But of course:
Scale of Japan’s aid to pro-whaling nations revealed
In a written reply to a query on Japan’s “marine aid” to developing countries, the government acknowledged pouring 617 million yen ($8.7 million) last year into St Kitts & Nevis, the tiny Caribbean nation that hosted the IWC conference.
Nicaragua, the top recipient of Tokyo’s largesse, was awarded about $17 million, and the Pacific island cluster of Palau got $8.1 million.
All three countries voted with Japan, Iceland and Norway at last weekend’s conference in favour of the “St Kitts & Nevis Declaration”, calling for the 20-year ban on commercial whaling to be scrapped.
Keep in mind this pales in comparison to the billions (PDF) of dollars Japan spends on aid that’s largely unrelated to whaling and more concentrated on giving handouts to Japanese companies.
Of course, not all countries are so quick to offer themselves up for sale:
TUVALU: Tuvalu Opposes Tying Aid To Whale Vote
Monday: June 26, 2006
(Radio Australia)
Tuvalu says it would be a mistake if countries such as Australia and New Zealand start using their aid programs to persuade Pacific countries to support them in international forums.Japan has been accused of using chequebook diplomacy to influence the Pacific on whaling after six island nations voted to support a Japanese resolution at the International Whaling Commission.
New Zealand’s opposition National Party spokesman on foreign affairs, Murray McCully, has suggested taking a more robust approach towards small island states.
But Tuvalu’s prime minister, Maatia Toafa says, “Well I don’t think that is fair because as far as Tuvalu is concerned, we are an aid-dependent country and we feel that we should be left to make our decisions without any influences.”
Well, Tuvalu, if one didn’t tie aid to something, what’s the guarantee that the money won’t be wasted on traditional canoes or 900-number network infrastructure with no concrete return for Japan? Something tells me you’re just holding out for a sweeter deal.
Hi,
I dunno – I haven’t been bribed by the Japanese to support the principle of sustainable use, so I’m not convinced that Tuvalu and others also don’t actually believe in this principle either. It’s actually a very good principle.
I have a (growing) collection of quotes from allegedly “bribed” nations here:
http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2006/06/iwc-2006-voices-of-developing-nations.html
Some of the “bribed” nations actually have people who use cetaceans in their own area, as well. I suspect that whalers do not have to be bribed to vote for whaling.
I think the reality of Japan’s ODA’s is that it is one avenue through which Japan can build friendly relations with nations that have similar values and culture – those places that depend on marine resources for example.
This is not really any different to the USA recruiting Israel recently. As we all know, Israel receives plenty of assistance from the USA, but no one calls this bribery. They are just friends.
Hm, if you aren’t being paid to support the Japanese position, then you might want to look into that since looking at your blog I can tell you’re certainly spending a lot of time on the issue. There’s serious cash to be had if you’re a good enough shill.
Adamu – yes I cover the issue heavily – I believe it is important for a number of reasons. I’d be happy to accept some pocket money if someone wanted to pay me for the time I spend on it, but I’d spend the time anyway. Maybe I should stick a paypal donation request on my blog?
But back on topic – what do you think about all those quotes of developing nations that I have gathered together?
And one other question: Do you believe that people from your home country should be allowed to utilise natural resources for food, providing that they do so in a sustainable manner?
David, I don’t know about Adam, but I have previously written about the whaling issue on this blog. I don’t have much of a problem with a genuinely responsible sustainable harvesting policy-my problem is that Japan is currently engaged in illegal and unsupervised whaling while claiming not to be. I would like for them to adhere to the currently existing rules while they work to change them.
However, it is also worth noting that demand for whale meat in Japan is miniscule and heavily exaggerated by supporters of whaling. For absolutely unfathomable reasons, the government continues to increase the annual cetacean catch despite the fact that much of the previous year’s meat lies frozen in cold storage.
As for your collection of quotes, not a single one of those countries seems to be saying that they themselves intend on engaging in whaling. I just don’t see anything to really prove that they have or have not voted with Japan in exchange for aid. They could just be voting on principle, or they could be voting in their own self interest-i.e. in exchange for Japan’s support.
> my problem is that Japan is currently engaged in illegal and unsupervised whaling while claiming not to be.
Which “illegal” whaling is this?
If you are refering to “scientific whaling”, in fact even Australia’s Ian Campbell acknowledges that it is not illegal:
http://whaling-faq.blogspot.com/2006/04/faq-2.html
The only people who say that it is illegal are groups such as IFAW. You can draw your own conclusions about why the IFAW might say that despite the Australian, New Zealand and British governments all disagreeing with them.
Yes, scientific permit whaling is unsupervised. But it’s still perfectly in accordance with the convention. Remember – the convention is voluntary – Japan could just withdraw and do whatever it pleases anyway, as other nations do (Indonesia, Canada for example). The Convention is to aid cooperation, not to allow one grop of nations to impose their wishes on others.
It’s interesting to note that if the IWC would actually permit whaling, then commercial operations by Japan would be regulated by the IWC rules.
> However, it is also worth noting that demand for whale meat in Japan is miniscule
This is what happens when you have supply drastically reduced, as happened with the imposition of the unneccessary moratorium.
Traditional supply lines have been wiped out through the lack of supply.
At it’s peak, the Japanese population consumed 230,000 tonnes of whale meat in a single year. Today the stockpile (available supply) just after the JARPA II whale meat by-products went on sale was just 6,000 tonnes. This is with a research catch that has just doubled in size this last austral summer.
> For absolutely unfathomable reasons,
The Japanese believe that there is untapped potential for increased consumption, and considering past consumption trends when whale meat was widely available, I’m sure that consumption has the potential to be higher than it is right now, with prices so high as to make whale meat – once a “poor man’s food”, a luxury item.
Note also that increasing whale meat consumption would also allow Japan to reduce it’s reliance on imported meat products from places such as Australia and the USA. This is something that the government is interested in, I gather.
> As for your collection of quotes, not a single one of those countries seems to be saying that they themselves intend on engaging in whaling.
Well, perhaps you didn’t read so carefully. Check the information about St Vincent (I haven’t added a quote for them yet, but a comment is there). They are the only nation in the world that currently kills Humpbacks. Also check the Solomon Islands and St Lucia. Both these nations kill small cetaceans. Anti-whaling nations wish the IWC to manage small cetaceans, so you can understand why those two nations are therefore interested in what is going on at the IWC.
> I just don’t see anything to really prove that they have or have not voted with Japan in exchange for aid.
There has never been a link established between aid and votes in favour of whaling at the IWC. The closest I have seen was an allegation from a Caribbean delegate who said that his government had been extorted. When I checked him out, I found he was a member of a tourism association that has links to the IFAW. The Japanese side also said he was a “plant” by the anti-whaling NGOs. Other reports of “bribery” have appeared over the years, but when you actually read the quotes, what the people are saying is that “Japan gives us fisheries aid – yes”. That doesn’t mean that they have been bribed to vote for whaling at the IWC – that’s a huge jump in logic.
My belief is that Japan simply has friendly relations and common interests (i.e., the principle of sustainable use as applied to marine resources) with these nations.
> They could just be voting on principle,
Exactly. This is why I believe they are voting with Japan.
> or they could be voting in their own self interest-i.e. in exchange for Japan’s support.
Possibly, but as I say, a link between ODA for IWC votes has never been proved.
I’d note that (and you’ll have to take my word for it here :-)) that I have not been bribed by the Japanese government, and I firmly support their position at the IWC as well. If people like me exist, there is a clear possibility that those developing nations also feel the same way.