Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling: A Concept in the Service of Imperialism - Arne Kalland - The principle has been laid down in international fora that special considerations shall be given to aboriginal people when it comes to the exploitation of renewable natural resources for the purpose of subsistence. This privilege is, however, a double edged sword because it implies a static view of a people and its culture and can be used to deny aboriginal people their obvious right to develop on their own terms. When "aboriginal subsistence whaling" was accepted by the International Whaling Commission, for example, the concept became a powerful weapon in the hands of environmental organizations. When the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in 1981 decided to permit aboriginal subsistence whaling (ASW), defined as "whaling for purposes of local aboriginal consumption carried out by or on behalf of aboriginal, indigenous or native peoples who share strong community, familial, social and cultural ties related to a continuing traditional dependence on whaling and the use of whales" (IWC 1981 ), preferential treatment was given to aboriginal people when it comes to the exploitation of renewable natural resources. Taking the outrageous injustices inflicted upon aboriginals in the past, few voiced any objections to what seemed to be an attempt to put things right. But alas, concessions are seldom given out of altruism. As will be shown, the rights to catch whales were only obtained at considerable cost. The concept of ASW has become a powerful weapon in the service of imperialism. The concepts of "subsistence" and "aboriginal" are both fraught with ambiguities and they are defined nowhere in IWC documents. It seems, nevertheless, that a people must meet at least four criteria in order to qualify as "aboriginal", "indigenous", or "native"-terms which are used interchangeably by the IWC and will be so used here. First, as defined in Webster's New World Dictionary, "aborigines" might mean the first known inhabitants of a region. According to this definition the Faroese, Icelanders and Norwegians ought to qualify, but it was certainly not these nationals the decision-makers at IWC had in mind when they coined the concept of ASW. In order to exclude the Nordic peoples a second criterion must be met, and The Concise Oxford Dictionary includes this in its definition of a "native" as "a member of non-White indigenous people, as regarded by the colonial settlers". There is thus an element of racism implicit in the term, and it helps to have black hair and slanting eyes, although there are exceptions to this rule. But being non-White, first known inhabitants is not sufficient for being classified as aboriginals either. The term implies an unequal relationship of power. Aborigines have come to denote political and cultural minorities who for decades, or even centuries, have been oppressed by invaders. They have been looked upon as small tribal peoples without elaborate political structures. Hence, Japanese whalers do not qualify, despite their non-Caucasian features. Finally, people of European descent have often an image of the aboriginals as people with simple technologies and with little economic sophistication. Implicitly, and very often it is made explicitly as well, indigenous people are not supposed to participate in a market economy. "Aboriginal subsistence whaling" is by IWC contrasted with "commercial whaling", on which a moratorium has been imposed. This brings us to the second part of the concept ASW, subsistence. The term "subsistence" is as ambiguous as "aboriginal", and has been used at least in two ways. Firstly, it might mean selfsufficiency in that products are not allowed to enter the market but must be consumed locally to meet the nutritional, subsistence and cultural requirements of indigenous or native communities (IWC 1981 ). Similar sentiments have been expressed in British Columbia where the authorities imposed restrictions on sale of fish caught by Indians inside their reserves, and on Pribilof Islands where the Aleutes have been prohibited to sell their seal skins. Commercialism in itself seems to be considered bad by the majority of the contracting governments at the IWC. It is ironic that this view is expressed by governments that usually are strong advocates of free trade and movement of capital. But apparently, some people shall be denied access to the world market. And if they want to partake in the world economy, it shall not be on their own terms but on the outsiders. Such an attitude is usually called imperialism. Secondly, "subsistence" can mean, according to The Concise Oxford Dictionary, "a minimal level of existence". In other words , subsistence implies poverty, and it seems that some environmentalist organizations subscribe to the view that if the people are not poor, they are not engaged in subsistence activities. Being affluent is repeatedly used against Faroese, Icelandic, Japanese and Norwegian whalers. Such a view has, of course, important implications to aboriginals as well. In summary, then, four criteria must apparently be fulfilled in order to qualify for ASW. One must be a descendent of the first known inhabitants of an area, be non- White, be dominated politically by outsiders, and depend on simple technologies without being properly involved in the world economy. What happens if any of these criteria is not longer met? What if indigenous people gain independence? How will the Greenland Home Rule affect the categorization of the Greenlanders? What will happen to the classification of the Canadian Inuit when Nunavut is firmly established? Do the Inuit in Greenland and Nunavut cease to be aboriginals when they no longer are colonized? And what will happen if it becomes more widely known that the aboriginals have, for some time now, become fully integrated into the world market economy, have adopted the latest technologies and begun to share the affluence of the industrialized West? Being in charge of their own destiny, what separates the Greenlanders as a people from the Faroese, apart from the colour of their hair? Both have obtained home rule with in the Danish Realm, so politically there is hardly any difference. Both people are affluent in global context. Both catch whales, but whereas the Faroese catch pilot whales which are consumed locally, much of the minke and fin whale meat taken by Greenlanders reach the market. Yet, Greenland's whaling is termed subsistence, while the Faroese is condemned for not being "necessary". Given the general conception of aboriginal people as oppressed minorities, it follows that the Greenlandic and Canadian Inuit might be declassified as aboriginals. If they cease to be regarded as "aboriginals", or if they become "commercial", does it follow as it logically ought to do according to the IWC's categories of whaling -that they must stop their whaling activities? Terms like "aboriginal", "native" and "indigenous" have been used rhetorically by minority groups themselves in order to muster support for their struggle to gain recognition as distinct peoples with their own cultures and with just rights to self- determination. But this can easily become a double-edged sword because concepts such as ASW imply a static view of a people and its culture. Whaling as well as sealing is allowed only as long as it is conducted by small non-White, oppressed minorities perceived as lacking unifying political institutions, use "simple" technologies, and whose economic exchanges are believed to exist within the confinement of a non-commercial economy. Only "traditional" usage is allowed, and ·it tends to be the outsiders who define what is "traditional" (Wenzel 1991 ). To allow whaling and sealing under the above conditions gives the anti-whalers a way to control ethnic minorities and keep them in a position of dependency. And this weapon has been used. The Greenlanders have to prove before the IWC judges that they do not sell too much of the whale products on the market, and Greenpeace and other "environmental" organizations have threatened the Greenlanders with sanctions if they choose to cooperate politically with the Icelanders and Norwegians. Support for Greenland's whaling is not unconditional but rests on, according to an editorial in Greenpeace Denmark's "Hvalbulletin" (No.3, 1991 ), Greenland's support for the moratorium on commercial whaling. Kakuta Naoko, a Japanese Greenpeace leader, has warned that "if [aboriginal whaling] shows any signs of being commercial, modern whaling, then we have to be really careful" (Ward 1990:36). The sealers have experienced the same kind of extortions (Wenzel 1991). To link whaling and sealing to a non-commercial mode of production and lack of over-arching political organization is to deny these people their obvious right to define their own future. No culture is static, but the policy of anti-whalers is de facto an attempt to "freeze" the situation, to turn an evolving culture into a static museum object. A concept used by the ethnic minorities in order to protect their rights and thus their culture has proved to be a powerful imperialistic weapon in the hands of people who want to control these very same peoples. It is today a widely held notion that natural resources are best regulated if local communities which depend on these resources for their nutritional, economic, social, and cultural needs, are brought into active participation, a principle incorporated into the IUCN/UNEP/WWF report "Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living". This principle is also laid down both in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, where Article 1 of Part 1 reads: "All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation based on the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of their means of subsistence." In order to achieve this objective we must formulate management regimes which allow for sustainable harvest of marine resources, whales and seals included, whether the local inhabitants are classified as non commercial aboriginals or not. The right of the Canadian Inuit to self-determination does not cease with the establishment of an independent Nunavut. Nor does a culture become less valuable if people choose to trade their goods for money. Literature: IUCN/UNEP/lMNF 1991. Caring for the Earth. A Strategy for Sustainable Living. Ganf, Switzerland. IWC 1981. Report of the ad hoc technical committee working group on development of management principles and guidelines for subsistence catches of whales by indigenous (aboriginal) peoples. IWC/33/14. Ward, S. 1990.Whose afraid of a Compromise? Tokyo: The Institute of Cetacean Research. Wenzel, G. 1991. Animal Rights, Human Rights. Ecology, Economy and Ideology in the Canadian Arctic. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Source: the High North publication, "11 Essays on Whales and Man", second edition, 26 Sept. 1994 Author: Arne Kalland, Professor at the Department of Anthropology, University of Oslo and Senior Research Associate at Centre for Development and the Environment, University of Oslo Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
