By Elsa Cabrera
Although some seem to consider the results of the last annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) as insufficient, this meeting made history as the most important in the defense of governance and democracy within this international body.
After two days of negotiations to adopt by consensus a resolution about transparency and governance, and the subsequent hijacking of the IWC by whaling nations -- to obstruct the voting process for the creation of the South Atlantic whale sanctuary – the annual assembly of the IWC could be misguidedly perceived as a waste of time that left important conservation issues out of the meeting.
However, both situations unveiled the hypocrisy and manipulation to which several nations act in order to control and impose – through the denial of basic rights of sovereign Commission member states – an obscure destiny to whale populations worldwide.
A meeting that was anticipated to be passive and inactive ended with the Commission finally forced to face substantive issues that were dropped in the drawer of memories in order to maintain an artificially friendly environment aimed to diplomatically sink the conservation and non lethal use interests of the majority of IWC countries.
Preparations for an Assault Disguised as Consensus
The collapse of all great cetacean species due to the over exploitation of the whaling industry destroyed the credibility of the IWC as the body in charge of “regulating the orderly development of the whaling industry and the conservation of whale populations”. Only the enforcement of the global moratorium on commercial whaling from 1986 prevented the extinction of many of these species and saved the Commission from collapsing from exhaustion and permanent disappearance of the "resources" it was supposed to manage responsibly.
Following the implementation of the moratorium, IWC's credibility slowly began to rebuild, hand in hand with the increase of some populations of large whales and the generation of new and better alternatives related to the non lethal use of whales. However the vote buying policy of Japan for over a decade within the IWC – that has systematically blocked conservation initiatives -- has eroded the still vulnerable credibility of the Commission.
After the scandal revealed by The Sunday Times in 2010 about irregular payments of Japanese officials to Caribbean and African representatives of the IWC, the resolution on transparency and governance that was presented by the United Kingdom in Jersey became the best alternative to address this and other important matters, such as the lack of civil society participation in IWC meetings.
But the harpoon diplomacy consumed two valuable workdays of endless negotiations oriented to weaken basic transparency and governance measures in favor of obscure whaling interests. As a result, the Commission finally adopted a significant but weakened version of the English resolution that, among others, does not improve in any way the current outdated and restrictive system of NGO participation, and will only reduce and not eliminate corrupt practices within the IWC.
However, several whaling delegations and supporters of Japanese whaling policies celebrated enthusiastically its adoption as if it meant the consolidation of consensus as the single decision (making) mechanism of the IWC.
Diplomatic Hanging of Democratic Processes in the CBI
Since 2001 Brazil and Argentina – with the support of all the Latin American countries (Grupo Buenos Aires) – have led a proposal to create a whale sanctuary in the South Atlantic. However, the initiative has not been adopted because it requires 75% support of the Commission and the vote buying policy of Japan has always recruited enough countries to assure that it will never reach this percentage of the votes.
But during the annual IWC meeting in Alaska (2007) the number of votes in favor of the creation of the sanctuary reached the historical level of almost 60% of the countries and the Latin American region prepared to put the proposal for a vote during the next year meeting in Santiago de Chile.
However, the decision of the Commission to begin a negotiation process to define the “future of the IWC” – that required all countries to abstain from addressing conflicting issues (for the whalers, that is) in order to resolve the challenges of the IWC in an harmonious way – prevented the region from putting the proposal to a vote thereafter on behalf of making positive progress in the process.
On the other hand, the government of Japan continued to kill whales under the so called “scientific whaling” program in the Southern Ocean whale sanctuary; imported dozens on tons of fin whale (endangered) from Iceland, although international trade of whale products is forbidden; it got involved in a bribery and corruption scandal that unexplainably put the complainants in jail; and evidence of illegal exports of minke whale meat caught in the Southern Ocean whale sanctuary to a fancy restaurant in the United Stated were revealed.
The strategy of this new whaling order seemed to work perfectly for the Japanese government interests and its main allies. Led by the USA and New Zealand the whaling interests were finally consolidated in 2010 in a proposal for the future of the IWC that not only seeks to eliminate the moratorium but (is) also intended to legitimize “scientific whaling” operations in whale sanctuaries.
Fortunately, the proposal drastically failed and the negotiation process – along with its consensus policy – finalized after the meeting came to a close in Morocco. The closure of the negotiation process and certain favorable conditions for the pro conservation block in the IWC 2011 became a unique opportunity to retake conservation and development proposals that are of key importance to the Latin American region, such as the creation of the South Atlantic whale sanctuary.
In this context, Brazil presented the proposal to the Commission, giving solid biological, ecological and social arguments for its establishment and required its adoption by consensus. Exercising its legitimate right, Brazil also stated that if it was not possible to reach consensus, it would put the proposal to a vote. The IWC recognizes the voting procedure as a basic element of the decision making process when it is not possible to reach agreement by consensus.
After the stubborn and unjustifiable opposition of the whaling nations to the creation of the whale sanctuary, Brazil – with the support of Grupo Buenos Aires – exercised the undeniable right of every sovereign member state of the IWC and put the initiative to a vote.
Democracy vs. Whaling Tyranny
The reaction of the whaling nations – led by the government of Japan – could pass to history as one of the most villainous and dangerous moves in international environmental law.
Once the voting process was open, more than a dozen pro whaling delegations or those associated with vote buying practices abandoned the room with the alleged purpose of breaking the necessary quorum to continue the decision making process. Even in the absence of these countries the voting process should have continued because it was opened before the country representatives left the room, so there was a quorum when it began.
But the confusion and apparent unwillingness of the interim president of the IWC (South Africa) to respect and apply its procedures led to the suspension of voting on the whale sanctuary until the next annual meeting to be held in Panama in 2012.
Ironically, the determination to postpone yet another year the whale sanctuary proposal was reached after nine hours of secret deliberations in which civil society remained completely excluded.
This situation made it clear that the consensus reached the day before on the resolution of transparency and governance was merely a cover for the true interests of a minority that seeks to take control of the IWC to make it an organization dedicated to the commercial slaughter of whales.
While a first reading of what happened to the whale sanctuary proposal blames the government of Japan and the whaling nations for the shocking and disturbing whaling coup attempt, the leadership and continuing support of the United States and New Zealand to revitalize the failed negotiation process is a serious additional threat to the hijacked democracy of the IWC.
Although there is still too much time to truly envision the scenarios of the next IWC meeting, it is clear that the urgent rescue of democracy and governance of this international organization will have to be main issues in the 2011 agenda.
In this context, the active participation of Latin America and Caribbean countries and coordination of both members of the Grupo Buenos Aires and its strategic partners, will be essential to liberate the IWC of the the current whaling tyranny generated by the despotic and reprehensible behavior of a handful of nations.
Elsa Cabrera is the executive director of the Centro de Conservación Cetacea, an IWC accredited observer since 2001.
August 4, 2011
caribbeannewsnow
An International Caribbean Online Log about the news and opinions in the Americas and World. This Caribbean Blog of global reach and appeal is maintained by Bahamian Blogger - Dennis Dames with all readers and subscribers in mind.
Showing posts with label International Whaling Commission. Show all posts
Showing posts with label International Whaling Commission. Show all posts
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
The Caribbean and whaling... Shameful!
Shameful - The Caribbean and whaling
caribbeannewsnow editorial
It was a shameful sight -- three Caribbean countries walking in obedience behind Japan, discarding even the appearance of independence.
Joji Morishitain, the Japanese representative to a meeting last week in Jersey of the International Whaling Commission (IWC), announced he was walking out of the meeting, and the delegates of the three Caribbean countries – St Kitts-Nevis, Grenada and St Lucia – dutifully joined him.
What was the walk out about? Latin American nations, led by Brazil and Argentina, had proposed the creation of a sanctuary for whales in the South Atlantic. Currently there are two such whale havens, one in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica and the other in the Indian Ocean. When it was obvious that a majority of countries supported the Latin American proposal, the Japanese staged the walk out so as undermine a consensus decision.
There was no legitimate reason for the Caribbean countries to join Japan. Not one of them is a whale-hunting nation. Nor do any of them derive any economic or dietary benefit from whale-killing. Further, by joining Japan, the Caribbean countries ruptured their relations with their Latin American neighbours, with whom they are associated in the Latin American and Caribbean Group in the United Nations system.
In the creation of the South Atlantic sanctuary, the Latin American countries would have viewed Caribbean countries as their natural allies, particularly as they place considerable importance in its establishment. Undoubtedly, there will be a price to pay for this sabotage by Caribbean countries of Latin American interests, however stonily silent the Latin Americans have been so far.
Brazil and Argentina – two of the biggest nations in Latin America and the Caribbean – may have forgiven the Caribbean countries for not supporting them if there was a direct Caribbean interest in rejecting the whale sanctuary proposal. But, there is no direct Caribbean interest in saying “no” to the sanctuary. Many Caribbean countries, including the Bahamas, the Dominican Republic, St Vincent and the Grenadines, St Lucia, Dominica, Guadeloupe and Martinique operate healthy whale-watching businesses that have helped to diversify their tourism product, earn millions of dollars in foreign exchange and provide employment. A whale sanctuary is in their interest.
The blind walk-out by the three Caribbean countries, holding on to a Japanese kimono, reconfirmed an expose by the British Sunday Times newspaper last year that revealed Japan paying the accommodation and “expenses” of several delegates of Caribbean countries to the 2010 IWC meeting in Morocco.
Last week, a feisty Antiguan government minister employed evangelical zeal in opposing a resolution from European Union countries to stop some delegations (those that vote with Japan) from paying cash for their countries’ subscription to the IWC. The resolution was adopted despite the machinations of the Antigua minister, who played a supporting role to the representative of St Kitts-Nevis.
From now on, the IWC will only accept bank transfers directly from government accounts. This may well have the effect of stopping a few of these countries from attending the IWC meetings, unless Japan pays the money to the governments directly, proving what has been alleged all along.
Had the Antigua minister been present at the IWC meeting on the day the Japanese-led walk out was staged, undoubtedly there would have been a fourth Caribbean country in the procession.
The Caribbean delegates have returned to the Caribbean and given no account of why they opposed – albeit unsuccessfully – a resolution for transparency and accountability in paying the subscriptions of governments, and why they voted against their Latin American neighbours that wanted a South Atlantic whale sanctuary.
In the past, the Caribbean representatives to the IWC meetings have slavishly followed the Japanese line that whales devour fish stocks once they get to Caribbean waters, depriving Caribbean people of food. This claim has long been debunked as a falsehood, even though, as recently as last month, ministers from Antigua and St Lucia were repeating it parrot-fashion after a Japanese-organised meeting in St Lucia to prepare the participating Caribbean countries for last week’s IWC meeting in Jersey.
It is noteworthy that the government of Dominica, which was once part of the Japanese-kimono group, has held fast to a decision of its prime minister, Roosevelt Skerrit, to divorce his country from voting with Japan. Dominica sent no delegation to the IWC, maintaining its position that as the “nature isle of the Caribbean” it has a responsibility to its own reputation to sustain the marine life of its environment. The Skerrit government has won the respect and support of environmental and conservation organizations world-wide, whereas the other IWC-Caribbean countries are earning the odium of environmentalist organizations and the distrust of major governments, including those in Latin America.
The problem is that the world views the Caribbean as one area, and the actions of these four Caribbean countries, with a yen for Japan’s “kill-whale” position, are sullying the standing of other Caribbean countries that conduct their international business in their own interests.
We urge the governments of the majority of Caribbean nations to call the governments of these four countries to book on this issue in the interest of the region’s standing.
July 20, 2011
caribbeannewsnow editorial
caribbeannewsnow editorial
It was a shameful sight -- three Caribbean countries walking in obedience behind Japan, discarding even the appearance of independence.
Joji Morishitain, the Japanese representative to a meeting last week in Jersey of the International Whaling Commission (IWC), announced he was walking out of the meeting, and the delegates of the three Caribbean countries – St Kitts-Nevis, Grenada and St Lucia – dutifully joined him.
What was the walk out about? Latin American nations, led by Brazil and Argentina, had proposed the creation of a sanctuary for whales in the South Atlantic. Currently there are two such whale havens, one in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica and the other in the Indian Ocean. When it was obvious that a majority of countries supported the Latin American proposal, the Japanese staged the walk out so as undermine a consensus decision.
There was no legitimate reason for the Caribbean countries to join Japan. Not one of them is a whale-hunting nation. Nor do any of them derive any economic or dietary benefit from whale-killing. Further, by joining Japan, the Caribbean countries ruptured their relations with their Latin American neighbours, with whom they are associated in the Latin American and Caribbean Group in the United Nations system.
In the creation of the South Atlantic sanctuary, the Latin American countries would have viewed Caribbean countries as their natural allies, particularly as they place considerable importance in its establishment. Undoubtedly, there will be a price to pay for this sabotage by Caribbean countries of Latin American interests, however stonily silent the Latin Americans have been so far.
Brazil and Argentina – two of the biggest nations in Latin America and the Caribbean – may have forgiven the Caribbean countries for not supporting them if there was a direct Caribbean interest in rejecting the whale sanctuary proposal. But, there is no direct Caribbean interest in saying “no” to the sanctuary. Many Caribbean countries, including the Bahamas, the Dominican Republic, St Vincent and the Grenadines, St Lucia, Dominica, Guadeloupe and Martinique operate healthy whale-watching businesses that have helped to diversify their tourism product, earn millions of dollars in foreign exchange and provide employment. A whale sanctuary is in their interest.
The blind walk-out by the three Caribbean countries, holding on to a Japanese kimono, reconfirmed an expose by the British Sunday Times newspaper last year that revealed Japan paying the accommodation and “expenses” of several delegates of Caribbean countries to the 2010 IWC meeting in Morocco.
Last week, a feisty Antiguan government minister employed evangelical zeal in opposing a resolution from European Union countries to stop some delegations (those that vote with Japan) from paying cash for their countries’ subscription to the IWC. The resolution was adopted despite the machinations of the Antigua minister, who played a supporting role to the representative of St Kitts-Nevis.
From now on, the IWC will only accept bank transfers directly from government accounts. This may well have the effect of stopping a few of these countries from attending the IWC meetings, unless Japan pays the money to the governments directly, proving what has been alleged all along.
Had the Antigua minister been present at the IWC meeting on the day the Japanese-led walk out was staged, undoubtedly there would have been a fourth Caribbean country in the procession.
The Caribbean delegates have returned to the Caribbean and given no account of why they opposed – albeit unsuccessfully – a resolution for transparency and accountability in paying the subscriptions of governments, and why they voted against their Latin American neighbours that wanted a South Atlantic whale sanctuary.
In the past, the Caribbean representatives to the IWC meetings have slavishly followed the Japanese line that whales devour fish stocks once they get to Caribbean waters, depriving Caribbean people of food. This claim has long been debunked as a falsehood, even though, as recently as last month, ministers from Antigua and St Lucia were repeating it parrot-fashion after a Japanese-organised meeting in St Lucia to prepare the participating Caribbean countries for last week’s IWC meeting in Jersey.
It is noteworthy that the government of Dominica, which was once part of the Japanese-kimono group, has held fast to a decision of its prime minister, Roosevelt Skerrit, to divorce his country from voting with Japan. Dominica sent no delegation to the IWC, maintaining its position that as the “nature isle of the Caribbean” it has a responsibility to its own reputation to sustain the marine life of its environment. The Skerrit government has won the respect and support of environmental and conservation organizations world-wide, whereas the other IWC-Caribbean countries are earning the odium of environmentalist organizations and the distrust of major governments, including those in Latin America.
The problem is that the world views the Caribbean as one area, and the actions of these four Caribbean countries, with a yen for Japan’s “kill-whale” position, are sullying the standing of other Caribbean countries that conduct their international business in their own interests.
We urge the governments of the majority of Caribbean nations to call the governments of these four countries to book on this issue in the interest of the region’s standing.
July 20, 2011
caribbeannewsnow editorial
Friday, April 30, 2010
Save the Caribbean's standing: Sink the yen for whales
By Sir Ronald Sanders:
“…. He that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed”: Shakespeare, Othello
Several Caribbean countries could be stigmatized globally if they support a proposition to topple the global ban on commercial whaling and legitimize the heinous slaughter of these intelligent mammals.
This proposition is being advanced by the Chair and Vice Chair of the 88-nation International Whaling Commission (IWC), a body whose governing Convention provides for the proper conservation of whale stocks and the complete protection of certain species as well as designating specified areas as whale sanctuaries.
Most of what constitutes the proposition was developed by 12 governments in a small working group, and it is being touted by the Chair and Vice Chair as a basis for additional negotiations between now and an IWC meeting to be held in Morocco in June.
No member government of the IWC has endorsed the proposition to date but some governments have forcefully stated their objection to it – among them: Mexico, Australia, New Zealand and Britain. It is expected that India, South Africa and Brazil will also oppose the proposition.
Caribbean countries that are members of the IWC – the six independent members of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) and Suriname – could be very instrumental in either quashing it or validating it.
If the proposition is endorsed, it would: overturn the global ban on commercial whaling and allow hunting in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary around Antarctica; approve the killing of whales for commercial purposes by Japan around Antarctica and in the North Pacific; and allow continuing whaling by Iceland and Norway in violation of long-agreed scientific procedures and the global whaling ban.
The Caribbean nations have absolutely nothing politically, or in orthodox material terms, to gain by helping to support the proposition; they have much more to lose.
Apart from Bequia, one of the tiny islands of St Vincent and the Grenadines (about which, more later), Caribbean people do not eat whale meat, but many of the islands have a vibrant whale-watching industry from which they derive revenue and jobs. More importantly, the Caribbean sells itself to the global tourism market as environmentally friendly and protective of natural wildlife – an assault on this latter reputation by tourism groups, who are increasingly demanding higher environmental standards, could damage the region’s already fragile tourism industry.
It has to be recalled that it is only inside the Caribbean that a differentiation is made between the countries that reside in it; to the North American and European tourists, the Caribbean is one place. The perception of the area overall can affect countries individually.
It is claimed that Japan pays the IWC membership fees for several of the Caribbean countries, and also finances the participation of their delegations who have become the most vocal supporters of Japan’s drive for commercial whaling.
In April 2002, the then Accountant General of Grenada wrote in a letter (later made public):”contributions from the government of Japan to the government of Grenada were not received for the International Whaling Commission and as such was not reflected in the said accounts for the years 1998 and 1999. However, our internal audit revealed that contributions were received for all other years prior to and following 1998 and 1999. Moreover the Japanese have confirmed that it made contributions to the government of Grenada for the specified periods.”
Japan has taken advantage of the economic vulnerability of these small and needy countries to capture their votes. In return for support at the IWC, Japan has provided fish refrigeration facilities in all the independent OECS countries which, while opened with great fanfare and flourish as a boon to local fishermen, are now mostly disused or used for other purposes. In some countries, they have become known as the local “ice house”.
But, when the economics of the relationship with Japan is analyzed, these Caribbean countries come out worse. Japan has a massive annual balance of trade surplus with each of them – they are ready markets for Japan’s motor-vehicles, television sets, radios, computers, printers, cameras, agricultural equipment and a host of other goods. In turn, Japan’s purchases from these countries, where such purchases exist, are negligible.
To say that the latest proposition from the IWC Chairs to overturn the ban on commercial whaling has caused outrage around the world would be to put the matter mildly.
Governments, non-governmental organizations, environmental groups and ordinary people have written letters, signed petitions, organized demonstrations, created blogs on the Internet and generally agitated against what they rightly regard as an activity that is not only unnecessary, but is cruel and barbaric.
The human population of the world does not depend on whale meat to live; in fact, including a small number of aboriginal peoples – and an elite group in Japan – whale meat is eaten by only a tiny fraction of the global population.
The three remaining countries in the world that flout the spirit of the IWC rules and decisions in respect of commercial whaling are Iceland, Japan and Norway.
In the Caribbean, apart from Bequia, any ancient hunting of whales has long since been abandoned, and there is certainly no tradition of eating whale meat in the region. The primitive process of hunting whales off Bequia is cruel verging on the barbaric and does nothing to promote the island’s reputation as a premier residential tourism destination. It has to be assumed that this activity will soon be regulated by the Minister who has power to do so under the law.
The Caribbean governments involved in this matter should join progressive governments around the world by formally declaring their opposition to the proposition long before the IWC meeting in June, and, if they do attend, by vigorously opposing it then.
Better still, given the difficult financial circumstances confronting each of them, Caribbean countries can validly stay away from this meeting which would be costly to attend in distant Morocco, and which has no benefit for them. In that way, they could save their own standing with the vast majority of public opinion while sinking the yen for whales.
Othello’s exclamation above began:
“Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls”.
In this matter of the slaughter of the world’s whales, the people of the OECS countries and Suriname would not want the jewel of their souls tarnished with ‘thirty pieces’ of yen. But it could happen to their detriment unless Governments remove their countries from the fray.
April 30, 2010
caribbeannetnews
“…. He that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed”: Shakespeare, Othello
Several Caribbean countries could be stigmatized globally if they support a proposition to topple the global ban on commercial whaling and legitimize the heinous slaughter of these intelligent mammals.
This proposition is being advanced by the Chair and Vice Chair of the 88-nation International Whaling Commission (IWC), a body whose governing Convention provides for the proper conservation of whale stocks and the complete protection of certain species as well as designating specified areas as whale sanctuaries. Most of what constitutes the proposition was developed by 12 governments in a small working group, and it is being touted by the Chair and Vice Chair as a basis for additional negotiations between now and an IWC meeting to be held in Morocco in June.
No member government of the IWC has endorsed the proposition to date but some governments have forcefully stated their objection to it – among them: Mexico, Australia, New Zealand and Britain. It is expected that India, South Africa and Brazil will also oppose the proposition.
Caribbean countries that are members of the IWC – the six independent members of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) and Suriname – could be very instrumental in either quashing it or validating it.
If the proposition is endorsed, it would: overturn the global ban on commercial whaling and allow hunting in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary around Antarctica; approve the killing of whales for commercial purposes by Japan around Antarctica and in the North Pacific; and allow continuing whaling by Iceland and Norway in violation of long-agreed scientific procedures and the global whaling ban.
The Caribbean nations have absolutely nothing politically, or in orthodox material terms, to gain by helping to support the proposition; they have much more to lose.
Apart from Bequia, one of the tiny islands of St Vincent and the Grenadines (about which, more later), Caribbean people do not eat whale meat, but many of the islands have a vibrant whale-watching industry from which they derive revenue and jobs. More importantly, the Caribbean sells itself to the global tourism market as environmentally friendly and protective of natural wildlife – an assault on this latter reputation by tourism groups, who are increasingly demanding higher environmental standards, could damage the region’s already fragile tourism industry.
It has to be recalled that it is only inside the Caribbean that a differentiation is made between the countries that reside in it; to the North American and European tourists, the Caribbean is one place. The perception of the area overall can affect countries individually.
It is claimed that Japan pays the IWC membership fees for several of the Caribbean countries, and also finances the participation of their delegations who have become the most vocal supporters of Japan’s drive for commercial whaling.
In April 2002, the then Accountant General of Grenada wrote in a letter (later made public):”contributions from the government of Japan to the government of Grenada were not received for the International Whaling Commission and as such was not reflected in the said accounts for the years 1998 and 1999. However, our internal audit revealed that contributions were received for all other years prior to and following 1998 and 1999. Moreover the Japanese have confirmed that it made contributions to the government of Grenada for the specified periods.”
Japan has taken advantage of the economic vulnerability of these small and needy countries to capture their votes. In return for support at the IWC, Japan has provided fish refrigeration facilities in all the independent OECS countries which, while opened with great fanfare and flourish as a boon to local fishermen, are now mostly disused or used for other purposes. In some countries, they have become known as the local “ice house”.
But, when the economics of the relationship with Japan is analyzed, these Caribbean countries come out worse. Japan has a massive annual balance of trade surplus with each of them – they are ready markets for Japan’s motor-vehicles, television sets, radios, computers, printers, cameras, agricultural equipment and a host of other goods. In turn, Japan’s purchases from these countries, where such purchases exist, are negligible.
To say that the latest proposition from the IWC Chairs to overturn the ban on commercial whaling has caused outrage around the world would be to put the matter mildly.
Governments, non-governmental organizations, environmental groups and ordinary people have written letters, signed petitions, organized demonstrations, created blogs on the Internet and generally agitated against what they rightly regard as an activity that is not only unnecessary, but is cruel and barbaric.
The human population of the world does not depend on whale meat to live; in fact, including a small number of aboriginal peoples – and an elite group in Japan – whale meat is eaten by only a tiny fraction of the global population.
The three remaining countries in the world that flout the spirit of the IWC rules and decisions in respect of commercial whaling are Iceland, Japan and Norway.
In the Caribbean, apart from Bequia, any ancient hunting of whales has long since been abandoned, and there is certainly no tradition of eating whale meat in the region. The primitive process of hunting whales off Bequia is cruel verging on the barbaric and does nothing to promote the island’s reputation as a premier residential tourism destination. It has to be assumed that this activity will soon be regulated by the Minister who has power to do so under the law.
The Caribbean governments involved in this matter should join progressive governments around the world by formally declaring their opposition to the proposition long before the IWC meeting in June, and, if they do attend, by vigorously opposing it then.
Better still, given the difficult financial circumstances confronting each of them, Caribbean countries can validly stay away from this meeting which would be costly to attend in distant Morocco, and which has no benefit for them. In that way, they could save their own standing with the vast majority of public opinion while sinking the yen for whales.
Othello’s exclamation above began:
“Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls”.
In this matter of the slaughter of the world’s whales, the people of the OECS countries and Suriname would not want the jewel of their souls tarnished with ‘thirty pieces’ of yen. But it could happen to their detriment unless Governments remove their countries from the fray.
April 30, 2010
caribbeannetnews
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)