Talk:IWC passes pro-whaling resolution after close vote

Original Research

Emails to Greenpeace

Me:

"I'm working at BBC News Online on a piece about the pro-whaling vote passed yesterday at the IWC.

Does Greenpeace have a reaction to this news yet?

Specifically, I'd like to know how dangerous you consider the vote yesterday? Do you see it as likely that the moratorium will eventually be overturned. What are the anti-whaling nations likely to do in response?

I'd also like any views you have on the validity of 'scientific whaling' and the Japanese tactic of recruiting smaller countries to the IWC."

Reply:

"Greenpeace is disgusted that any member of the IWC would seek to promote whaling based upon the false notion that whales consume so much fish that they are a threat to food security for coastal nations, that a resolution has passed by a simple majority makes a mockery of the Commission in giving a dangerous lie a thin veneer of respectability,R21; said mike townsley of Greenpeace International.

The StKitts Declaration.

Japan and the whaling lobby have finally gained a simple majority vote at the IWC. 33 countries voted in favour of a resolution declaring that the “IWC has failed to meet its obligations under the terms of the ICRW” and declaring its commitment to “normalizing the functions of the IWC based upon the terms of the ICRW …”

In reality this declaration will change little or nothing as previous votes have already been taken and rejected attempts by the whalers to end any consideration by the IWC of protection for small cetaceans, a call to bring in secret ballots, a call for allowing Japan an exception to the commercial moratorium to hunt Minke and Brydes whales in its territorial waters and finally a resolution calling for an end to the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.

The legitimacy of the vote remains in serious question. A number of counties have tabled serious reservations and disassociated them selves from the resolution.

This is not so much a declaration but a whalersR17; wish list, peddling predictable and well rehearsed rhetoric, about cultural heritage, food security and poverty

During the last whaling season which ended in March, the five Japanese companies which own the Kyodo Senpaku whaling fleet divested their share to the Government's Institute for Cetacean Research. There is no commercial market for whale meat in Japan. The notion that whaling is vital to cultural heritage, food security and poverty is absurd.

For millions of years fish and whales have coexisted quite happily. In recent years vast armadas of factory fishing fleets have collapsed global fish stocks. Drift nets, bottom trawling and long lines scour and devour everything in their paths.

Blaming whales for collapsing fisheries is like blaming woodpeckers for deforestation."

All quotes attributed to Mike Townsley, Greenpeace International, in StKitts, +31 621 296 918

My followup e-mail:

Thanks for that. Could you also comment specifically on this paragraph of the resolution:

"REJECTING as unacceptable that a number of international NGOs with self-interest campaigns should use threats in an attempt to direct government policy on matters of sovereign rights related to the use of resources for food security and national development;"

Do you see this as a direct attack on Greenpeace and what is your response to the claim that NGOs have used 'threats'?

Response from Greenpeace:

Greenpeace is dedicated to the principles of peaceful protests and the only

threats we have witnessed are the threats to the world's whales. Grenade tipped harpoons repeatedly slamming into one whale after another resulting in an agonising and bloody death. We have delayed, disrupted and documented the so-called scientific hunt in the Southern Ocean this year we will again

return to the Southern ocean to defend the whales.

This is yet another attack on democracy within the IWC and is in keeping with the earlier call for secret ballots, which was rejected, it is public opinion that they are scared of and the fact that under the harsh glare of scrutiny their arguments do not stand up.