"At its meeting on 23 October 1997, the International Whaling Commission adopted, by consensus, an amendment...of the Schedule to the Convention dealing with the taking of gray whales from the Eastern stock in the North Pacific by certain aboriginal communities...

..The schedule amendment was proposed initially by the Russian Federation and the United States of America. Australia objected to the schedule amendment in its original form and moved a further amendment to clarify the meaning of the schedule amendment and to qualify its operation. As a consequence, an amendment was accepted by the Commission to the schedule amendment. This now provides that the only aboriginal people who are authorised to take gray whales are those

'whose traditional aboriginal subsistence and cultural needs have been recognised'.

..The Australian delegation made it clear that it accepted that the Chukotka Natives' request and claim clearly met the requirements of the successful amendment to the schedule amendment in relation to the recognition of both traditional subsistence and cultural needs; whereas the request and claim of the Makah people did not.

This view was endorsed explicitly by a clear majority of the delegations participating in the debate of record referred to by the Chair.

..The Australian delegation has noted a News Release issued by the United States delegation which claims, inter alia, that the Commission has:

• 'adopted a quota that allows a five year aboriginal subsistence hunt' by the Makah people;
• indicated 'its acceptance of the United States' position that the Makah Tribe's cultural and subsistence needs are consistent with those historically recognised by the IWC', and
• 'recognised the cultural and subsistence need of the Makah Tribe'.

The Australian delegation explicitly rejects each of these claims as false and as giving an entirely erroneous interpretation of both the schedule amendment as passed (with the Australian further amendment) and the decision of the Commission itself.

Claims that the passage of the schedule amendment (as further amended by the Australian initiative) constitute an acceptance or recognition by the Commission of the validity of the Makah claims are false. They are supported neither by the terms of the schedule amendment itself nor by the record of the Commission debate. The Australian delegation has made this point in an explicit intervention in the Commission's proceedings as part of the Commission's formal record during the course of the Commission's further proceedings.

Clearly the Commission, as the only competent authority in the matter, has recognised the claims of the Chukotka Natives but not those of the Makah people.

The Australian delegation wishes its position, as the movers of the successful amendment to the schedule amendment..., to be understood without qualification."

edited by
Naomi A. Rose, Ph.D.
The Humane Society of the United States
narose@ix.netcom.com