APPENDIX 6 SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND JAPAN ON COMMERCIAL SPERM WHALING IN THE WESTERN DIVISION STOCK OF THE NORTH PACIFIC, NOVEMBER 1-12, 1984, WASHINGTON, D.C. DR. JOHN V. BYRNE, United States Commissioner to the MR. HIROYA SANO, Director-General, Fisheries Agency, The latest in a series of bilateral discussions between Japan and the United States were conducted in Washington, D.C., November 1-12, 1 84, in an effort to determine whether it would be posible, in accordance with the laws and regulations in effect in each country, to develop an arrangement whereby the United States Secretary of Commerce might refrain from "certifying" sperm whaling by Japanese nationals, if they take sperm whales under the objection of the Government of Japan to footnote 1 to Table 3 of the Schedule to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, 1946 (the Convention). The heads of the delegations shared the view that such an arrangement might be possible, subject to satisfactory resolution of certain details and to approval and implementation by the cognizant authorities of each Government. The essential points of such a possible arrangement would be the following: 1. (A) The Government of Japan may permit a catch of 400 sperm whales during each of the 1984 and 1985 coastal seasons, subject to the provisions on by-catch of females as set forth in footnote 2 to Table 3 of the Schedule (dated November, 1983) to the Convention. (B) If, by December 13, 1984, the Government of Japan withdraws its objection, lodged November 9, 1981 under paragraph 3 of Article V of the Convention, effective on or before April 1, 1988, the United States would not consider sperm whaling permitted under sub-paragraph (A) above to diminish the effectiveness of the, Convention or its conservation program, and would therefore not certify such sperm whaling as provided for in Section 8(a) of the Fishermen's Protective Act (the Pelly Amendment) or Section 201(e)(2) of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (the Packwood-Magnuson Amendment).. 2. If, by April 1, 1985, the Government of Japan withdraws its objection, lodged November 4, 1982, to paragraph 10(e) of the Schedule, effective such that Japanese commercial coastal whaling will cease following the 1987 coastal season and Japanese commercial pelagic whaling will cease following the 1986/87 pelagic season, the United States would not consider that whaling specified below would diminish the effectiveness of the Convention or its conservation program and would not certify such whaling under the Pelly Amendment or the Packwood-Magnuson Amendment, if such whaling were limited to the following species and catch limits: 1986 and 1987 Coastal Whaling Seasons Western Division, North Pacific sperm whales 200 per season, subject to the provisions on by-catch of females as set forth in footnote 2 to Table 3 of the Schedule (dated November, 1983) to the Convention; Okhotsk Sea-West Pacific minke whales - catch limits acceptable to the Government of the United States after consultation with the Government of Japan; Western North Pacific Bryde's whales- catch limits acceptable to the Government of the United Stats after consultation with the Government of Japan; and 1985/1986 and 1986/1987 Pelagic Whaling Seasons Southern Hemisphere minke whales catch limits acceptable to the Government of the United States after consultation with the APPENDIX 7 LETTER DATED AUGUST 14, 1984 FROM HON. MERVYN M. DYMALLY, A MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO HON. GEORGE P. SHULTZ, SECRETARY OF STATE, REGARDING THE 36TH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE I.W.C. AND STRENGTHENING U.S.-JAPAN RELATIONS August 14, 1984 Honorable George P. Shultz Secretary Department of State 2201 C Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20520 Dear Mr. Secretary: As a Congressman sitting on the Foreign Affairs Committee, I have serious concerns for the long-term relationships and partnerships which the United States has forged carefully over the past forty years with our close allies. In particular, I am referring to our relationships with Japan and Norway, who have supported our global democratic goals and objectives. I firmly believe that we must continue to strengthen our ties with our allies in spite of minor areas of disagreement. Recently, I attended the 36th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Convention (IWC) in Buenos Aires which was hardly impressive for its objective and scientifically based deliberations and conclusions. Protectionism rather than conservation or even selfenlightenment appeared to be the goal of the majority non-whaling national representatives. In fact, I was dismayed by the numerous presence and influence of the non-governmental representatives appointed to all the non-whaling delegations, particularly the official American delegation. While I believe that we should strive for representative balance on our delegations at official international meetings, I cannot accept the pristine ideology espoused by the non-governmental environmentalists as the price for participating in a public forum of importance to the U.S. Government. I called for balance and objectivity in my conference statement, which the IWC Secretariat did not have courtesy to distribute to the IWC Commissioners after indicating to my staff that a general distribution would occur. The treatment afforded to me by the IWC Secretariat and by some members of the American delegation under Dr. John Bryne's leadership could neither be called civil nor professional to a Member of Congress who was officially appointed to the American delegation through the offices of the Speaker. Rather, the American delegation should have reflected a greater balance between the Executive and Legislative Branch representatives than reflecting the undue influence of the nongovernment representatives! The call for sanctions and punitive measures against the whaling nations after the moratorium on commercial whaling goes into effect in 1985, will be disruptive and counterproductive should these measures be carried out blindly by the United States. It is in this regard that Congressional legislation may well be warranted which explicitly authorizes and mandates primacy of the Secretary of State and the Department of State as the lead spokesperson and respective agency representing the official position of the United States Government. While I know that the Government's position may be negotiated among several federal agencies having concurrent jurisdiction for any topical area such as the Commerce and Interior Departments in the case of the IWC meeting, I am also aware that we have a greater responsibility to achieve global peace, cooperation and security under your aegis. With regard to strengthening U.S. Japan relations, I am well aware of the excellent and thoughtful work of Assistant Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, who has appeared before Chairman Solarz, myself and other members of the Asian and Pacific Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. We of the Subcommittee have come to appreciate the substantive and overriding issues critical to sustaining the partnership between the U.S. and Japan; these issues include the level of defense spending in support of U.S. bases in Japan; market opening, high technology, and energy cooperation; the Dollar-Yen issue; and finally, joint cooperation at economic and other summit meetings and in the area of foreign assistance. Clearly the United States has much to gain by mutual cooperation and through difficult and often complex negotiations with the Japanese Government. Yet, what is more difficult for the American public to comprehend, is the gravity of American interest at stake: (a) over $650 million in exports of fish and fish products which accrue to American companies and their employees through purchase of 330,000 tons of fish bought by Japanese processors; (b) current negotiations for agricultural and forestry product tariff reductions; and (c) success of ongoing market opening efforts for American businesses. More critical, I strongly believe that the political ramifications and continued influence of a viable and independent Asian democracy clearly warrant United States Government encouragement and support in strengthening and enlargening our community of democratic allies in Asia. |