the IWC)," "Can denial of lives and cultures of other people be condoned?," and "Diligent scientific arguments are made, but decisions are taken far apart from such arguments." In an article I contributed to the Economics and Diplomacy Journal in December 1984, under the title "Before the impending whaling moratorium," I pointed out the irrationality of the IWC's decision and asked myself why this had happened?: (1) Who promoted the whaling moratorium?, (2) For what? and (3) "With what perception?" My answer to question (1) was "the United States;Eto (2) was the belief that "killing whales having a higher intelligence is unethical and should not be recognized;Eand to (3) was "an awareness among Western countries that other traditions or cultures that are not theirs cannot be legitimate--in another word, "arrogance..."

It was only three years that I was related to the whaling issue. For the rest of my 40 yearsEcareer at the Foreign Ministry, I had been principally involved in Middle Eastern affairs. But I now feel deeply that those three years might have had a significant influence on my judgment of the international situation thereafter in coping with various issues shaking the Middle East.

In my diary when I was in charge of fisheries in the Foreign Ministry, I wrote down the following short Japanese poem--I don't remember where I came across it.

Whalers have more serene eyes
than those who cry "No killing of whales!"

As I am not quite certain who wrote this poem, I humbly ask here for his or her permission to quote it here.

To close this essay, I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere thanks and gratitude to those who were kind enough to help me during my mission those past days.

Mr. Renpei Komatsu is a journalist for whom I embrace a warm respect. Mr. Komatsu had formerly been a talented reporter on social affairs for the Asahi Newspaper. At one time, he had been a TV caster who enjoyed wide-ranging popularity among viewers.

In my personal affairs, he was a match-maker between my wife and me. When I started dating her, my wife was a great fan of Mr. Komatsu. When I happened to learn about her apdmiration for Mr. Komatsu, I boasted to her, in an attempt to please her, that I am his close acquaintance and would arrange a meeting with him for us.

Enraptured with my promise, she kept on asking when we could meet him. Each time I gave her a noncommittal answer of "I will do it shortly," but frankly I felt somewhat embarrassed about my boast. Although I knew Mr. Komatsu through my job in the mass media society, my acquaintance with him was far from intimate, and I had no assurance asking him to give us time to dine with us. But one day I summoned up my courage and asked him to give us that chance. To my surprise, he accepted my request willingly. That occasion pushed me a step forward toward engagement with her, and Mr. Komatsu attended our wedding ceremony.

So much for the beginning of my relationship with Mr. Komatsu. He is the author of a prominent book entitled "Reportage: the Sea of Whales," published by the Asahi Newspaper in 1973. This book resulted from his experience of being onboard the "last Antarctic whaling fleet" for 117 days in the autumn of 1972 when a 10-year moratorium on commercial whaling was adopted by a majority vote at the U.N. Conference on Human Environment in Stockholm in June. Then deputy director in charge of social affairs at the Asahi, Mr. Komatsu tried to respond, from the perspective of the whaling crew, to the question whether Japan was really engaged in so infamous whaling activities deserving international criticism.

Also, 22 years earlier, when he was in the Agricultural Department of Tokyo University, Mr. Komatsu had the experience of joining the 5th Antarctic whaling expedition.

In the book, he tells that he listened carefully to talks on whales and observed the brave work of whalers onboard whaling ships, and tasted, with much cherish, fresh delicious whale portions, such as "myakutsubo" (backside of the pectoral fin), "nodo-tsuru" (the uvula), and "osane" (baleen root), saying this was the privilege of those who ventured as far as the Antarctic. When the fleet returned to Kobe, he felt as if he had truly become a man of the sea.

He rebutted the vociferous criticism of opponents of whaling as follows: "Over the past few years, the U.S.-led group of countries, including Britain, Mexico, and Argentina, has been urging the International Whaling Commission (IWC) for a 10-year ban of whaling on the pretext of preserving the resources and the environment. They argued the Japanese would not suffer hunger even if they don't eat whales--the Japanese can go perfectly well without whales."

"I cannot help thinking that their argument entails insensible judgment because those countries have vast lands suited for cattle raising and the people are brought up in a food culture of eating bacon in the morning and steak in the evening. Up until only 10 years ago they are the countries that had discarded whale meat as garbage into the sea. And other countries are now supporting their argument. The former whaling countries lost no time in abandoning whaling when they knew that the whale oil market slumped and that an expedition to the Antarctic was no longer profitable. This is an argument of countries that engaged in the formidable abuse of the resources in the Antarctic whaling until recently, while having no knowledge of the presence of the Japanese-type whaling that fully utilized the resources."

"Mr. Komatsu also wrote: "Do those people know the fact that the Japanese racked their brains on how best they could process whales, enhance the product quality, and bring them to consumers by devising various ways of cooking whales?E

Reading the book again, I find this reportage has not at all lost its luster even today. The question the reporter Komatsu felt at that time still persists to this day.

As I was born in November 1945, I spent my boyhood in the prime time of whale meat supply in our diet. Children in my generation were taught at school that the whale was a valuable protein source for the Japanese, and it is a remarkable mammal that can be used in its entirety from oil to baleen.

It has been a long time since we see our one-time favorites such as whale cutlet and bacon on our table. Whale tailmeat, which we can have only at specialized whale restaurants, fetches a much higher price than the best parts of tuna--meaning that it has become a food beyond the reach of ordinary people.

Ironically, it is now said that the prohibition of whaling for a lengthy duration has been causing an increase in the whale population, and whales are now consuming large quantities of fish, causing a decline in fish resources and also an imbalance in the marine ecosystem.

Can we save whales without protecting the earth? I am one who wishes to continue my effort in letting the world know the "Japanese wisdom" in which both whales and humans coexist.

850 Million People Worldwide Remain Hungry - Diverse Food Culture Essential for Food Security

It is estimated that some 850 million people worldwide remains hungry at present. The World Food Summit (WFS) held in Egypt in 1996 set a goal to reduce the number of undernourished people by half by 2015. It is said that the WFS goal will only be reached if annual reductions accelerate to 26 million per year. This is more than 12 times the pace achieved to date.

Each year on 16 October, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) celebrates World Food Day. The theme for World Food Day was “Biodiversity for Food SecurityE It highlighted biodiversity’s role in ensuring that people have sustainable access to enough high-quality food to lead active and healthy lives. According to the FAO, to feed a growing population, it will be essential to increase resilience in food production by protecting a wide array of life forms with unique traits, such as plants that survive drought or livestock that reproduce in harsh conditions. Yet people depend on just 14 mammal and bird species for 90 percent of their food supply from animals. It is imperative to diversify the source of food particularly for the prevention of starvation in developing countries.

The issue of food security is, however, not confined to the question of food quantity. The “State of Food Insecurity in the World 2002Eissued by the FAO warns against a deficiency in micronutrients such as iron, iodine, and vitamin A as hidden hunger. According to the report, some 840 million people are starving while over 2 billion people world wide suffer from micronutrient mal nutrition. Deficiencies usually occur when the habitual diet lacks diversity and does not include sufficient quantities of the fruits, vegetables, dairy products, meat and fish that are the best sources of many micronutrients. Grave consequences, including continued and sustained loss of productivity, permanent mental disability, blindness, depressed immune system function and increased infant and maternal mortality can result from micronutrient deficiencies. The heaviest toll from these dietary deficiencies is borne disproportionately by women and children. Most micronutrient deficiencies could be eliminated by modifying diets to include a greater diversity of nutrient-rich foods.

Endangered Cattle and a Creeping Mono-cultural Society

What is clear from the above observation is that the solution to present food insecurity requires the conservation of biodiversity and an increase in food production resilience so that a shortage in certain foods can be made up for by another. Diversity in nutrition is also essential. These can be achieved only with the existence of a diversity in food culture. Environmental movements we see today, however, go diametrically in the opposite direction. Their principal means is ‘prohibitionEand ’exclusion.E

Taking fisheries, for example, they have either excluded or are pushing for exclusion of various fisheries starting with whaling, followed by high seas drift net fisheries, use of shark fins, trawling and tuna longlining regardless of the insufficiency in scientific grounds. The exclusion of industry is combined with the exclusion of culture. These days, anti-whaling organizations have been reinforcing their claim that ‘Whaling is not a Japanese culture.EOr that ‘Japanese don’t really wish to eat whale meat.E

They may probably be aiming at eradication of the industry together with its culture. The exclusion of culture and industry of this sort will lead to the creation of a mono-cultural society. In such a society, environmental pressure concentrates on limited resources and the structure of food production loses resilience. As a matter of fact, such a mono-cultural society is already creeping on us. Cattle are being endangered in the shade of the spot lights CITES sheds on high-profile animals.

The FAO and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) co-published the 3rd edition of the "World Watch List for Domestic Animal Diversity," 5 December 2000, and said that every week the world loses two breeds of its valuable domestic animal diversity, and that 1,335 breeds of domestic animals out of 6,379 in the FAO Global Databank for Farm Animal Genetic Resources are classified at high risk of loss and are threatened by extinction. The greatest threat to domestic animal diversity is the export of animals from developed to developing countries, which leads to crossbreeding or even the replacement of local breeds. In developing countries, breeds from industrialized countries are still considered as more productive. The often difficult environments in developing countries, however, require particular types of animal genetic resources that are adapted to them. Genetic diversity is an insurance against future challenges and threats such as famine, drought and epidemics. On March 31, 2004, the FAO further confirmed the continuation of this situation.

Exclusion or Coexistence ETourism of Two Types

I would like to refer to the relationship between food security and tourism. Many environmental organizations apparently promote ecotourism as a means of excluding the use of wild life. Whale watching is representative and the scenario is to ban whaling without taking the blame for the economic hardship imposed on local communities. The Website of Greenpeace Japan ‘IWC 55 Berlin BriefingE(1) clarifies its position on whale watching. Greenpeace concludes that a sound whale watching industry and whaling cannot coexist based on the research they made in areas where whale watching is in practice, including Vava’u (a part of Tonga in the South Pacific). For details, the Greenpeace website can be referred to, which suggests their firm commitment to exclude whaling.

There is a phrase, ‘Banana Republic,Eindicating Central and South American countries that rely on the exportation of limited products such as bananas and, therefore, suffer from economic instability. Whether the main product is bananas or another, a country with a limited choice of production loses economic resilience and suffers from an unstable economy. I myself have had the experience working for a travel agency in Egypt and during this period the Gulf War broke out. The tourism industry was completely out of business for three or four month. Fortunately, however, Egypt produces oil though not as bountifully as the Gulf States. Passage through the Suez Canal is also another important source of revenue. Egypt has, above all, agriculture handed down since ancient times. This is economic resilience. When a country or a community really wishes to live exclusively on tourism, it is their choice. But when an organization engages itself in the expansion of such an unstable economic structure in developing countries for its religious cause of the “Animal Rights Movement,Ecan this be regarded as charity? What is in stark contrast to this ‘Tourism for exclusionEis ‘Tourism for coexistence and complement.EAn increasing number of fisheries cooperatives in Japanese villages try to maintain a good relationship with recreational fishing or start up a new recreational business, being unable to run their business with a catch fishery alone due to a decline in catch. As one such example, a diving business run by the fisheries cooperative of Ito-city attracts nation-wide attention. The income from this recreational business was good during the period of the bubble economy although the fishery has been more lucrative in the last several years. The complement of tourism as in this example will give resilience to the fisheries and prevent a vicious circle of an increasing catch when the fishery is not lucrative.

Expectation for the 21st-Century-Type Civil Movement

The UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity was unanimously adopted at the General Conference two months after 9/11. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) also released its Human Development Report 2004 ’Cultural Liberty in Today’s Diverse WorldEin July 2004 and warned against the violation of cultural freedom. Such trends we see these days reflect the global concern over the incessant acts of terrorism and wars even after the turn of the 21st century and the earnest wish of global society for world peace. Some of the environmental organizations are also engaged in the movement for world peace, and I would pray for their success in this field. I question, however, how much radical organizations, like anti-whaling ones, can contribute to world peace while rejecting cultural coexistence and being engaged in the diffusion of misunderstandings, contempt and hatred between different cultures. I expect wide-spread growth in 21st-Century-Type NGOs that respect cultural coexistence and peace as opposed to 20th-Century-Type NGOs that have pushed forward mono-culturalism by means of confrontation and exclusion.