In the early 1990s, the United States attempted to impose sanctions against Mexico for inadequately protecting dolphins in Mexican waters from Mexico’s tuna fishing industry. The impetus for the sanctions was not due to the fact that the dolphins were an endangered or even threatened species (which they were not). The prohibition was simply because of American cultural mores, namely an antipathy to the needless killing of these animals.

The ban on dolphin-unfriendly tuna catching was the outcome of a political movement that brought the U.S. government into a heated trade confrontation with the government of Mexico. Whether one agrees with the motives of the ban or not, this type of cross-border activism can also be considered a product of cultural globalization. In this case, one nation sought to impose its values about wildlife upon another nation.

Standing in contrast to the dolphin protection measure has been the attempt by the nations of Norway and Japan to seek an exemption on cultural grounds from an international whaling ban. In the spring of 2000, the governments of these two countries sought to claim at a UN conference on trade in endangered species that whaling constituted a integral part of their cultural heritage. The whales that the two countries sought to hunt were not considered endangered, so in their views, the prohibition on hunting them was not based on environmental reasons.

For hundreds of years, local fisherman have hunted whales, and the food source was considered part of their tradition and culture. The Norwegians claimed that their northern coastal villages depended on hunting and fishing for their livelihoods. Although whaling is not a big part of the Norwegian national budget, it is considered a crucial source of income for those fishermen who need it.

They argued that the global effort to prohibit the hunting of whales amounted to an imposition of other countries’ cultural values against their own. Many international agreements, and especially trade agreements, contain exceptions for cultural activities, and the Norwegians believed that this activity should also qualify for an exemption.

In the same way that family farms and a whole way of life in the U.S. and other developed countries have been threatened by imports of agricultural products (see previous section), the Norwegians—who have been noted for their exemplary record on environmental preservation—and the Japanese argued that their centuries-old fishing villages were being needlessly threatened by the ban. To these fisherman, the global whaling ban would devastate their village economies, simply adding them to the list of communities harmed by globalization.

The U.S. Department of Commerce has even suggested that trade restrictions be imposed upon Norway, because it was violating the International Whaling Commission’s ban on these kinds of whaling activities. Norway has also claimed that this restriction constitutes a ban on its sovereign rights.

The collision between wildlife protection and cultural rights over whaling is an issue that has yet to be resolved. As of this writing, the Norwegian government was still refusing to adhere to the whaling ban, and the United States government, among others, was considering retaliatory action against Norwegian imports.

Learn More

Choose from the following for additional information on wildlife protection and cultural rights:

-  At the Risk of Extinction, Plans for Shark Conservation Fail

- End of Global Fish Stock by 2050?

- Save the Whales Again?

Next: Sanctions