Post by LSDeep on Jun 7, 2006 9:08:55 GMT -5
by Tony Juniper
June 16th will be known to some as the start of the coarse fishing season in England and Wales. It doesn't have the same ring to it as the "glorious" 12th of August when people take to the moors for the commencement of the British grouse shooting season, but soon June 16th could take on a new and quite ominous importance. June 16th could mark the start of a new open season on the world's whales.
Since 1986 commercial whaling has been banned. This historic decision, taken collectively by governments in the International Whaling Commission (IWC) following increasingly bleak scientific assessments that showed how the great whales, among them the largest animal ever to have lived on Earth, the blue whale, were being systematically exterminated to the point where there continued existence was in doubt. The loophole of "scientific whaling" has enabled a few determined countries (Japan, Norway and Iceland) to maintain some limited capacity to kill some species of these animals, but now the restricted ability to go whaling could be considerably expanded.
The reason increased whaling is now a possibility is because of a long-running campaign by the government of Japan to reverse restrictions that for two decades have allowed the populations of some whales to begin a slow recovery following centuries of unsustainable exploitation. What Japan has done is to use its considerable diplomatic influence and overseas aid programme to persuade a number of (mostly) small developing countries to support its pro-whaling ambitions in IWC negotiations.
At the IWC meeting in 2005 in South Korea many campaigners feared that Japan had already succeeded in recruiting a majority of countries to support its proposals to allow more whaling. At that meeting Japan was narrowly foiled (by one vote). On June 16th 2006, however, with the admission of Cambodia and the Marshall Islands (not notable whaling nations) to the IWC it looks likely that the tide will be turned against the the whales. Both countries have been encouraged by Japan to join the IWC and are expected to vote in favour of its positions. Later this month, a majority of the 69 countries who are members of the IWC could be backing an expansion of whaling.
I have attended many international environmental negotiations over the years and while the "sustainable use" of this and the "conservation" of the other make for comforting reading to those outside the process, it is very clear from the inside that talks are most guided by the brutal politics of national self interest and the economic vested concerns of various industrial lobbies. Whaling is no exception.
For countries that say they are opposed to whaling restrictions being lifted there are some really important issues raised by Japan's impending success in gaining majority voice for its pro-whaling plans at the IWC. These relate in particular to the use of foreign policy and overseas development programmes as tools for more sustainable international agreements. There is no doubt that Japan has used money to get poor small countries to see its way of thinking. Are we willing to do that? And if we are prepared to go down that route, would it be right?
I am one of those who has campaigned (in some cases successfully) to de-link aid budgets from national political priorities. New Labour's abandonment of the so-called Aid-Trade Provision that used to help British exporters to use development aid as subsidy for their products and services being bought by developing countries was a case in point that was welcomed by Friends of the Earth. The removal of some conditions does not mean, however, that "ethical" foreign policy is incompatible with all conditions.
The global environmental situation is so serious that in the face of Japan's example we have no other choice but to implement an explicit pro-environment foreign policy and aid programme. While Japan has been working for years to recruit new supporters to its cause in the IWC, the UK, USA, Australia and others who are opposed to resuming commercial whaling appear to have had no comparable strategic approach. And now they are on the back foot and in real danger of suffering an historic defeat on perhaps the most iconic conservation challenge ever - saving the whales.
Climate change, the mass extinction of species and resource depletion undoubtedly pose the most serious and pressing challenges of our time. The UK uses diplomatic and aid leverage to advance human rights, fight corruption, promote democracy and support anti-terror objectives, and I think most people would agree with that. It is rarely, if ever, however, that conditions are attached to how we develop our international relations on the basis of the position of countries in international environmental negotiations. Perhaps it is time we changed tack.
I welcomed Margaret Beckett's move to foreign secretary (from being the secretary of state for the environment, food and rural affairs). It seemed like a good idea to have an effective environmental campaigner in charge of the Foreign Office, especially at a time when the UK is such an important global player on climate change. But what will she do in that role to make the UK a more effective voice on the enviornment internationally?
In light of the apparent impending success of Japan's long-running pro-whaling campaign, it is perhaps time for reflection here in the UK. If one of our national priorities really does concern the future of the global environment, as the prime minister says it does, then maybe we should really begin to see signs of a more strategic and joined up programme for international relations. The present UK government has (correctly) concluded that our national self interest is directly bound into how countries collectively react to challenges like climate change. If we are realistic about how international politics works, perhaps we should take a leaf from the Japanese book of whaling.
commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/tony_juniper/2006/06/must_we_buy_countries_support.html
June 16th will be known to some as the start of the coarse fishing season in England and Wales. It doesn't have the same ring to it as the "glorious" 12th of August when people take to the moors for the commencement of the British grouse shooting season, but soon June 16th could take on a new and quite ominous importance. June 16th could mark the start of a new open season on the world's whales.
Since 1986 commercial whaling has been banned. This historic decision, taken collectively by governments in the International Whaling Commission (IWC) following increasingly bleak scientific assessments that showed how the great whales, among them the largest animal ever to have lived on Earth, the blue whale, were being systematically exterminated to the point where there continued existence was in doubt. The loophole of "scientific whaling" has enabled a few determined countries (Japan, Norway and Iceland) to maintain some limited capacity to kill some species of these animals, but now the restricted ability to go whaling could be considerably expanded.
The reason increased whaling is now a possibility is because of a long-running campaign by the government of Japan to reverse restrictions that for two decades have allowed the populations of some whales to begin a slow recovery following centuries of unsustainable exploitation. What Japan has done is to use its considerable diplomatic influence and overseas aid programme to persuade a number of (mostly) small developing countries to support its pro-whaling ambitions in IWC negotiations.
At the IWC meeting in 2005 in South Korea many campaigners feared that Japan had already succeeded in recruiting a majority of countries to support its proposals to allow more whaling. At that meeting Japan was narrowly foiled (by one vote). On June 16th 2006, however, with the admission of Cambodia and the Marshall Islands (not notable whaling nations) to the IWC it looks likely that the tide will be turned against the the whales. Both countries have been encouraged by Japan to join the IWC and are expected to vote in favour of its positions. Later this month, a majority of the 69 countries who are members of the IWC could be backing an expansion of whaling.
I have attended many international environmental negotiations over the years and while the "sustainable use" of this and the "conservation" of the other make for comforting reading to those outside the process, it is very clear from the inside that talks are most guided by the brutal politics of national self interest and the economic vested concerns of various industrial lobbies. Whaling is no exception.
For countries that say they are opposed to whaling restrictions being lifted there are some really important issues raised by Japan's impending success in gaining majority voice for its pro-whaling plans at the IWC. These relate in particular to the use of foreign policy and overseas development programmes as tools for more sustainable international agreements. There is no doubt that Japan has used money to get poor small countries to see its way of thinking. Are we willing to do that? And if we are prepared to go down that route, would it be right?
I am one of those who has campaigned (in some cases successfully) to de-link aid budgets from national political priorities. New Labour's abandonment of the so-called Aid-Trade Provision that used to help British exporters to use development aid as subsidy for their products and services being bought by developing countries was a case in point that was welcomed by Friends of the Earth. The removal of some conditions does not mean, however, that "ethical" foreign policy is incompatible with all conditions.
The global environmental situation is so serious that in the face of Japan's example we have no other choice but to implement an explicit pro-environment foreign policy and aid programme. While Japan has been working for years to recruit new supporters to its cause in the IWC, the UK, USA, Australia and others who are opposed to resuming commercial whaling appear to have had no comparable strategic approach. And now they are on the back foot and in real danger of suffering an historic defeat on perhaps the most iconic conservation challenge ever - saving the whales.
Climate change, the mass extinction of species and resource depletion undoubtedly pose the most serious and pressing challenges of our time. The UK uses diplomatic and aid leverage to advance human rights, fight corruption, promote democracy and support anti-terror objectives, and I think most people would agree with that. It is rarely, if ever, however, that conditions are attached to how we develop our international relations on the basis of the position of countries in international environmental negotiations. Perhaps it is time we changed tack.
I welcomed Margaret Beckett's move to foreign secretary (from being the secretary of state for the environment, food and rural affairs). It seemed like a good idea to have an effective environmental campaigner in charge of the Foreign Office, especially at a time when the UK is such an important global player on climate change. But what will she do in that role to make the UK a more effective voice on the enviornment internationally?
In light of the apparent impending success of Japan's long-running pro-whaling campaign, it is perhaps time for reflection here in the UK. If one of our national priorities really does concern the future of the global environment, as the prime minister says it does, then maybe we should really begin to see signs of a more strategic and joined up programme for international relations. The present UK government has (correctly) concluded that our national self interest is directly bound into how countries collectively react to challenges like climate change. If we are realistic about how international politics works, perhaps we should take a leaf from the Japanese book of whaling.
commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/tony_juniper/2006/06/must_we_buy_countries_support.html