Author - Kate O'Connell

This was originally posted on the WDCS US blog, but we thought that you would be interested in the thoughts of WDCS's Kate O'Connell.

The US Embassy in Oslo, Norway has now joined the ranks of other US embassies in whaling nations who have had cables leaked about the US policy, giving an even clearer picture of just how unmoving the whaling nations have been when it came to discussions on developing a compromise at the IWC

In a  12 December 2009 cable entitled "Norway Uncompromising on Whale Catch Limits" the embassy in Oslo spoke of a formal diplomatic protest made by the US to the Norwegian government in advance of President Obama's visit to Norway to accept the Nobel Peace Prize, and that "The Ambassador urged the GON [government of Norway] to show flexibility on catch limits to enable a compromise reform of the International Whaling Commission."

Yet despite the fact that Norway was said to be uncompromising on its whaling quotas, the US went on to invite Norway to participate in the compromise discussions on whaling that it had been trying to move through the IWC, that would have allowed for commercial whaling to continue.

What is most frustrating about this cable is that it comes only months after an in-depth analysis of the Norwegian whaling industry  by the Embassy in Oslo indicated that the whaling industry in Norway was facing massive problems.  Comments in the analysis such as  "Today Norwegian whaling struggles ….with demand for the product and questions of the industry´s viability"  and "With whale meat filling only a niche market domestically, most objective observers today would assess the demand for whale meat in Norway as marginal at best" leave little room for doubt that the US knew that whaling in Norway was on its way out.

So why did the US opt to throw the whaling nations a life-line of support in the form of a deal that would have accepted commercial whaling at just the time when a "hold strong" stand in support of the IWC ban on commercial whaling could have made a real difference?  Maybe it’s time for President Obama to strengthen the moratorium, not undermine it.  The US public certainly expects that he will.

Last week, a special committee in Iceland's parliament, the Althingi, voted  to indict four politicians for their roles in the Icelandic economic crash. Among the four that the committee recommended for indictment is former Minister of Finance Arni Mathiesen, who was in office when the three leading Icelandic banks collapsed within weeks of each other in October 2008.

But for those of us concerned about whales, Mr. Mathiesen is equally "notorious" for his previous role in government, as a key player in the Althingi's pro-whaling faction.

As Fisheries Minister from 1999 to 2005, Mathiesen created a well-financed government campaign to promote Iceland's view that whales should be hunted. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent in the US and UK to hire public relations/lobbying firms,  to try to convince people that whaling is acceptable. It was during his tenure as Minister of Fisheries that Iceland began its scientific whaling program in 2003, the precursor to its current commercial whale hunt.  

By training, Mathiesen is a vet, who graduated from the University of Edinburgh in 1983.  From 1994 to 1999, he sat on the board of the Icelandic Council for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.  So how can a person with a background in veterinary science, who is apparently against animal suffering, morph into a pro-whaling Fisheries Minister… and then morph even further into Finance Minister?

A look at Mathiesen's CV gives some clues.  He has been closely linked to the fishing industry from the beginning of his career. He managed a fish farming company, and served as a member of the government board overseeing aquaculture loans from 1990 to 1994.  During his tenure as Finance Minister, the Icelandic national banks issued millions in loans to the fishing industry -- including to companies linked to the Hvalur fin whaling company.

Fishing and whaling are deeply embedded in both the psyche and the power structure in Iceland, cutting across party lines. The current Finance Minister of Iceland, a member of the Left Green party, worked with the whaling industry in the summer of 1980 while a student on holiday.  He opted to keep whaling quotas in place in 2009 when he, too, briefly served as Fisheries Minister.

Whales have been caught up in the current debate over Iceland's accession to the EU, with both pro- and anti EU proponents using them as a symbol.  Unfortunately, the slaughter is far from symbolic, and more fin whales have been killed in 2010 than in any year since 1985.

If you are worried about whaling in Iceland, keep a close watch on how the country handles the indictment of the former ministers, including Mr. Mathiesen.  Depending on the outcome, and if it is business as usual, the whales should seriously consider altering their migratory routes to avoid being caught (literally) in the messy tangle of Iceland's politics.