The WTO/Free Trade, Iceland and Whales

The WTO/Free Trade, Iceland and Whales

By Taffy Lee Williams

Alarms sounded recently when the WTO ruled against the US Dolphin Safe Tuna labeling process, saying it violated international free trade policy. Likewise, cetacean advocates were soundly defeated when Obama failed to impose economic sanctions against Iceland in accordance with the Pelly Amendment for its continued commercial whaling.

Established to promote free trade, the WTO creates the rules that govern international trade. Essentially, its mission is to lower trade barriers. Regular and fervent protests against the WTO call attention to policies which appear to serve big business and multi-national corporations ahead of consumer interests: member nations must modify environmental, public health and safety rules if these are found to impede trade. In the same week as the Dolphin Safe-Tuna label ruling, the WTO ruled that country of origin labeling on beef also violated WTO trade law.  This was followed by a direct blow to health and consumer protection when the WTO used its Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement to find that US measures to reduce teenage smoking also violated Free Trade policy. 

“Nothing new,” so says Public Citizen, who reports that the WTO rules against environmental, health and other national policies 90% of the time. 

“This severe blow to consumer protection comes on the heels of two other WTO rulings against America's dolphin-safe tuna and beef country-of-origin labels, and are likely to put a significant damper on the Obama administration's efforts to pass trade deals with South Korea, Colombia and Panama that contain similar anti-consumer rules.” (Public CItizen.  http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2011/09/wto-opens-door-to-teen-tobacco-addiction.html)

Oddly, even as the WTO found that the reasons for the dolphin-tuna labeling reflected legitimate, dolphin- saving fishing methods, the panel still voted against it. What does this mean for wildlife protection in general? Friends of the Earth analysis finds the prospects troubling:

If this [dolphin-safe tuna labeling] decision is allowed to stand, the U.S. will be forced to roll back its labeling system or face retaliatory sanctions such as higher tariffs that worsen unemployment. The U.S. may choose to appeal the decision, but why did the United States agree in the first place to an international trade pact that allows corporate-dominated tribunals to decide U.S. environmental policy? (http://www.foe.org/wto-rules-‘dolphin-safe-tuna’-labels-are-illegal)

Now the question becomes, will the US implement the WTO decision, or will it appear “politically correct” and appeal as expected, full-well knowing the WTO anti-environment record. As a party to the WTO, if the US doesn’t implement the Dolphin-Safe Tuna labeling decision, will it face economic trade sanctions? Hefty fines? Actually, laws do not have to be changed but penalties can be assessed as long as a nation is in non-compliance.

The WTO agreement requires participating nations to conform their laws to comply with WTO rulings. This language clearly defines the ruling of the WTO to be superior to laws passed by Congress. How can this situation not be a loss of national sovereignty? ...Fines imposed by the WTO are not the slap-on-the-wrist variety. The U.S. said no to British Petroleum's wish to ship gasoline with the additive MTBE into the United States. The WTO said this is a violation of their rules and slapped the U.S. with a $360 million fine, according to Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI). "When the WTO kicks in, sovereignty is kicked out," Stupak says. (http://www.sweetliberty.org/sovereigntywto.htm)

Does the US have a choice beyond tossing its Dolphin Safe Tuna labeling system? How will Congress react to these latest anti-consumer, anti-environment WTO rulings? Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) believes our participation in the WTO results in an “erosion of national sovereignty” and has proposed that the US withdraw from the WTO. (ibid.) The International Forum on Globalizations (IFG) sheds light on the WTO’s appeal process:

Eighty years of World Trade Organization (WTO) decisions have demonstrated that the WTO views environmental, public health and human rights protections as obstacles to trade that should be eliminated. The WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body has the strongest enforcement procedures of any international agreement now in force. WTO panel rulings are automatically binding. Once a WTO tribunal has declared a country’s law WTO-illegal, the country must change the law or face trade sanctions. Dispute panels operate in secret, documents are restricted to the countries in the dispute, due process and citizen participation are absent and no outside appeal is available. The tribunals are composed of three to five trade experts chosen by the WTO secretariat without meaningful protections against conflicts of interest. Given that the WTO uses unelected and unaccountable trade experts to decide in secret if domestic laws are acceptable under WTO trade rules, the resulting tidal wave of rulings against public interest laws is not particularly surprising. http://www.ifg.org/pdf/cancun/issues-WTOvsEnv.pdf

The Colombia, Panama and Korean Free Trade Agreements each contain tariff schedules in which live cetaceans, their meat products and even whalebone are classified for trade. With respect to whales, trade measures (or restrictions) by MEAs (Multilateral Environmental Agreements) such as CITES and the IWC could be found in violation of WTO policy. However, parties involved in MEA/WTO disputes are urged to resolve problems within the MEA itself; i.e., whaling issues would be resolved at CITES or the IWC.

WTO law does not adequately address the role of other relevant rules of international law in adjudicating dispute on trade and environment. In addition the WTO dispute settlement mechanism is not structured appropriately to address environmental disputes. (http://ecologic.eu/download/projekte/1800-1849/1800/4_1800_cate_wto_dispute_settlement.pdf)

It remains to be seen how the WTO with its broad power over member nations will respond to the Dolphin Tuna Labeling appeal, if there is one, or what the US faces if not compliant. One could easily suppose the WTO will uphold its ruling. The WTO’s Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE) has been examining the relationship between MEAs and the WTO since 1995, yet has failed to reach any real conclusion. (http://www.worldtradelaw.net/articles/graymeawto.pdf) Needless to say, the complexity of the issue does not readily encourage analysis, a problem which deters public scrutiny.

The Federal Fisheries Protective Act, aka, the Pelly Amendment, authorizes economic sanctions (i.e., import embargoes) against any country whose fishing practices reduce the effectiveness of international marine or endangered (or threatened) species conservation programs. Both Norway and Iceland have openly defied the IWC’s moratorium on commercial whaling. (Japan uses the “scientific research” loophole under the IWC regulations.) In March, 2011, a coalition of anti-whaling nations issued a public statement opposing Iceland’s whale harvest of over 200 whales last season. Their catch included 148 endangered fin whales in 2010 and 125 in 2009.  A 2006 Gallup poll found that only 1.1% of Icelanders consume whale meat more than once a week, while 82% of 16-24-year-olds never eat whale meat. (http://www.idw.org/html/conservation.html) Without a national market for cetacean meat, Iceland has pursued Japan to sell its product. Yet, we remember that in January, 2011, Japan’s stockpile of frozen, unsold whale meat hit record levels of over 6000 tons! The Japanese market has dried up for Icelandic whale meat, yet Iceland increased its catch-quota for whales! Meanwhile, fin whale populations have dropped over 70% since 1927, according to the World Conservation Union Red Book. 

In 2009, Iceland dramatically increased its fin whale quota to 150 animals a year – more than three times the catch limit that would be recommended by the IWC’s approved quota calculation method if the commercial whaling moratorium was not in place.  In December 2010, as Iceland’s self-allocated whaling quotas and exports reached record levels, 19 U.S. NGOs, representing tens of millions of U.S. citizens, filed a “Pelly petition” urging the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior to certify Iceland pursuant to the Pelly Amendment and encouraging the President to impose trade sanctions against Iceland and specifically against fisheries-related businesses linked to its whaling industry. (http://www.nrdc.org/media/2011/110720a.asp)

While Iceland was certified under Pelly, and Obama agreed that Iceland’s hunts were thwarting whale conservation efforts, in the end he refused to impose sanctions. Sound familiar? Like the WTO panel which agreed that dolphin-safe tuna standards were protecting dolphins and reducing bycatch death, but ruled against the labels anyway, the Obama decision not to impose sanctions against Iceland is another disappointing blow to environmentalists who grieve the ongoing losses in the struggle to maintain whale populations. 

"Iceland's actions threaten the conservation status of an endangered species and undermine multilateral efforts to ensure greater worldwide protection for whales," said Obama in a message to Congress. "Iceland's increased commercial whaling and recent trade in whale products diminish the effectiveness of the (International Whaling Commission) conservation program."...But Obama said in the message that "I am not directing the Secretary of the Treasury to impose trade measures on Icelandic products for the whaling activities that led to the certification by the Secretary of Commerce." Instead, Obama directed US government officials to consider the appropriateness of traveling to Iceland, to raise the whaling issue with officials when they are there and to keep the situation under review. (http://news.yahoo.com/obama-waives-sanctions-iceland-whaling-210322293.html)

Is it likely Obama’s remedy will be enough to stop Icelandic whaling? Or is his sorry lack of action again exposing a not-so-new precedent? After all, the US has threatened sanctions under Pelly several times for whaling activities on both Norway and Japan, but as the whalers know, sanctions have never been imposed.  Could it be the risk of retaliations inhibit US imposition of sanctions?  For example, a sanctioned nation could impose tariffs on US products, or even halt US imports, possibly leading to job loss. Iceland has been incensed over the threatened sanctions, stating that their fin whale harvest is “no less sustainable than the US bowhead whaling”, which is approved by 3/4 of IWC members. (http://www.qffintl.com/news/readnews_test.cfm?article=2721) Yet what is the value of Pelly if it will never be implemented? Whales need more than agreements that look good on paper.

CETACEAN SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL CSI PSA

THOUSANDS OF BALLOONS RELEASED! NY4whales Letter To West Virginia HOSPICE CARE: HAZARDS OF BALLOON RELEASES

June 17, 2011

HOSPICE CARE
Rt 92 South / PO Box 760
Arthurdale, WV 26520
PH: 304-864-0884  or 1-800-350-1161
FAX:   304-864-6306

Dear Hospice Care,

We are writing after learning that Hospice Care  sponsored the 2011 Camp Nabe event which included a mass release of helium-filled balloons.

This release involved bunches of Mylar and latex balloons tethered together with ribbons and strings as well as single ribbon-tied balloons. Although the balloon industry tells the public their latex balloons are “environmentally friendly” and “100% biodegradable,” they concede this dissolution occurs at the same rate as an oak leaf, or 6 months. However, biodegradability of latex (and oak leaves) can actually take several years, especially when in water. In fact, Mylar, as well as the ribbons and strings fastened to those cute balloon bouquets are not at all biodegradable. Fallen balloons easily resemble jellyfish, plankton or kelp to hungry animals and they are actively pursued and ingested. While ribbons and strings entangle the feet, necks and bodies of wildlife, the indigestible materials block intestines and stomach processes, and the animal either chokes or starves to a painful death with the balloon (in whole or in fragments) inside. Baleen whales take in many thousands of gallons of water during feeding, yet they cannot pick the balloons or fragments out of their mouths. On the New Jersey coast, a rare pygmy sperm whale was found dead with a Mylar balloon lodged in its intestines. One sea turtle was found with 4 kinds of balloons in its body, while the dead bird below (center) was horribly strangled after entangling itself in a massive wad of fallen balloons.

[Photos: 10,000 pink balloons released during Dubai's annual Breast Cancer Walkathon.
Seabird dead after being strangled by a mass of balloons and their ribbons. (Photo courtesy Ocean Conservancy.)
Bloated and dead bird after swallowing fragments of helium balloons.]

Although releasers rarely acknowledge any adverse effects on the environment, balloons released at an innocuous event like a memorial do end up killing wildlife and even livestock, polluting rivers, streams and the oceans, and persist in the environment for a very long time.

Helium-filled balloons rise because the gas is lighter than air. This rare noble gas took 4.5 billion years of radioactive decay to create, and its increasing scarcity is an emerging problem:

And then there’s the helium inside, which is totally benign – and totally irreplaceable.

At present rates of consumption, the world's supply of helium could be exhausted in three decades. "Once it is released into the atmosphere, it is lost to the earth forever," Nobel physicist Robert C. Richardson explained in a recent lecture. The world may be able to survive without Mylar party favors (which, if Richardson had his way, would cost $100 each), but helium is essential to many less-frivolous products: MRI machines, liquid-fueled rockets, microchips, and fiber-optic cables. Scientists are already complaining that helium shortages are delaying research and driving up cost.

http://dashkaslater.blogspot.com/search/label/balloons

After the fundraising party, race, or memorial event where the balloon release takes place, the burden falls on non-profit organizations who must bear the expense of cleaning up the mess, recovering the wildlife, performing necropsies and burials, or (for the fortunate few) costly rehabilitation.

The balloons released in West Virginia may and will travel hundreds of miles, depending on weather conditions, far from participant releasers, and unfairly become another organization and state’s litter problems. One organization’s balloon release only creates another problem.

As in every state, there are anti-littering laws in West Virginia, but the release of balloons doesn’t have to be an anti-litter enforcement issue. It does not have to involve fines and penalties from both the place of origin and the final destination. If balloons are filled with air, not helium, they will fall back to the earth quickly where they can be easily retrieved and disposed of properly. Sending the balloons up with helium is an exercise in littering, an environmental assault that equates to a death sentence for wildlife.

Ironically, balloons have been banned in many hospitals due to adverse reactions to latex, yet even health industry personnel continue to promote the close handling of balloons at releases, allowing skin-on-latex contact as children write messages on the latex before releasing. The American Latex Allergy Association warns us: 

Latex allergy is problematic in that it gets worse with every exposure, symptoms can include life-threatening swelling of the airway, and there is no cure. Allergy shots have not been approved by the FDA.... The powdered gloves are especially problematic because the latex protein binds to the powder, which can then hang in the air after the gloves were used. The powder containing the latex protein can then be inhaled and cause allergic reactions.

Latex balloons also contain powder to facilitate inflation. The latex protein attached to the balloon powder and hangs in the air after the balloon is inflated or deflated. Many research studies have tested and proven this and most hospitals have banned latex balloons. Many schools are also banning latex balloons because of the choking hazard they present, as well as because increasingly larger numbers of children are testing positive for latex allergy. (It’s estimated that at least 50% of children with spina bifida have latex allergy because of frequent latex exposure from surgical procedures and medical supplies.) http://www.latexallergyresources.org/resourcemanual/section7/samplerestaurantletter.cfm

Lance Ferris, from Australian Seabird Rescue documents these balloon assaults on wildlife, at 

http://www.fourthcrossingwildlife.com/WhatGoesUp-LanceFerris.htm:

The balloon (inset) was removed from inside the Giant Petrel

Below, is the SAME balloon, which was removed from the Giant Petrel in May 2006 -
10 MONTHS LATER.
(Image dated 25 March 2007)

This helium balloon travelled 660km [410 miles]
before it deflated and came to land

Ethically speaking, balloon releases send the wrong message to our children: - that one need not think about the consequences of our actions, that others will clean up the mess we leave behind, and that killing wildlife is well, just OK. Balloon releases have become “all the rage,” accompanying memorial services, sports, fundraising and organizational events of every kind. Balloon industry planners actually boast of the 1.4 million balloons released at one single event! Local law enforcement is now being asked by outraged residents everywhere to closely monitor events for litter law violations. Events in Morgantown, WV, including those by Camp Nabe and Timmy’s Fund, send tens of thousands of balloons into the air each year. While wildlife suffers and the events and parties go on, no one speaks of the releasers cleaning up their mess. No one mentions that distant non-profits have not been compensated for the cost of cleanup, or dealing with decimated wildlife.

Beside the planners of funerals and memorials, one of the greatest offenders of the global balloon litter environmental insult is the medical and especially hospice industry. We implore the Hospice Care Centers in West Virginia, Avalon and beyond, not to sponsor or engage in balloon releases, to discourage the wasteful loss of helium by prohibiting its use for any nonessential activity, to never release a balloon that it will not retrieve and dispose of properly, to insist that the facility, and its management and personnel take responsibility for the unseen effects of its actions and the assaults on wildlife and the environment that are incurred by taking an official position against balloon releases and promoting that position among their colleagues and member facilities.

We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Taffy Williams, Director

THE EASTERN PACIFIC GRAY WHALE: Another Imperiled Cetacean

By Taffy Lee Williams

Thanks to the tireless advocacy of the Palo Alto, CA-based California Gray Whale Coalition (CGWC) and its CEO Sue Arnold, the plight of the Eastern Pacific Gray Whale (EPGW) has received global attention. The CGWC recently filed a petition to relist the gray whale as depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) based on genetic studies conducted by a team of scientists at Stanford University. 

 

Gray Whale Calf, Courtesy Cetacean Society International, (Dorsey)

We used a genetic approach to estimate prewhaling abundance of gray whales and report DNA variability at 10 loci that is typical of a population of ≈ 76,000-118,000 individuals, approximately three to five times more numerous than today's average census size of 22,000.... These levels of genetic variation suggest the eastern population is at most at 28-56% of its historical abundance and should be considered depleted. (Alter, Rynes, and Palumbi. 2007. DNA evidence for historical population size and past ecological impacts of gray whales. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences)

Depleted status may be applied if a species falls below 60% of carrying capacity (for its environment); today’s estimate (18,000) is well within that range, according to the genetic analysis. In October, 2010, the California Gray Whale Coalition amassed the data and filed the petition with NMFS, hoping for the depleted “uplisting”, which would then compel a status review under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. NMFS appeared blatantly disinterested, at first allowing only a 14-day comment period (the protocol is 30 days!) and then failing to make relevant documents and a vital online submission site available to the public.  Despite generating almost 2000 supporting comments, NMFS declined, stating there was no evidence that the EPGW was below its maximum net productivity level, essentially ignoring the researchers’ DNA population findings. 

Many weren’t surprised at NMFS’ negative findings. CSI President Bill Rossiter points out that in recent years NMFS has supported almost all initiatives and policies which CSI and cetacean advocates consider exploitative. NMFS appears to be “driven by economics and politics far more than conservation.” (pers comm) While fighting to protect the gray, CGWC’s CEO Arnold surveyed coastal commercial fishing operations and whale watch groups and found broad contempt for NMFS for its mismanagement and failure to provide any measurable protection for marine resources. Finally, who could forget NMFS’ "winner take all" attitude toward the military with respect to sonar and destructive naval exercises coinciding with gray whale migration routes? In a show of submission and a toss-away of environmental laws, NMFS is adopting the Navy’s environmental impact statements for its own and unquestioningly approving training that will take 11 million marine mammals over 5 year period! 

Politically, the gray whale may simply be “in the way”. Besides impacting training ranges and naval exercises, a depleted listing would likely snuff out the Makah and Russian gray whale quota, numbers used as US “bargaining power” at contentious IWC meetings.  Meanwhile EPGW numbers continue to dwindle: 2009-2010 was the fourth consecutive year with low calf numbers, and emaciated grays are washing up dead. One necropsy found a gray had swallowed over 20 plastic bags, small towels, surgical gloves, duct tape, and other debris. Grays are a favorite target of orcas as well, and with global warming and overfishing robbing them of prey, gray whale plundering must cease, and a recovery plan immediately implemented. 

The 30 million-year old gray whale species evolved into three populations: the Atlantic Gray Whale (likely exterminated by early whaling), the Western Pacific Gray Whale, critically endangered with fewer than 100 individuals remaining, and the at-risk Eastern Pacific Gray Whale, still a darling of west coast whale-watching tours. New information on feeding and life cycles is presenting more urgent cause for heightened protection. Unlike most water-sifting baleen whales, grays are bottom-feeders, digging up sediments and straining sand to feed. Scientists have noted that as grays sift through the seabed, benthic amphipods are released and carried to the surface where they are consumed by sea birds. (Grebmeier & Harrison, Seabird feeding on benthic amphipods... Marine Ecology Progress Series, 1992.) 

Unique among whales, the gray bulldozes the oceans, digging troughs through the sea floor for food. In the process, they resuspend ocean sediments, bringing food to the surface. "A population of 96,000 gray whales would have resuspended 12 times more sediment each year than the biggest river in the Arctic, the Yukon," Alter said, "and would have played a critical role in the ecology of the Bering Sea." Other species may have felt the loss of whales as well. "The feeding plumes of gray whales are foraging grounds for Arctic seabirds," Palumbi said. "96,000 gray whales would have helped feed over a million seabirds a year." (Stanford News Service. http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2007/pr-whales-091207.html)

Iron and micronutrient-rich whale waste feeds phytoplankton blooms which in turn regenerate the marine food web in a whale-dependent cycle. Phytoplankton also absorb vast quantities of CO2 as they bloom; scientists are hopeful that the whales’ life cycle may actually help gain some greenhouse gas relief. Removing whales increases seawater anemia; the more whales that are in the ocean, the healthier the waters and the complex marine ecosystem will be.

The Stanford team disputes claims that the starvation the grays are exhibiting is because their population has exceeded carrying capacity. But if the genetic variability show 96,000 as the once-viable population, it is the Arctic feeding grounds that have been compromised - by overfishing and global climate change.

Previously it was assumed that the thin and starving animals are a consequence of the gray whale population exceeding its historical ecological limits. But if the Pacific normally housed 96,000 gray whales, then starving whales may be suffering reduced food supply from changing climate conditions in their Arctic feeding grounds. This possibility parallels reports last year of major climate shifts in the Arctic ecosystems in which gray whales feed. The study also suggests that lowered numbers of gray whales no longer play their normal role in ocean ecology. (Ibid.)

The fight to protect the gray is not over. NMFS has failed to adequately respond to public comments generated by CGRC’s petition.  Legal options are on table, and the grays have advocates all over the world who are deeply committed to their preservation. Follow all the latest news at www.californiagraywhalecoalition.org, and the NEWSFEED at ny4whales.org.

For more info on the California Gray Whale, and for ways you can help, visit the 

California Gray Whale Coalition.

Sign the Gray Whale Petition to US Congress:

Petition to Congress to review the status and threats to the Eastern Pacific Gray Whale.

Threats to the Eastern Pacific Gray Whale from NOAA MAPS

WIKILEAKS AND WHALES

WIKILEAKS AND WHALES

By Taffy Lee Williams

Early in January 2011 Wikileaks released a series of diplomatic cables dealing with whales and the International Whaling Commission. In November of 2009, Department of Commerce Deputy Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere and IWC Commissioner Monica Medina (also the wife of President Joe Biden’s Chief of Staff) traveled to Tokyo in an attempt to gain cooperation from Japanese officials to “transform” the International Whaling Commission. In many ways the negotiations were fraught with disappointments and even miscalculations and present a disturbing approach by the US team to the “conservation” of whales.  

In May, 2009, well before Medina’s trip to Japan, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) a UN agency, passed new laws prohibiting the use or transport of heavy grade fuel oils through the Antarctic and Southern Oceans.  The new laws, which would prevent the Japanese whalers’ factory ship from operating in these waters, would take effect in August, 2011. (IMO. International Requirements for Ships Operating in Polar Waters, p. 12. 2009).  Without a costly retrofit or new vessel, the whalers will be barred from their favorite hunting grounds and could be out of business. The Wikileaked cables not only show that Medina’s team was unaware of these new laws, but implicate Clinton and Medina as showing shocking support for Japan’s coastal whaling, for lifting the ban on commercial whaling and settling IWC disputes for the sake of “international relations”. In exchange for Medina and Clintons’ support for Japan’s continued whaling, Japan would pledge not to kill humpbacks in the Southern Ocean! Clinton writes:

"In particular, the Governments of Japan and the United States would work towards reaching an understanding

regarding a way forward for the International Whaling Commission that would include a meaningful reduction in Japan's current whaling levels and U.S. support for international approval of sustainable small-type coastal whaling activities off the coast of Japan. In addition, the GOJ would no longer hunt fin or humpback whales in the Southern Ocean...” (http://213.251.145.96/cable/2009/11/09STATE117709.html#by_A)

Unbelievably, the disturbing leverage sought by Clinton and Medina was a pledge from Japan not to continue its “research whaling” in the Southern Ocean!  Equally disheartening, by simply acknowledging the Japanese whaling vessels as “research”, the US State Department legitimizes the bogus “scientific research” loophole exploited commercially by the whalers despite the fact that not one single piece of credible, published “research” has come out of Japan’s Institute for Cetacean Research whaling program in its 25 years of flaunting the IWC ban on commercial whaling! Clinton states, 

"We understand that there is an important related issue regarding safety at sea of the Japanese research vessels that must also be addressed." Ibid.

This reference (“safety at sea”) to the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) otherwise gives credence to the “research vessels”, making the work of this US team rather hard to swallow. Even Japanese scientists scoff at the ICR’s claim they are killing whales in the name of science. It is clear that despite campaign pledges in 2008, Obama was behind these misguided endeavors:

"The new administrations in Japan and the United States have a unique opportunity to chart a different course for the IWC, and resolve our long-standing disagreements through fundamental reform of the IWC. This is a small issue but it is important to the Obama Administration that it be resolved quickly." (Clinton. Ibid.)

Many are still wondering how lifting the ban on commercial whaling, which would allow free-for-all whaling for every nation in the world, would actually help “conserve” whales! The US language of reviving commercial whaling and “managing stocks” puts the US team squarely in the camp of whale-killing nations. 

At a private meeting with State Secretary Tetsuro Fukuyama Ms. Medina requested political commitment from the new leadership in Japan to work with the United States to transform the International Whaling Commission so that it can better accomplish its objectives to conserve whales and manage whale stocks. Ibid.

Hasn’t anyone told Clinton and Medina that 83% of the US population is opposed to killing whales, opposed to removing the whaling ban, opposed to so-called “small” coastal whaling - which would allow the killing of whales in the Western Pacific, which wouldn’t be much different than in the Southern Ocean? Whales don’t look different because they are outside of the Southern Ocean. There’s nothing “small” about Japan’s bid for “small coastal whaling”, except the amount of international support they may garner.  How could the US team hope to benefit from a renewed slaughter of whales, however relocated from the Southern Ocean to the Western Pacific? 

Many NGO’s are outraged that the Obama Administration’s IWC team held secret meetings to negotiate lifting the ban on commercial whaling without allowing critical NGO input. The US barred NGO’s from participation at both the support group meetings in Chile and the 2010 IWC. Knowing the ire these acts would raise, the only explanation is that the US negotiators consider NGO’s and their input as expendable.

Inexcusably in the dark concerning marine laws, we find Clinton pledging, in return for Japan halting whaling in the Southern Ocean:  

“...the United States would uphold domestic and international laws to ensure safety at sea and encourage other governments to do the same.” Ibid.

In a rudely conciliatory gesture, IWC Commissioner Medina went so far as to state that she would attempt to strip Sea Shepherd(SSCS) of its non-profit status due to its “violent” tactics. Seizing on the opportunity to make whaling gains, Japan’s spokesperson said he appreciated the USG initiative to address the SSCS’s tax exempt status. He said action on the group would be a “major element for Japan in the success of the overall negotiations....”! Regarding the SSCS, she said she believes the USG can demonstrate “the group does not deserve tax exempt status based on their aggressive and harmful actions.” http://213.251.145.96/cable/2009/11/09TOKYO2588.html#par6. Yet there is no mention of steps against Japan for an essentially bogus scientific whaling program.

SSCS’s Paul Watson quickly responded by stating that Medina may have committed an impeachable offense in the attempt to remove non-exempt status at the behest of a foreign government. (http://archive.wbai.org/files/mp3/110103_170001fiveshadow.MP3)

In what may be the ultimate miscalculation, Clinton and Medina appeared to believe that the entire anti-whaling bloc at the IWC would follow the US lead in its willingness to lift the ban on whaling. Yet while fear for the lives of whales ran through the NGO bloc, talks fell apart at the 2010 IWC meetings, and the anti-whaling members, including the European Union and Australia, held their positions. 

AN END TO WHALING? NOT SO FAST...

On February 16, 2011, the Japanese whaling fleet suspended its hunt in the Southern Ocean, citing Sea Shepherd’s ongoing harassment. Now that the factory vessel, non-compliant with new maritime laws, will not be permitted to operate in the Southern Ocean after August, 2011, it is expected that Japan will push hard for its “small” coastal whaling at the 2011 IWC meetings, despite widespread international condemnation. On the same day as the Japanese announced the end to its whaling season, Australia and New Zealand’s Prime Ministers, Julia Gillard and John Key respectively, released a joint statement: 

The Prime Ministers reaffirmed their commitment to the elimination of whaling in the Southern Ocean. In this context, Australia welcomed New Zealand's decision to intervene formally in Australia's action against Japan at the International Court of Justice while continuing to pursue diplomatic efforts to bring about an end to Southern Ocean whaling and to resolve the current impasse in the International Whaling Commission. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10706657&ref=emailfriend

Just one day later, on February 17, nine Latin American nations comprising the “Buenos Aires Group” called on Japan to end its so-called “scientific” whaling program.  Will Obama’s deficient IWC team praise Japan’s withdrawal from the Southern Ocean, condemn Sea Shepherd and continue to promote Japan’s small coastal whaling program? Will Japan use the SSCS as some kind of perverted scapegoat to gain concessions or even sympathy, claiming Watson’s group forced them to abandon scientific whaling, when they know very well of the August, 2011 prohibitions? How will Japan deal politically with the fleet’s inability to access the Southern Ocean? Will Japan claim such severe damage by Sea Shepherd that it somehow “deserves” small coastal whaling? 

The IWC’s most recent reckless attitude toward whales may have severe political and environmental consequences in the long term.  The health of the oceans, including greater size and abundance of fish throughout the food chain, is now being appreciated as an effect of the presence of whales and their biological processes in the sea.  As this news slowly wends through the global earth-watching community, tolerance for removing whales from the seas will surely further diminish. Despite US dominance on the stage of world policy and affairs, not only has Obama and this US team failed in their obligations to reflect the wishes of the public they represent, they have failed to be the ocean’s stewards, shutting out the opposition that would bring some responsible sanity into the discussions. What will be the price for this deficit?

The Japan Fisheries Agency and Institute for Cetacean Research (ICR), along with the whalers cry “tradition” in their attempts to justify more killing of whales.  However, when was gluttony part of Japanese whaling “tradition”? With 6000 tons (that’s 12 million pounds!) of apparently unsalable frozen whale meat in storage in Japan, the world market for whale meat is flailing about in what many are calling its pre-death throes. The Japanese public is not clamoring to uphold the alleged whale meat tradition, and even worse, Japanese taxpayers are reluctantly being forced to subsidize the unprofitable industry, which costs roughly $9 million annually. The Japanese public is also mulling over the latest IWC-tainting scandals: the Japanese Fisheries Agency censured five of its officials for taking whale meat bribes worth thousands of dollars, and others were found guilty of paying for construction “favors”, IWC member dues, even prostitutes, for IWC delegates to sway their votes pro-whaing.

Late in 2010, the Japan whaling fleet could not hire a willing refueling ship, delaying its departure on what may be its last Southern Ocean whaling venture. This comes amid speculation that there are few refueling ship owners who are willing to risk being associated with widely condemned whaling activities.

Another Wikileaks release in mid-January showed that Iceland views the whale-meat market as nonviable. 

"2. (SBU) Staff members of Hvalur, hf, which is the only company in Iceland with the capability to hunt large whales, told Emboff on July 3 that whaling is providing jobs for 150 to 200 people. However, they admitted they are keeping their fingers crossed that there is a market for the meat and said, otherwise "this is a doomed operation."  Since minke meat is the only whale meat consumed and sold in Iceland, the fin meat must be exported to another market, such as Japan.  In May, Greenpeace and a local environmental group held a press conference which featured a recorded conversation with the Japanese importer of the Icelandic whale meat who stated he would not be importing any meat from Iceland this year.  In late June, the Japanese Charge d'Affaires told Emboff that he didn't believe there was a market for the fin meat in Japan." (http://213.251.145.96/cable/2009/07/09REYKJAVIK122.html#par2)

If Clinton and Medina are not embarrassed by the IWC negotiations revealed by Wikileaks, they should be.  In a democracy, the workings of government should be open to the public. In this case, the deficit in democratic principles brought the regrettable US official positions to the world stage.