AMPONTAN

Japan from the inside out

Who bought off the IWC?

Posted by ampontan on Sunday, December 2, 2007

MANY PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY IN THE WEST, seem ready to condemn Japan for buying pro-whaling votes from smaller Third World countries in the International Whaling Commission through foreign aid programs.

That might be the case, but reader Aceface passes along a site with information that suggests Japan modeled its behavior after Greenpeace, which paid for membership fees to the IWC and supplied the new members’ “delegates” to the commission.

The whale savers targeted poor nations plus some small, newly independent ones like Antigua and St. Lucia. They drafted the required membership documents for submission to the U.S. State Department. They assigned themselves or their friends as the scientists and commissioners to represent these nations at the whaling commission. For instance, Palacio, a Columbian citizen based in Miami, arranged to be the commissioner from St. Lucia. The commissioner from Antigua was Palacio’s friend and lawer, Richard Baron, also from Miami. McTaggart’s friend Paul Gouin, a Moroccan-born French expatriate living in Nassau, Bahamas, served as commissioner from Panama…Between 1978 and 1982, Palacio says, the operation added at least half a dozen new member countries to the commission’s membership to achieve the three-fourths majority necessary for a moratorium on commercial whaling, which passed in 1982.

Some governments were involved too:

A top US government official, Dr. Michael Tillman, has admitted that anti-whaling fundraising groups recruited countries into the International Whaling Commission (IWC) to pass measures against commercial whaling, including a commercial whaling moratorium.

According to John Rudolph, reporting for National Public Radio’s Living on Earth program, anti-whaling activists wanted to ban whaling in late 1970’s and developed “a campaign by the U.S. government and conservation groups to bring new members into the IWC. Among the nations recruited in the early 1980’s were several from the Caribbean: St. Vincent, St. Lucia, Antigua and others. Their votes helped the moratorium squeak through in 1982.

“Dr. Tillman and others claim that, in the years just before the vote on the worldwide moratorium, conservation groups paid some small island nations to join the Commission,” he said.

“There was what we called ‘common knowledge’ that a number of countries joined and that their dues and the travel support was reportedly due to conservation groups providing it,” Dr. Tillman stated on the program. Dr. Tillmann was the acting head of the U.S. delegation at many of the IWC annual meetings.

The countries referred to included the Seychelles, India, Belize, Costa Rica, Uruguay, Egypt, Kenya, Jamaica, Senegal, and four newly independent eastern Caribbean states.

The Solomon Islands were recruited by the United States in 1985 to help obtain a catch quota of bowhead whales for Alaskan Eskimos.

The British got some countries into a half-Nelson as well:

In 1994, U.K. Agriculture Minister John Gummer threatened the Caribbean countries with loss of UK support for their European banana market if they voted against the Antarctic Whale Sanctuary. As the Caribbean countries depend upon the banana market for up to 60 percent of their total annual incomes, they abstained from the issue.

In contrast, how have the Japanese efforts gone?

Japan gives development assistance to as many as 150 countries around the world, and it so happens that these Caribbean nations are among the recipients of this assistance…(I)f all 150 countries that receive Japanese aid were to join IWC and vote in support of Japan, the IWC would have been a different place altogether. However, in reality only a few of the recipients have joined IWC and some of them almost always oppose Japan in voting, for example, Argentine and India.

Some years ago, then Greenpeace member David Garrick came to Japan to promote the anti-whaling cause. Garrick was the co-founder of Greenpeace Chronicles and stayed with the society through 1979. (He left to form the Sea Shepherd Society with Paul Watson, who had a falling out with Greenpeace because he favored violent tactics, as our previous posts have described.)

During his visit, Garrick said:

“There’s a lot of dirty politicking here that we’d like to clarify. We’d like to get people working on it while there’s still whales left.”

Dirty politicking indeed.

Update: Paul Watson of Sea Shepherd admits that anti-whaling forces were the first to use these tactics. In regard to his tactics of ramming whalers at sea, he states: “I think it is important that we continue to confront, harass and intervene against the whalers on the water. The media is not interested in discussions or dialogue – the media is interested in drama. We must continue to dramatize whaling by confronting them.”

29 Responses to “Who bought off the IWC?”

  1. RYO said

    Assuming that Japan were to continue to engage in responsible whaling practices, why exactly do they not simply quit the IWC? In other words, what exactly would be the negative consequences of quitting? They really seem to be gluttons for punishment by choosing to stick around.

  2. Overthinker said

    As far as I can tell, it’s a compromise between “doing the right thing” (especially for an export-led economy) and using its loopholes to placate homegrown antagonism.

  3. RYO said

    I’m probably going out on a limb here, but could it also have anything to do with memories of what happened when Japan quit the League of Nations?

  4. bender said

    I think Japan should abandon whaling, but at the same time, take the further evolutionary step of advocating the ban of all meat-eating. Let’s all be veggies! Also, Japan should advocate that developed nations abandon their domestic agriculture protection so that millions of people from the developing nations could rise above the poverty line. This is much better than buying off developing nations for the sake of anti- or pro- whaling.

    Maybe with fish can be an exception, because the Flying Spaghetti Monster designated them as vegetables. Now are whales “fish”?

  5. Overthinker said

    No, whales are not fish – Melville made the same mistake. And if I am wrong, may the great FSM strike me down with his noodley appendage.

    And I think your idea of abandoning meat for vegetables is insane – have you any idea of the cruelty and inhumanity inherent in cabbage-raising? Those poor cabbages are literally half-buried in the ground their entire lives, unable to move, left outside to the wind and the rain. And rice? Not content with preventing any free roaming (like wild rice), they even flood their homes. And then talk about cruelty: have you seen a combine harvester at work? Would you want your head chopped off by one? No, so why so we allow those death machines to practise their foul tortures on innocent wheat stalks? No, we should cut out the middlemen entirely. Animals get their sustenance from plants, but plants get theirs from the sun. So we should all become breatharians, and live on the bounty of solar power.

  6. Overthinker said

    RYO: I honestly cannot see why. Japan quit the LON after the Lytton Commission ruled that the occupation of Manchuria was on the whole not legitimate. Japan’s flouting of League rules, I understand, gave Germany the idea that it too could do the same thing with impunity, but I do not think the IWC is in any way comparable to the LON (which, btw, the US never joined, due to Senate opposition).

    “According to the Covenant of the League of Nations, the League should have now placed economic sanctions against Japan, or gathered an army together and declared war against it. However, neither happened. Economic sanctions had been rendered almost useless due to the United States Congress voting against being part of the League, despite Woodrow Wilson’s keen involvement in the drawing up of the Treaty of Versailles and his wish for America to join the League. Any economic sanctions the League now placed on its member states would be fairly pointless, as the state barred from trading with other member states could simply turn and trade with America. An army was not assembled by the League due to the self-interest of many of its member states. This meant that countries like Britain and France did not want to gather together an army for the League to use as they were too interested and busy with their own affairs – such as keeping control of their extensive colonial lands, especially after the turmoil of World War I.”
    (Wiki on LON)

    This showed how a nation could defy the LON and escape scot-free. Leaving the LON meant nothing really: the US managed fine not being in it, for example. Japan kept on doing what it was doing, building a bulwark against Soviet intrusion from the north and exploiting raw materials, opening up migration destinations, and preventing the Chinese from taking it. War was not inevitable at this stage.

  7. Aceface said

    Quote from Greepeace Cyberactivist community archive.

    Dear Echo,

    Thank-you for your questions.

    The first question is: Do I see any ways/methods we can use to stop Japan’s vote-buying tactics at the IWC.

    My answer is that we cannot stop Japanese vote buying. We forget that the vote buying was originally a tactic employed from the early eighties by whale defenders. We had Lyall Watson representing the Seychelles and we had John Paul Fortom-Gouin representing the Bahamas etc.

    Greenpeace and other groups with money should try to again recruit pro-whale nations to join the IWC. The difference would be that the Japanese must buy the votes whereas conservationists need only pay the membership fees to nations that they enlist. Greenpeace has the resources to recruit and pay the membership fees of small pro-whale nations.

    Your 2nd question was: Now that the US delegation seems to be capitulating to Japan with the adoption of an RMS that has serious major loopholes, is there an effective course of action we can take?

    I do not think there is a specific course of action to take that will be effective. The conservation movement is in a defensive position
    in the United States. There can be no victories until Bush is out of office. We can only hold ground. It is important however that we do hold ground and continue to defend the planet. We don’t do this because we believe we will win, we do it because it is the only right, moral and just thing to do.

    Therefore I think it is important that we continue to confront, harass and intervene against the whalers on the water. The media is not interested in discussions or dialogue – the media is interested in drama. We must continue to dramatize whaling by confronting them.

    Over the years I have attempted on many occasion to approach Greenpeace with the offer to do a coordinated campaign against whaling and/
    or sealing. In every case I have been ignored or refused. However I do think that a Greenpeace ship working in cooperation with a Sea Shepherd ship could seriously intervene against illegal Japanese whaling in the Southern Oceans.

    Paul Watson

    More on this how British activist Lyall Watson become the IWC representatives of the Seychelles.
    http://www.seychellesweekly.com/Contents%206-23-06/page7.html

  8. bender said

    Yes, veggies have souls. So we have to stop living…

  9. bender said

    Seriously, I would not advise eating too much cetaceans because of contamination issues. Dolphins seem to have the worst contamination (see below). Also, from the data below, “kujira bacon” should probably be avoided: fats seem to store up contaminants the most. Whales from antarctica are better, but I don’t recall stores showing where the whale meat comes from.

    http://www.mhlw.go.jp/houdou/2003/01/h0116-4.html

  10. RYO said

    Overthinker: Thanks for the history lesson re: LON.

    “As far as I can tell, it’s a compromise between “doing the right thing” (especially for an export-led economy) and using its loopholes to placate homegrown antagonism.”

    So if it’s about optics, it doesn’t look as if Japan is given much credit for choosing to remain part of the IWC. (In other words, would Japan’s image really suffer more by continuing to whale after withdrawing from the IWC?) And do most consumers in the global market really care enough about this one issue that a decision to withdraw from the IWC would be economically damaging? I mean, China’s economy seems to be humming along despite all that country’s transgressions against human rights.

  11. chris pash said

    Vote buying? Both sides have been using their influence (money and political) for a long time to try to get the numbers.

    I have been visiting Japan since 1980, first on a scholarship and since on business. I like Japan, its culture and the people.

    I have eaten whale meat in a restaurant, talked issues with the then largest whaling company, discussed whaling with writers and artists, visited the fish markets to see whale meat being sold and stood before a shrine to whales.

    In the 1970s I went with Australia’s last whaling fleet to observe them hunting sperm whales. I liked the captain and crew. They did their job well but the sperm whales still died hard. There is no such thing as a clean kill with a harpoon. This is inhumane and the people who hunted whales felt this as well. This is indefensible.

    This is not a cultural issue. It is an ethical issue. No human need is being fulfilled by killing a whale. There is no cure for cancer or a solution to hunger. The meat ends up on the plates of the affluent. And no great scientific knowledge is being gained by the death of any whale.

    Whales are wild stock. You cannot compare the death of a whale to the death of a farmed animal. We know so little about whales and we can never be sure of their numbers. There is no argument to justify the whale hunt by Japan’s government.

    http://thelastwhale.blogspot.com

  12. ponta said

    You cannot compare the death of a whale to the death of a farmed animal.

    This is where I think it is unconvincing and this is where I find vegetarians consistent. How do you compare the pain of a whale with that of a cow?

  13. bender said

    I think anti-whaling advocates need to do better than bring up the “inhumane” argument. Inhumane? So is slaughtering any other animal (or plants, according to Overthinker).

    Your goals are to stop whaling, right? Not Japan-bashing. Since Japan is a democracy and what the people thinks counts, you got to convince them in their own terms rather than denying what they think as their distinct culture. The “inhumane” argument is not working, and it’ll never work as long as the anti-whaling western nations stop eating meat. Of course, that’s not going to happen.

  14. bender said

    Oops:

    “it’ll never work unless anti-whaling western nations stop eating meat” is what I meant.

  15. Aceface said

    The thing is both side is missing the point.The whole point of IWC was how to make the whaling sustainable.But somehow anti-camp starts to mixing the logic of ecology and animal rights.
    (Whale is wildlife,Whaling is inhumane)and the Japanese use pseudo science to back up the argument. (Whaling in Antarctic is necessary for “scientific”research,Whales are eating other fishes and affects ecological balance). Here is a Japanese discussion site pointing out the scientific double-standards and academic hyperbole of Japan.
    http://fenv.jp/20030331/topics/20020515_whale.htm
    These argument clearly has no ends and GoJ has no reason to bend over the anti-camp whose arguments are in the end “We-just-don’t want-see-whales-being -hunted”.

    So serious discussion ends here and we starts to see “The end justifies the means”like attitude.

    Persoanlly I don’t think Japan is using ODA only to buy votes at IWC. Mongolia has been supporting Japan’s position at IWC and it is no secret that Tokyo is the largest donator of foreign aid to the country. But no one questions that Mongolia will keep gaining money from Japan no matter what the stance of Ulaanbaatar on the matter. India is now the top recipient of yen loan but New Delhi has been against whaling since they’ve joined IWC. I don’t deny the diplomats using ODA as negotiation card but that is diplomcy.Japan’s financial contribution to the recipient would probably be the source of many demands coming from Tokyo ranging from bid for the security council to support for condemning Japanese abduction by North Korea. But if you can’t find any indication of Japan’s suspention of aids to the nation that didn’t go along with Tokyo,the whole argument become baseless. Besides any island nations would want have free-hand over their maritime economic interest and see the restriction from international forum against their interest. Little reason to wonder why carribean nations support Japanese in IWC.
    “Buying vote”argument is definitly the reflection of the anti-whalers view of their own motivations.

  16. John said

    Paul Watson of Sea Shepherd admits that anti-whaling forces were the first to use these tactics.

    It didn’t read like “admitting” to me. It could just have easily been “Paul Watson goes out of his way to remind people that…”

    In any case I reject the premise of the argument, namely that we ought not to object to vote-buying on the part of Japan because “Western” groups/countries have done it, too. “Aid” with strings attached is always disgusting. The U.S. is one of the worst offenders, but it unfortunately approaches standard practice.

    What makes it more grating than usual in the whaling case is when writers like Brendan O’Neil feign ignorance of this sort of corruption and start proclaiming that developing countries are right behind Japan’s efforts to thumb its nose at the West.

  17. Aceface said

    Come on John.You are playing with words.Besides why it is Japan being finger pointed as “buying votes”all the time,while in other country it is simple diplomacy?
    I see little or no fact that aid recipients had suffered from opposing Japan’s position at IWC in the form of reduction of the financial support from Tokyo (countries like St.Lucia can always use “potential support for the Japan’s bid for security council” as bargaining chips instead.)
    and I honestly don’t understand why you are using offensive terms like “Corruption” to discuss the matter.These claims are baseless retort to the dignity of Japan and rejects rational discussion at IWC,which still stands for International Whaling Commission,not anti whaling commission,as I understand.

  18. Haafu said

    Whale meat is fantastic by the way. Maybe some of the posters here should try it before bashing anyone for eating food native to their own culture.

  19. John said

    Aceface, as I think I made clear, I don’t think buying votes on anyone’s part, anywhere, should be called “simple diplomacy”, no matter how common it is. If you don’t think it’s a corrupt practice, fair enough. I guess I’d be happy enough just to call it what it is, that is to say vote buying. But then I wasn’t clear about whether you agree that it happens at all. If you really think that it’s a baseless insult to the dignity of Japan to suggest such a thing, then I really don’t know what to say. International political bodies, be it the UN or the IWC, are not known for being bastions of high principle.

  20. Bern said

    Anti whalers are racist because many of them believe

    Whaling as well as sealing should only be 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 キit tends to be the outsiders who define what is “traditional”

    In the IWC, Norway and Japan are adhering to the principle of sustainable utilisation, in accordance with International Whaling Convention. Australia, UK, NZ is adhering to the principle of no utilisation, for what they on a cultural basis consider as special animals・ It is the first position that is modern and sophisticated. The cultural imperialism practised by Australia and other Anglo Saxon countries is a concept of the past.

    The objective of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling states that it shall ・.. provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry.

    Countries can choose to sign this declaration or not. If they don’t resepct what the document says then they can choose not to sign it.

    Honest people and countrieshonour treaties. All international cooperation is totally dependent on pacta sunt servanda (the respect for treaties).

    http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Management_Regimes/IWC/hp-ha.htm

  21. Aceface said

    “International political bodies, be it the UN or the IWC, are not known for being bastions of high principle.”

    Exactly.Every member states are motivated by their own national interests.But then again that is the politics and diplomacy is the way of politics to deal with the conflict of the interests between nation states.

    What I don’t understand is your”I don’t think buying votes on anyone’s part, anywhere, should be called “simple diplomacy”, no matter how common it is.” comments.So gaining the support from the foreign country by mobilizing your assets and influencing your decision is not “diplomacy”? Or it suddenly becomes “vote-buying” in case of Japan regarding whaling?

    “I wasn’t clear about whether you agree that it happens at all. ”

    While I don’t exclude any possibility of Tokyo doing such actions,so far I can’t find any concrete facts that this method is being applied to whaling negotiations.All we have so far is accusation coming from Anti-whaling camp,which is merely a propaganda.I don’t understand why international medias making reports on Japan based on Greenpeace/Sea Shephard songbooks and I don’t think it is objective report.
    So far I could find no such case of Tokyo cutting the aid budget for any nation that changed from Pro to Anti camp. Thus “buying-vote”is to me just a hypothesis and if there is I would be most appreciate if someone could tell me the existence.
    Personally I don’t see any rationality in MoFA allowing deterioration of any bilateral ties on simgle matter of whaling.

  22. John said

    So gaining the support from the foreign country by mobilizing your assets and influencing your decision is not “diplomacy”?

    Right. In the case of rich countries, at best it is “throwing your weight around”, one form of which is vote-buying.

    Or it suddenly becomes “vote-buying” in case of Japan regarding whaling?

    Nothing suddenly happens in the case of Japan. Vote buying is a depressingly widespread phenomenon in international fora, which doesn’t make it any more moral. It’s vote-buying when Japan does it, and it’s vote-buying when Australia does it — which, rest assured, they sometimes do. A clue that it is generally not regarded as above-board is that everyone always denies doing it.

    Thus “buying-vote”is to me just a hypothesis and if there is I would be most appreciate if someone could tell me the existence.

    For what it’s worth: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2005/s1413252.htm

    Personally I don’t see any rationality in MoFA allowing deterioration of any bilateral ties on simgle matter of whaling.

    Me neither. But then I don’t see much rationality in a lot of what the Australian government does, either.

  23. Bern said

    Atleast Japan does not threaten countries to vote in their favour in IWC like what Australia is doing.

    ‘The Australian’, the Canberra government today openly threatened Nauru “with diplomatic action over its stand at the IWC.”

    Australian Environment Minister Senator Ian Campbell visited a large number of Pacific states to “persuade” them to vote against whaling. In desperately poor Solomon Islands, Prime Minister Allan Kemakeza promised Mr Campbell to vote against Japan after he was made to understand that another stand threatened to “damage [the country's] good relationships with Australia.”

    http://www.afrol.com/articles/16642

  24. John said

    Ian Campbell used the whaling issue to try to make it appear that he was doing something for the environment, which he wasn’t. He, and the Howard government generally, never thought twice about bullying Pacific Island countries to suit their own ends. It was very degrading to Australia. Thankfully, he is now the former Environment Minister, since they were tossed out of office a week ago, and here’s hoping the new Labor government acts better.
    None of this makes Japan’s actions any more moral.

  25. Aceface said

    Damn John,Thanks for the ABC report.I would very much like to see this report myself.
    As far as I concern this is not being reported in Japan…

  26. Aceface said

    Alright remove “dignity of nation”from my argument.But the whole issue seems to start drifting when IWC starts to allowing anti-whaling country the demand for the total abolishment of whaling instead of sustainable whaling.Is it not?

  27. Bern said

    “None of this makes Japan’s actions any more moral.”

    It is less dirty because it is much less imperialistic.

  28. Overthinker said

    Yes, we know Japan could never be imperialistic….

  29. Bern said

    60 years ago Japan was. If they had been stronger they would have ended up like Australia today. Australia still is.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>