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.