Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) has news of a new Fisheries ODA project in Suriname.

Suriname was originally colonised by the Dutch, but gained independence in 1975. It appears that Netherlands still enjoys pulling strings there however:

The Dutch relationship continues to be an important factor in the economy, with the Dutch insisting that Suriname undertake economic reforms and produce specific plans acceptable to the Dutch for projects on which aid funds could be spent. In 2000, however, the Dutch revised the structure of their aid package and signaled to the Surinamese authorities their decision to disburse aid by sectoral priorities as opposed to individual projects. Although the present government is not in favor of this approach, it has identified sectors and is now working on sectoral analyses to present to the Dutch.

Also,

It is attempting to broaden its economic base, establish better contacts with other nations and international financial institutions, and reduce its dependence on Dutch assistance.

Japan's history of assistance to Suriname appears to go back quite some way, with Fisheries ODA activity alone having occurred in 1992, 1994, 1998, 2000, and most recently 2004. The projects in 1994, 1998 and 2000 all involved improvement of facilities at the Paramaribo central market.

This new project for the "Construction of Small-Scale Fisheries Center in Paramaribo" will see the provision of up to 817 million yen (6.7 million USD) in Grant Aid.

According to the MOFA news release, the fisheries industry of Suriname contributes 5% to GDP, and with around 5000 workers accounts for 3.2% of the total working age population. Paramaribo, the capital city, is the nations largest fisheries base, with approximately 16,000 tonnes landed there according to 2004 statistics, and an annual landings of shrimp and sea bream amounting for 10,000 tonnes. On the other hand, while small scale fishing boats land around 6,000 tonnes of mainly catfish and small shrimps each year, there are apparently no public facilities for landings by these vessels. Switching into my best-effort translation mode (this also from the MOFA release):

It is with this background that Suriname applied to our country for Grant Aid in support of the "Construction of Small-Scale Fisheries Center in Paramaribo" project that, through the construction of a functional landing facility (landing wharf, ice making, ice storage, gear repairs, etc) at the west bank of Paramaribo's Suriname river, aims to improve operational efficiency, production volume, and quality assurance.

It is expected that the execution of this plan will contribute to a strengthened economic platform through the reduction in the amount of time required for small scale fishing boat preparations and landings, the achievement of increased trust in product quality for both domestic and export markets, market expansion, the promotion of small scale fisheries, and the acquisition of foreign exchange.

But, despite all of that apparently some reports wondered whether this is a "bribe" for a vote at the IWC. Suriname joined the IWC in July 2004, many years after it's first receipt of ODA from Japan, but nonetheless, the story has been reported in several western news outlets. Here's the Caribbean News Net's article:

PARAMARIBO, Suriname: Japan and Suriname on Wednesday have signed an Exchange of Notes to construct a small-scale fisheries centre in Paramaribo. Japan granted US$7 million for the construction.

Responding to questions from reporters, minister Lygia Kraag-Keteldijk denied that the donation was a favour from Japan in exchange for Suriname's vote to resume commercial whaling at the meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in May. Japan is pro-whaling, maintaining that whaling is a one of its national traditions.

Suriname and the other CARICOM nations have constantly sided with Japan and other pro-whaling nations and voted to end the moratorium on commercial whaling at last year's IWC meeting.

“This project fits within the framework of the cooperation between the two countries. It has nothing to do with the whaling issue,” argued minister Kraag-Keteldijk. Japan, along with a number of countries, including Norway, Nicaragua and Iceland, advocates the lift of a 20-year-old ban, while other nations, including Brazil, Spain, Chile and Peru are against.

Japan’s consul Kiyoshi Takeuchi stated that “the main objective of this project is to improve the working environment for artisanal fishermen and assure and upgrade the quality of their products while ultimately aiming at maintenance and encouragement of sustainable fisheries”. Takeuchi further noted that the fishing industry in Suriname “holds great export potential”.

Jagdies Bhansing, director of Suriname's ministry of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, stated that in 1992 Japan had already financed a similar fishing centre in Suriname. According to director of Fisheries, Jaswant Sathoe, Suriname in 2006 exported US$ 40 million of seafood products to the United States, Europe and Japans. It is expected, he said, that with the new centre the fishery exports will increase.

Good luck to the fishermen of Suriname with this new project.


The Nichigo Press, based in Australia, has an opinion piece (in Japanese) from Nikkei's Sydney correspondent on the situation in the South Pacific, where tensions between "big bullies" Australia and New Zealand and their smaller island neighbours have recently been coming to the fore. A section of the article mentions Pacific Island nation support for whaling at the IWC. Again, with my best effort translation:

... The reason these small nations support Japan at the IWC, even though doing so makes them enemies of Australia and the European heavyweights, is not to receive Japan's aid. It's because they believe that superpower-led nature protectionism threatens the survival of their nations.

The movement behind the whaling ban will eventually spread to dolphins, turtles, and tuna. "Dolphins and tuna have traditionally been important sources of nutrition", points out a foreign diplomat of one island nation. This official says that the expansion of the whaling ban to other species will "lead to impediments to securing nutrition for our people". If the existence of the main industry of fishing is threatened, "our entire economy may no long be able to continue".

The anti-whalers of Australia say that instead of whales and dolphins, people simply need eat beef. Yet how can an island nation having had it's fishing industry, a source of foreign currency, stolen away from it expect to pay for beef? Saying that they will be provided with sufficient aid amounts to telling them that they are to become subordinate states. The posture of support for Japan at the IWC by such island nations is ladled with the bitter anguish of dignified independent states...

A lack of respect for the world's island and developing nations from the self-righteous anti-whaling NGOs of the western superpowers and their willingly gullible supporters is certain to keep them blind to the true reasons for the positions taken by those nations. To my mind, the offensive and disrespectful anti-whaling NGO "votes for sale" allegations, while successful in stirring up irrational emotions amongst western donors, are likely to continue to serve more benefit to the pro-sustainable use movement over the medium to long term, rather than their own.

Labels: Fisheries ODA, IWC vote influence, Suriname

The IWC's 72nd member may not be too far off.

Cyprus, a tiny island in the Mediterranean Sea, appears set to join at the behest of the United Kingdom:

Anne Main: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions his Department has had with the Cypriot Government on Cyprus joining the International Whaling Conference. [99583]

Mr. Bradshaw: I have written to the Cypriot Government, and to all the other member states of the European Union that are not yet members of the International Whaling Commission (IWC), urging them to join the IWC, stressing the importance of their membership.

I am pleased to say that I received a reply from my counterpart in Cyprus. He has assured me of Cyprus' commitment to conservation issues and that the Cypriot Government is looking to join the IWC in the near future. The British Embassy in Nicosia is fully engaged in supporting the Cypriot Government in this step.

The problem for the United Kingdom is that there are only so many nations in the EU that have not yet joined the IWC to vote against sustainable whaling but would be willing to sacrifice their principles in order to do so.

The nations in favour of sustainable whaling on the other hand can appeal to nations that support sustainable use all around the world for support for the principle.

Labels: Cyprus, IWC vote influence, Whaling

Finally a western media source has noticed that Slovenia joined the IWC last month:

Slovenia, with a 46-kilometre Adriatic Sea coastline, has no history of whaling or whale-eating and is rarely visited by the mammals, but had protected them since 1993, said a government official, Andreja Kriz.

"Slovenia is actively involved in whale conservation," Ms Kriz said. "The only missing link was [a seat on the commission]."

The decision to join had been made because of Slovenia's more active involvement in the issue, she said.

Ms Kriz said Solvenia's membership of the EU obliged the country to protect wildlife, and imposed strict regulation on trade in whales and their products.

Slovenia is EU member, and thus obliged to protect wildlife, huh.
Really?

In Slovenia's hunting areas you can hunt brown bear, roe and red deer, wild boar, chamois, moufflon, fallow deer, small game (hare, pheasant, duck), and small predators (pine marten, fox, stone marten, badger).

Hmmm. So apparently hunting wildlife is actually OK, but whales (which don't visit Slovenia's 46km coastline in the first place) are to be protected? I wonder if Slovenia's officials really aren't able to spot the hypocrisy here.

Labels: IWC vote influence, Slovenia, Whaling

According to the IWC hompage, Slovenia has joined the IWC.

Slovenia was slated prior to IWC 58 as one of the nations that the anti-whaling bloc was hoping would join, and this now looks to have eventuated.

A small country with a population of around 2,000,000, Slovenia has around 46 kilometres of coastline.

Labels: IWC vote influence, Slovenia, Whaling

The Pacific Islands Forum says in it's vision statement that it seeks, inter alia

"a Pacific region that is respected for ... the sustainable management of its resources"

Kiribati, Nauru, Tuvalu have all made clear their support for the sustainable management of marine resources, the Solomon Islands is home to peoples who utilise small cetacean resources, and the Marshall Islands also has declared it's interest in international forums related to conservation of marine resources (apparently they eat turtles there - didn't know that!).

So remind me, where does New Zealand stand in all of this? Perfect timing - NZ Foreign Minister Winston Peters has just told the UN that

New Zealand had a commitment to the Pacific Islands Forum goal of a "region that is respected for the quality of its governance, the sustainable management of its resources, the full observance of democratic values and for its defence and promotion of human rights".

This sounds promising - New Zealand agrees with the idea of sustainable management of resources, just like it's neighbours in the Pacific Islands Forum. Perhaps New Zealand may display a more enlightened stance at next year's IWC meeting, in line with this commitment?

Winston also however made an interesting indirect reference to the situation at the IWC:

"New Zealand is determined to seek out the benefits of the Pacific's significance and guard against the threats – among which I include chequebook diplomacy."

These comments are interesting from Winston. They seem to be largely compatible with the recent comments of Tuvaluan Prime Minister Maatia Toafa protesting suggestions from Murray McCully that New Zealand should seek to tie aid to votes:

"We are an aid-dependent country and we feel that we should be left to make our decisions without any influences"

Rightly so. Winston also passed comment on McCully's musings himself:

Peters, who heads the country’s NZ$160 million Pacific aid programme, said New Zealand will “respect Pacific Islands countries as sovereign nations who make their own policy decisions.”

“Our preference is to talk with countries to understand their perspectives, rather than simply telling them they are wrong,” he said.

Commendable. Winston presumably also thus supports the comments of Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority, Glen Joseph made prior to the IWC 58 meeting, which noted that the Marshall Islands would make decisions

"on our own grounds and our own judgement of how the issues are presented at the commission"

Winston presumably also accepts the 2005 call from Tuvalu that they be left to make their own decisions free of pressure.

We can but wait and see whether the rest of New Zealand's politicians and excitable media are able to develop such good sense prior to the IWC 59 meeting in 2007.


Winston made some comments on the whaling issue when speaking in Japan recently:

Responding to a question on the controversial topic of whaling, which has drawn strong comments from both Japan and New Zealand, the minister said he understood the description of the issue as a cultural one.

"My people have been in New Zealand over a thousand years," said Peters, who is half Maori. "We didn't just arrive there yesterday. And the indigenous people of New Zealand are Maori and they ate whales."

"We used to eat our pigeons too, and our kiwis and all our rare birds ... but we stopped because their numbers were diminishing. Not that we don't have a sweet tooth for that sort of food, but we just thought that with the interests long term and the character of our country, and these birds being important to us, we should change our ways."

"We make far more money out of taking tourists to watch whales, including thousands of Japanese tourists, than we'll ever make out of selling it as a fish meat on the market."

One gets the impression that IWC meetings would proceed a little more smoothly and rationally if Winston were representing us there instead of our current delegation.

Labels: IWC vote influence, Tuvalu

[UPDATE: 23 July - Added Cedric Liburd comments for St. Kitts and Nevis, and additional quotes for Antigua and Barbuda]

A range of small developing nations have had their names dragged through the mud, with suggestions that their leaders have "sold" their votes to Japan in exchange for aid. Those people leveling these slanderous allegations have never displayed a desire to actually inform the world about what the leaders of these nations think, and the western media has failed to do it's homework in this area as well.

This post will be an ongoing collection of comments made on the whaling issue by leaders of nations who have been accused of taking bribes.

IWC Member Nations (year joined)

Antigua & Barbuda (1982):

"Year after year, countries come [to the IWC] with unalterable positions. They refuse to listen to reasoned debates. They refuse carte blanche to accept any scientific data tabled and this in my opinion is a disservice to the people's of the world, particularly the peoples whose economy depends on the vast ocean resources for their livelihood."
-- Antigua Minister of Agriculture and Food Joanne Massiah (2006)

"We are accused of selling our votes and prostituting our sovereignty, but as sovereign states we take great offense to this"
-- Joanne Massiah (2006)

"The science certainly says that a number of the species are on the rebound and it is safe to engage in commercial whaling activities again"
-- Joanne Massiah (2006)

"The position taken by Caribbean countries within the IWC remains rooted in respect for cultural diversity, traditions of coastal peoples as well as coastal state rights, relevant national and international laws, the need for science based management, the contribution of marine resources to our respective economies, poverty reduction and food security"
-- Joanne Massiah (2006)

"It is no secret that communities in countries like St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Norway, Iceland, Greenland and Japan, have been hunting and eating whales for generations. This failure on the part of some developing countries to support the proposal by Japan for small type coastal whaling is about 'big countries' trying to direct, dictate and determine how people in smaller countries should live."
-- Antigua & Barbuda IWC Commissioner, Ambassador Anthony Liverpool (2005)

“As a member of IWC, Antigua & Barbuda is well placed to support the harvesting of whales through the establishment of proper scientific management systems.”

“The Whaling Commission has the management authority only for the 13 species of large whales including the humpback whale harvested by the people of Bequia and according to scientific data, several of these whale stocks are abundant and the take of a relatively small number for food in areas such as the north Atlantic, north Pacific, the Caribbean and the Antarctic will not affect the nature or abundance of whale resources or whale-watching opportunities.”

“As a small island state we build alliances with international partners who respect our cultural values and support our efforts to develop the country’s fisheries sector.”

-- Ambassador Anthony Liverpool (2006)

"Our position is very clear and we will continue to support the sustainable utilisation of marine resources including marine mammals in a way and at a rate that will ensure that it lasts for generations to come."

"As a Tourist destination we welcome visitors from all over the world irrespective of their views and aspiration in life and therefore expect international organizations and individuals who disagree with our position to have some respect for our views and desist from making threats against our livelihood,"

"As indicated before, our position at IWC is based on tolerance and respect for cultural values, the right of fisher folk to earn a living and adherence to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) and other relevant national and international law such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) as well as the need for science-based management, policy and rule-making"

"I believe that it is time for the IWC to move toward more productive and meaningful discussions that will bring the organization back to its fundamental purpose of regulating catch quotas at levels so that whale stocks will not be threatened."

-- Ambassador Anthony Liverpool (2006)

"The fact is that as a sovereign nation, we take positions based on study, due consideration and what we think is right. On the question of whaling, we have looked at the scientific arguments for normalisation and the arguments I have heard suggest to me that whaling can be conducted in a manner that is sustainable and that would not deplete the whale stock in a way that would negatively impact on the survival of the species"

"At the United Nations, at the World Health Organisation and in many other fora, Antigua & Barbuda votes according to how we view the issue. Sometimes our viewpoint will coincide with the US and at others it may not. Sometimes it will coincide with Japan and at other times it may not. At the end of the day it is our decision and we must make the decision based on how we view the issue"

-- Minister of Tourism Harold Lovell (2006)

Dominica (1992):

"We would welcome the lifting of the moratorium. This is a creature like all others that people depend upon for food, and therefore because of its abundance we think that we can take a limited amount and make some money out of it."
-- Dominican IWC comissioner Lloyd Pascal (2005)

"The vast majority of Dominicans support the sustainable use of marine resources"
-- Dominica Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit (2006)

Grenada (1993):

"For too long, the IWC has found one way or another to delay the implementation of the Revised Management Scheme that was developed by the Commission's Scientific Committee"
"We, as members of an international body, can't continue like this. The distinguished scientists of the Scientific Committee have worked long and hard, and yet the management scheme has not yet been approved and implemented. Are we going to wait another 10 or 15 years before action is taken?"
-- Grenada Cabinet Minister Claris Charles (2003)

"The state of Grenada is a very tolerant state. We do not intend to be intolerant of those whose culture and eating habits involve whales."
"Years ago, we were told what to eat. Slaves were given salty fish to eat when the seas were abundant with fish. Because we are small and underdeveloped, there is that lack of respect. There is that feeling that we can be bought, we can be sold."
"We have the right to use our maritime resources for the survival and livelihood of our people."
-- Claris Charles (2006)

Kiribati (2004):

"Kiribati's position has been based very much on its concerns for the conservation of its marine resources"
"We're basically concerned that given that the fisheries resources are our main resource, that the issue of whaling is considered very carefully. And we have been asking for independent data to assist us in making a stance on this issue"
-- Kiribati Foreign Secretary Taam Biribo (2005)

Nauru (2005):

"Recent criticism in the media concerning Nauru's involvement in the IWC is an unfair intrusion on Nauru's sovereignty"

"The Government of Nauru is a responsible government. We have a voice on issues concerning the Pacific Ocean, and our decision to vote for commercial whaling was a carefully considered decision."

"Some whale species have the potential to devastate our tuna stocks, and, as a country whose food security and economy relies heavily on fishing, it is our responsibility to ensure the sustainability of our people's livelihoods."

"Nauru voted openly at the meeting, and we stand by our vote. Foreign governments have an obligation to respect our national decisions and not to undermine our sovereignty by suggesting that our participation in the IWC was motivated by anything other than securing the best outcome for our people."

-- Permanent Representative of Nauru to the United Nations, Ambassador Marlene Moses (2005)

Solomon Islands (1993):

* Dolphins are caught in the Solomon Islands

St. Kitts & Nevis (1992):

"The Caribbean has always believed that the resources of the sea should be managed, managed for the development and the sustenance of the people of the Caribbean and worldwide."

We are convinced that the sustainable use of these resources are in the best interest of the international community and its our hope that the conference would see it that way, including the utilisation of those stocks of whales which science has shown are not in any danger of being depleted."

-- St. Kitts/Nevis Prime Minister Dr. Denzil Douglas (2006)

"For fisheries management or any type of management of wild species we cannot and should not make decisions based on emotions."

-- St. Kitts and Nevis senior fisheries officer Joe Simmonds (2006)

"Our position in the IWC is to support the sustainable use of all marine resources including whales. No one should be surprised that as small island states, we ascribe to this position since we are dependent on the use of marine resources for food and development."

"The fact is that the IWC's own Scientific Committee has agreed that many species and stocks of whales are abundant and sustainable whaling is possible."

"We should not accept placing the use of whales outside this context of globally accepted norms for emotional reasons because it sets a bad precedent that risks our use of fisheries and other renewable resources. The anti-whaling NGOs also have other anti-use campaigns that are directly targeted at the fish and fisheries that sustain the livelihoods of many people in the Caribbean."

-- St. Kitts Minister Cedric R. Liburd (2006)

St. Lucia (1981):

* Pilot whales are caught in St. Lucia

St. Vincent and the Grenadines (1981):

* As of 2006, St. Vincent is the only nation in the world actively harvesting Humpback whales

Tuvalu (2004):

"Tuvalu has always been a supporter of the need exploit and use the marine resources in a sustainable manner and this includes whaling. So that it has always been the position of Tuvalu in support of sustainable management of our marine resources including whale."

"From the scientific research and evidence that Tuvalu has been able to use and excess to that it gives the support to the view that there is still that scope for using whales at the moment."
-- Tuvalu's High Commissioner to Fiji Seve Paeniu (2006)

"[W]e are an aid-dependent country and we feel that we should be left to make our decisions without any influences"
-- Tuvalu Prime Minister Maatia Toafa (2006)

Belize (2003):

"Like the rest of the Caribbean, we believe in the sustainable use of our resources, and we will be pushing for that policy to be fully embraced by the Commission."

"We believe that developing nations must pursue a policy of sustainable use, and that's what we will be doing alongside our brothers and sisters in the Caribbean."

"We are a coastal community, and we believe we have every right to belong to this organization. There have long been discussions on migratory species and the impact on all marine animals and cetacean species. As a nation that has a large fishing industry, we feel we have a right to belong to the IWC, and we plan to support our Caribbean neighbors."
-- Belizean fisheries official Ismael Garcia (2003)

"Belize can't be taking this as an emotional issue because whales sing to each other...as individuals each person might have their own idea on whether they should kill whales or not...as a country we support scientific evidence that a resource can be sustainably managed."
-- Ministry of Agriculture CEO Michael Tewes (2005)

* Belize is an interesting case. Belize was originally recruited to the IWC in 1982 by anti-whaling groups in order to impose the commercial whaling moratorium, but later withdrew it's membership in 1988. Some anti-whaling groups accused Belize of taking "bribes" from Japan prior to IWC 58 in 2006, yet at the meeting they surprised:

A key vote against the measure came from Belize, a small Central American country that has received aid from Japan and had been expected by environmental groups to support it on the whaling commission.

Belize went on to vote against all pro-sustainable use proposals at IWC 58. They did not seek to speak to the assembly in the debates regarding these issues to explain their position.

Panama (2001):

"We are all from the Caribbean and Central American region, and we share the same features as developing countries which are seeking to spur our economic and social development," he said. "We have a right to be in the IWC just like the large and rich nations, and we are strong advocates of the sustainable use of marine resources. We expect that other Central American states like Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador may soon become full fledged members."
-- Panama's alternate IWC Commissioner Espimendez Diaz (2003)
* Panama voted against all sustainable use proposals at IWC 58 in 2006

Labels: IWC vote influence, Whaling

An interesting article from Sun St. Kitts/Nevis appeared a few days back on the need for respect. I'm going to reproduce it here in full:

Respect due, at all times

Throughout the International Whaling Conference (IWC) being held at the Marriott Resort in Basseterre one thing became very obvious to many people attending, as well as to those following the proceedings via the media – there is still gross disrespect for the sovereign rights of these small island states.

There were disparaging comments aplenty about the islands, and therefore, indirectly about the people who call them home.

The large anti-whaling powers made no bones about how they felt about the islands of the region lending support to the Japanese. They spoke of bribery and trickery and greed with no one even once saying that the islands are well within their rights to vote how they saw it fit and in what they might well consider the direct interest of the people.

They didn’t have it all their own way though and Tony Best, who covered the conference, was moved to speak of the strength of two regional women as they stood up and faced the challenges and came out earning the respect of both sides of the divide.

Best was glowing in his accolades of Antigua & Barbuda Junior Agriculture Minister, Joanne Massiah whom he described as having become “known for using the most eloquent of phrases and a calm tone to get her points across; so much so that even opponents of sustainable use of the world’s marine resources, a policy she champions, felt compelled the other day in Basseterre to cheer her intervention, not because they agreed with her arguments but because of the sheer force of her words and their own inability to muster a comeback.”

Then there was Claris Charles of Grenada.

Best said, “She charged that like some of the other rich white nations within the IWC, New Zealand had resorted to racist tactics which were based on false notion that Blacks weren’t intelligent and bold enough to stake out a position based on their national interests and to fight for it.

“Some of these NGOs and countries which oppose any resumption of commercial whaling want to tell us what to do and when we decline to follow them, they resort to offensive language, which quite frankly is often racist,” she told a reporter in the wake of New Zealand’s comments and the allegations levelled by NGOs.

“We are intelligent people in the Caribbean and we don’t have to wait for someone in Europe, Australia or New Zealand to dictate a course of action for us. We can and do think for ourselves.”

We applaud both these women, and further, we applaud Best for looking at this aspect of the conference and bringing it to the fore for Caribbean people to understand what they are up against as they try to knit themselves into a unit to challenge the might of some of these so-called world powers in various areas.

What needs to happen now is that the ordinary people of the region need to understand that they have to start believing in their own people, their own experts and professionals.

Because while these women were asserting themselves, the police hierarchy of this country were “buddying up” to the foreign press, telling them all about the Greenpeace protest incident; while the local press, including this newspaper was being told to wait for the issue of a press release coming more than 24 hours after the fact.

We are sure that should Massiah and Charles hear about this they would be livid. Journalist Tony Best would be livid as well.

Labels: Claris Charles, IWC vote influence, Joanne Massiah, Whaling

Predictably, various small developing nations have again been threatened with tourism boycotts regarding their principled stance at the IWC meeting just concluded in St. Kitts and Nevis. This from the Associated Press:

Environmental groups have accused developing nations of voting with Japan in return for money for fisheries projects — which Japan and those countries have repeatedly denied.

Caribbean tourism officials have said they are concerned that their countries’ support of whaling might lead travelers to boycott the region.

“Such threats are tantamount to economic terrorism,” said Joanne Massiah, Food Production and Marine Resources Minister for the Caribbean nation of Antigua and Barbuda.

Anthony L. Hall has written a column on the topic for www.caribbeannetnews.com:

Fatuous anti-whaling argument: Free Willie or we’ll destroy your economy...

“The Caribbean countries that helped Japan win a narrow victory at the International Whaling Commission could face a backlash from environmentally concerned tourists....People come to this region to see nature at its best....Individuals for whom whaling is abhorrent will think twice about going to a destination where their values are not shared."

This dire warning was expressed in a UPI commentary published here on Wednesday. And it fairly summarizes the sentiments (and, perhaps, the perverse wish) of those who opposed the motion to resume commercial whaling that was approved at last weekend’s International Whaling Commission in St Kitts.

However, there’s nothing more unseemly in political and social debate than people resorting to threats (and acts of violence) as methods of persuasion. Yet no group has relied more on such methods to advance their world view than radical environmentalists (a.k.a. eco-terrorists). Indeed, they have become notorious for tree spiking (hammering metal rods or other material into tree trunks) to save the forest, torching homes and ski resorts to prevent suburban development and vandalizing car (SUV) dealerships to promote energy conservation.

Of course, given such tactics, I suppose we should thank our lucky stars that these self-appointed avengers of Mother Nature are only threatening to ruin our tourist economies to save the whales.

Nevertheless, as one for whom commercial whaling is abhorrent, I resent this misguided attempt to undermine the economy of any country in the Caribbean because its government does not find commercial whaling abhorrent. In fact, I find the sewage that cruise ships dump in our crystal-clear waters infinitely more abhorrent. Yet I would never countenance threatening the livelihood of people who depend on the revenues those ships generate to express my environmental outrage.

Therefore, I admonish regional environmentalists like Keith Laurie, President of the Barbados Environmental Society, against parroting the fatuous rhetoric of environmentalists who threaten economic doom for the Caribbean countries (Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia and St Vincent and the Grenadines) that joined 27 other states in supporting this motion.

After all, it hardly seems a fair trade to boycott these countries because they support the historical and cultural practice of Japan and other nations to hunt whales.

NOTE: Instead of getting all hysterical about people hunting whales, our environmentalists would prove far more useful as avengers of Mother Nature if they could get cruise ship operators to hold their crap to dump back home; instead of behaving like floating elephants in our Caribbean Sea.

Meanwhile, I myself wrote a letter, which has since been published on the caribbean net news website. My letter read as follows:

Do the NGO groups based in developed western nations that have leveled suggestions of boycotts at the Caricom nations have the best interests of the peoples of the Caribbean at heart? Or are these NGO groups merely attempting to manipulate the Caricom nations, to serve their own selfish political agendas?

I would suggest that the nations of the Caribbean have learnt who their true friends are, in the aftermath of recent events at the IWC meeting in St Kitts and Nevis. The statements of the leaders of the Caricom nations who firmly rejected the hollow threats of economic terrorism that have been leveled against them by these western NGO groups impressed me immensely.

As a symbol of my personal support for the Caricom nations who voted in line with the principle of sustainable use at the IWC meeting, I would like to inform your readers that these events have motivated me to plan a visit to the Caribbean, and I will encourage my friends and family to do so as well. As a New Zealander, I hope to take in a game of cricket or two while I am there.

So with that, I do encourage you all to visit one of the small nations that voted consistently for the principle of sustainable use at the IWC.

Unfortunately, these threats are clear evidence that the IWC must implement secret ballots to ensure that this situation does not continue.

Although there is some sentiment in the islands that whaling could threaten tourism, Japan's allies on the IWC, such as Antigua and Barbuda, dismiss the issue as artificially inspired by environmentalists and media.

"We are accused of selling our votes and prostituting our sovereignty, but as sovereign states we take great offense to this," said Joanne Massiah, Antigua and Barbuda's minister of food production and marine resources.

Labels: IWC vote influence, Whaling

Caribbean Loses Drive For Secret Ballot At Whale Meet

By Tony Best - Special To HBN

Hardbeatnews, BASSETERRE, St. Kitts, Sat. June 17, 2006: After losing a close vote yesterday afternoon at the International Whaling Commission, Caribbean nations are vowing to continue their campaign to get the IWC to use the secret ballot in voting on key matters.

As occurred last year in South Korea and in 2004 in Italy, Caribbean states were narrowly defeated by a coalition led by most of the world's rich nations, joined by a handful of developing countries, which opposed the idea of using secret balloting instead of open voting on matters dealing with the sustainable use of the world's marine resources in general and commercial whaling in particular.

Of the 63 votes cast at the IWC's 58th annual conference in St. Kitts-Nevis, Caribbean states garnered 30 ballots in support of its cause while its opponents collected 33. Surprisingly, Belize which in previous years backed its Caribbean neighbors, broke rank and threw its backing to New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, the U.S. and several other rich nations which campaigned for open voting.

"We are really very disappointed," Lloyd Pascal, Dominica's IWC Commissioner and a former Minister of Agriculture, said afterwards. "But we are going to be back with it again next year when the IWC meets in Alaska. Hopefully by then we would have been able to convinced two or three more countries to support our efforts."

The Caribbean received wide support from the African nations, including Mali, Cameroon, Benin, Mauritania and Gabon, as well as from the Russian Federation, Japan, Norway, Iceland, Nicaragua, Morocco and China, countries which believe that small states must be protected from attempts at victimization.

Why is secret balloting considered so important to the Caribbean, especially the Eastern Caribbean? "We have been threatened with economic boycotts because of our votes in the IWC and we are convinced that secret ballot would remove the threat which hangs over our heads," said Pascal. "You know, it's hypocritical for some countries to come before the meeting and oppose the Caribbean's proposal because the IWC itself uses secret ballots to elect a Chairman and Vice Chairman. It also uses secret ballots to decide a simple thing as where the next meeting should be held. As a matter of fact we are convinced that it was because of a secret ballot that St.Kitts-Nevis was able to defeat France in 2004 in Italy for the right to host this year's conference in Basseterre."

Colin Murdoch, Permanent Secretary in Antigua's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, shared Dominica's disappointment. "Antigua & Barbuda is disappointed that the vote on secret ballot went the way it did," he said minutes after the decision became known. "But all of these votes in the IWC are very narrow, won or lost by one or two. There has been some narrowing but not enough to take us over the hurdle."

During the debate, several rich countries ranging from Italy, France, New Zealand, the U.K., Germany and the U.S. to Sweden Australia, strongly criticized the idea of secret balloting, charging that countries were behaving as if they had something to hide. New Zealand was particularly bitter, charging that vote buying and selling had become apparent in the IWC.

But the Caribbean received strong backing from Japan, which introduced the resolution calling for secret balloting, complaining that the Caribbean and other small countries had been victimized by international environmental organizations and other international which threatened with economic reprisals if they continued supporting sustainable use of whales as food.

In 1994, for instance, a U.S.-based NGO attempted to launch a tourist boycott against Dominica, Grenada, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, St. Kitts-Nevis and Antigua citing their voting patterns in IWC Meetings.

Joji Morishita, a top Japanese representative to the IWC, said that talk about openness and democracy was irrelevant in this case because of the continuing threats directed against the small islands.

Cedric Liburd, St. Kitts-Nevis, Minister of Agriculture, struck back at Australia, Britain, the U.S. and New Zealand by name accusing them of hypocrisy, contending that while they use secret ballots in meetings of CITES, the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species, the developed countries were ignoring the harsh realities faced by small islands and coastal states.

"There is hypocrisy within this body," Liburd told the meeting before the vote. "Internationally, in CITES and other bodies we have the same countries, New Zealand, Australia, the United States, England, all of them are part of CITES and the ballot there is secret. Now at this level (within the IWC) they are speaking about transparency, saying that because some of our votes are up for sale we want secret ballots."

Nothing could be further from the truth, he insisted.

South Africa, Panama, India, Brazil and Chile were among the developing nations, which opposed the Caribbean. – Hardbeatnews.com

Labels: IWC vote influence, Whaling

The pressure is coming to bear on Ian Campbell, and the need for secret ballots to protect sovereign nation voting rights is clearer than ever. Campbell has now threatened any nation that supports the principle of sustainable use:

Japan's humpback hunt plan a 'disgrace'

Selina Mitchell

June 15, 2006

AUSTRALIA has condemned Japan's efforts to extend its "scientific whaling program" to include endangered humpbacks.

Delegates at an International Whaling Commission meeting in St Kitts and Nevis in the Caribbean will be told the blood of the humpback will be on their hands if they vote to support Japan's pro-whaling stance.

Environment Minister Ian Campbell said countries that supported Japan would be outed and shamed. He said the public wrongly focused its anger solely on countries that exploited a scientific loophole in the 1986 commercial whaling moratorium. Japan, Norway and Iceland could not kill whales without the support of at least 30 other countries, he said.

"During the next year we have to raise the political stakes for all of those 30 countries and make sure the people in those countries know that their governments are supporting the slaughter of whales," he said.

Senator Campbell has also warned Pacific Island nations their support for whaling could lead to a tourist boycott. He left yesterday for the Caribbean meeting at which the 60-odd member countries of the IWC could effectively unravel 20 years of whale conservation.

Japan's plan to expand its scientific program to include humpbacks was a "disgraceful tactic" that could backfire, Senator Campbell said before he left.

"I think a lot of the countries that do support so-called sustainable whaling in principle will recognise that Japan might be going a bridge too far in relation to taking humpbacks," he said.

Of course, Ian Campbell needs a scientific argument to go with this emotional rubbish if he is to convince them of that.

Labels: Ian Campbell, IWC vote influence, Whaling

I was pleased to receive a comment from Martin, who is apparently a citizen of Antigua and Barbuda. Martin believes that his nation has sold it's vote at the IWC. He makes some claims which are worth addressing in a whole new post.

Thanks for commenting, Martin.

You claim that it is Japan that has made a mockery of the IWC.

Is it the pro-conservation & sustainable use oriented nations that first started IWC recruitment drives to "force the issue"?
The first land-locked member of the IWC was Switzerland, in 1980. Two further land-locked nations had joined the IWC to vote against whaling before the pro-conservation & sustainable use nations gained their first landlocked sympathizer, in 2002.

What about the Caribbean nations, of which Antigua and Barbuda is one?

“Some [anti-whaling NGO] organizations originally paid for the membership of Caribbean nations into the Whaling Commission and used their people to act as our Commissioners. That’s how they got the moratorium through,” the Commissioners said.

However, the islands evicted and replaced the false commissioners with Caribbean people when they discovered they were not acting in the national interests of the islands nor adhering to the principles of sustainable utilization. The Commissioners said that, since then: “We are continually subjected to abuse, racism and other terrible means from these groups because we support the rights of all people to utilize whale resources for food, just like we do in the Caribbean.”

Indeed, allegations of vote buying are very perplexing when we consider that one of the supposedly "bought" Caribbean nations, St. Vincent, actually has a humpback catch quota from the IWC. Who'd have thought that Japan, a whaling nation, would have to bribe St. Vincent, another whaling nation, in order to have them vote for whaling? If that's really the case, then St. Vincent is to be congratulated for cunningly deceiving the Japanese in this manner!

Certainly, still today new nations are being encouraged to join the IWC. The means used to achieve this are not clear, but what is quite evident is that this situation would not have come about had the anti-whaling fanatics not "forced the issue" back in the early 1980's by recruiting landlocked nations, nations with no direct interest in whaling, and appointing phony commissioners in Caribbean nations to achieve a global commercial whaling moratorium that had never been advised as necessary by the IWC Scientific Committee.


You also claim that it is Japan that has brought about the dysfunctional nature of the IWC.

Is it the pro-conservation, pro-sustainable use nations that has caused the IWC to fail to achieve the stated objectives of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW)?

Is it because of these nations that the IWC has failed to lift a moratorium on commercial whaling that was intended to be lifted by 1990 at the latest, despite scientific advice that this was possible?

The situation at the IWC is what it is because it is stacked with member nations that not only have no interest in whale resource utilization, but actually oppose whaling activity entirely. Some of these member nations openly admit that they oppose whaling under any conditions, and have suggested that the IWC be replaced altogether.

To liken the IWC to a ship; is it any wonder that the IWC can not reach it's target destination given that it has been hijacked by those who wish to not only change it's direction, but skuttle and sink it completely? Fittingly it is then, that this year's meeting is being held in the Caribbean.

At the end of the day, Martin, while the vote buying issue may be of great interest to you the core issue of the whaling controversy is whether nations should be permitted to hunt whales sustainably, or not. Everything beyond this question is a side issue or a detail. I believe that they should be permitted, and I wonder what your position is.

Labels: IWC vote influence, Whaling

Following on from previous years, Australian politicians have resorted to threatening language to try to persuade nations to vote with them at the IWC.

Environment Minister Ian Campbell has issued a veiled warning to Pacific Island nations that they risk the world's anger if they support the return of commercial whaling.

Senator Campbell said the Marshalls should think carefully about the consequences of their vote at the IWC meeting in the Caribbean nation of St Kitts and Nevis in two weeks time should it attend.

" ... I think the outrage that will surge up around the world if the vote goes the wrong way in St Kitts will force a lot of public attention on those key votes.

"That's a message for anyone who joins the IWC."

Senator Campbell said he told this to the Marshall Islands ministers not in a threatening way but as an observation.

That's good comedy. The threats won't work any longer though - secret ballots are likely to be in place before the serious voting starts.

"I think there'll be a close look at countries like Guatemala, the Marshall Islands ... and Palau, who have a phenomenal conservation record internationally but take an out of character position when they vote at the whaling commission," he said.

Perhaps Ian Campbell should consider that, given their phenomenal conservation records, maybe it's Australia that ought to reevaluate it's stance at the IWC.

Labels: Ian Campbell, IWC vote influence, Whaling

Well done Kiribati:

Kiribati Fisheries Minister Tetabo Nakara confirmed Senator Campbell's reading of his country's position.

"We support scientific whaling to continue," Mr Nakara said.

"We have a neutral position on the moratorium on the commercial whaling."

Mr Nakara denied Kiribati was receiving financial aid from Japan in return for its vote.

"Kiribati paid its contribution to the IWC and we will continue to pay the fares of our participation," he said.

Labels: IWC vote influence, Whaling

A good article appeared at www.stuff.co.nz on Tuvalu's stance at the IWC. The journo does a reasonable job of putting across Tuvalu's position as it is, as opposed to what anti-whaling NGOs and governments would say it is (kudos to Michael Field - well done).

Amongst other things, Tuvalu

• believes in the sustainable use of marine resources
• wants to act in the best interests of its people

This is of course quite reasonable, especially from a small island nation dependant on the resources of the ocean around it for development potential.

From the New Zealand side:

• it's "bad news"
• "the Pacific has been turning against us"
  

Who is it bad news for? I think it's great news for the people of Tuvalu that their government is putting their interests ahead of interests of people in foreign countries.

And why is this seen as the Pacific turning against New Zealand? Were the Pacific nations ever opposed to the sustainable use of marine resources? On the contrary, it's New Zealand who abandoned the principle of sustainable use when it rejoined the IWC in 1975 after earlier quitting the organization.

New Zealand is a fairly developed nation, whose economy is not overly reliant on marine resources for expansion. 80% of New Zealanders live in cities.

Look at Tuvalu. It does not have the natural resources available to New Zealand. What does it have?

Fish. Only fish. That's it. Nothing else.

New Zealand may be able to afford itself the luxury of the odd irrational air-headed "environmental" policy, but Tuvalu has no room to compromise. Tuvalu must ensure that it's marine resources are managed properly because they have nothing else.

The full article is duplicated below for posterity. Congratulations, once again Tuvalu.

Tuvalu sides with whaling nations

11 May 2006

By MICHAEL FIELD

A bid by Conservation Minister Chris Carter to persuade Tuvalu to vote with New Zealand to protect whales has failed, with the tiny Pacific archipelago saying it favours sustainable use.

News that the Tuvaluan Government said it was grateful for aid from Australia and New Zealand but wanted to act in the best interests of its people has been met with disappointment.

The decision comes before a crucial International Whaling Commission meeting at which Japan may take control of the 66-nation body.

New Zealand's whaling commissioner, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, said Tuvalu's stance was bad news.

"It's going to be exceedingly close and therefore every vote counts."

A senior Tuvaluan Government official was quoted as saying: "Our position has never changed since we joined the International Whaling Commission. We are for the sustainable use of whatever resources we have, be it whales, fish, forestry, land.

"Whilst we appreciate assistance from both countries, Tuvalu should be allowed as a sovereign nation to make its independent decision on what is best for its people."

Mr Carter was not available for comment yesterday but a spokesman said despite relationship-building between the two countries "it was never expected the meeting would produce an overnight change in Tuvalu's position".

The diplomatic failure for Mr Carter comes as nations lined up with Japan meet in Tokyo today to plan their strategy for the IWC meeting from June 16 to 20 in the Caribbean nation of St Kitts and Nevis.

On paper Japan has a majority of the 66 member nations in the IWC. To overturn the 1986 moratorium on commercial whaling would require a three-quarters majority. This is considered unlikely, but a simple majority vote would amount to a big win for Japan and fellow whaling nations Norway and Iceland.

Mr Carter is to visit the Solomons, Kiribati and Nauru before the IWC meeting. Sir Geoffrey said the lobbying was important "as the Pacific has been turning against us in the International Whaling Commission".

Labels: Chris Carter, IWC vote influence, Tuvalu

Tuvalu can stand proud as a nation after it's officials rejected NZ Conservation Minister Chris Carter's meddling in their democratic processes.

Labels: Chris Carter, IWC vote influence, Tuvalu

NZ Conservation Minister, Chris Carter is apparently off to Tuvalu.

Tuvalu has voted with the pro-whaling nations in the past, but Mr Carter hopes he can persuade it to abstain on some critical issues.

A disgrace. Tuvalu is a sovereign nation, and it's people are quite capable of understanding whaling issues and making a decision by themselves, without Chris Carter's guidance. Then again, perhaps Carter may learn a thing or two out of the discussion, so it may be a useful exercise afterall.

Tuvalu has made its position on the issue quite clear.

Prime Minister Maatia Toafa has called on Australia and New Zealand to allow Tuvalu to be able to make a decision on its own, without pressure.

As a supposedly responsible Minister, Chris Carter should rightfully have heeded this request.

Labels: Chris Carter, IWC vote influence, Tuvalu

Earlier this year in June Ian Campbell (who I have criticised on various occassions) recorded an interview with Australia's Radio National Breakfast program.

"I think Australian's would share with myself and Alexander Downer and our Prime Minister a very deep concern for Nauru's future that we find out that they have decided to join a push led by Japan."

One wonders why Campbell has a such a deep concern? Is that a threat?

Then here comes the Announcer, Fran Bailey:
"It is disappointing, as you say, we have strong aide ties with Nauru; we give them a lot of support. I mean how much pressure has been brought to bear on that country, to not do this, not vote to open up whaling again?"

Ahem! For a media who craps on and on about how Japan is supposedly "buying" votes at the IWC with ODA packages, isn't this just a little bit too rich?

Next we have Campbell questioning why Nauru joined the IWC:
"Well the very fact they've joined the IWC would have to ask ... why they would choose to join this international body, the main function of which is to control whaling and conserve whales, why they would get involved?"

Nauru is a small island nation, now poor in resources, dependant on fishieries for their food security. Clearly they understand nature and that they live in a multi-species eco-system. They know that placing blanket protections on one type of animal (whales) without considering the negative implications for other species (their tuna stocks for example) is an irresponsible action which could have terrible consequences for their people.

On the contrary, one wonders why Australia is a member of this international body when their goal is not to control whaling but to destroy it, and not to conserve whales but to protect them wholesale, regardless of scientific considerations?

And for yet more ignorance from Senator Campbell:
"And it's not just about Japan, Norway and Iceland. If we have a majority vote for this it would ultimately lead to any nation in the world wanting to get back into commercial whaling."

So what? Just because Australia would have the right to hunt whales commercially, doesn't mean they have to!

And finally:
"[The Japanese, Norwegians and Icelanders] are designing a scheme, basically what is a fisheries plan, to go out and hunt whales. And that plan would set quotas, it would have arrangements for vessel monitoring - all the sorts of things that we would have for a cod fishery or a tuna fishery or a sardine fishery - they have a plan they are putting together to organise the control of commercial whaling."

Yes Ian, that's the whole point! Yet it was he himself commenting earlier in the piece that the whole point of the IWC is to "control whaling and conserve whales". What doesn't he understand about that?

Labels: IWC vote influence, Whaling

To the behest of the Australians, Papua New Guinea has joined Tuvalu in expressing support for the sustainable use of natural resources, including whales:

"Traditionally, and even now, our people do eat whale, and dugongs and animals like that. So in that sense, we do share the Japanese view to some extent," PNG's Foreign Minister Rabbie Namaliu told Reuters. PNG is the biggest Pacific island nation after Australia, and its views carry significant weight among smaller South Pacific nations.

Papua New Guinea isn't a signatory to the ICRW - yet they support the Japanese. But this won't stop the pathetic "environmental NGOs" from accusing Japan of vote buying. Reality doesn't matter - grabbing headlines is what counts to them.

Labels: IWC vote influence, Papua New Guinea

Suddenly after a meeting with Australian Environment Minister Ian Campbell, the Solomon Islands has changed their position on the whaling issue.

Read the article for yourself

What is disturbing is that there is no mention here at all about why the Solomons decided to reverse their position. After supposedly having their vote "bought" by the Japanese, all it took was a meeting with an Australian politician for them to change their mind? What did Campbell have to say that "unbought" the Solomons vote? Or did he just say "pretty please with sugar on top"? Hmmm, that sounds like a pretty tough sell to me.

However, Tuvalu is standing up to bullies, Australia and New Zealand:

The Prime Minister of Tuvalu, Maatia Toafa says his country supports the resumption of commercial whaling.

The Prime Minister has also asked Australia and New Zealand to respect Tuvalu's stance.

The International Whaling Commission meets in just under two weeks in South Korea, and Tuvalu is expected to support Japan's push for an increase in the number of whales it can catch.

Australia's Environment Minister Ian Campbell is currently touring the Pacific and gathering support to prevent any expansion of current whaling programmes.

However, Prime Minister Maatia Toafa says Tuvalu must be allowed to make its own decision.

"Our good friends, neighbours, Australia and New Zealand interpreted Tuvalu's position as pro-whaling," he said.

"We support the harvesting of all marine resources, of course including whale.

"We need also to respect the Japanese or whoever is wanting to make use of the whale," said the Prime Minister.

Prime Minister Maatia Toafa has called on Australia and New Zealand to allow Tuvalu to be able to make a decision on its own, without pressure.


As I have mentioned previously it is precisely for this reason that secret ballots at the IWC ought to be permitted. Without secret ballots, small nations such as the Solomons will inevitably be subject to bullying politics from neighbouring Australian and New Zealand politicians looking to score cheap political points within their own constituencies.

This sort of behaviour on the part of the Australians is an international disgrace. Congratulations to the Prime Minister of Tuvalu for telling the Australian and New Zealand governments how it ought to be.

Labels: IWC vote influence, Whaling