Lapas attēli

The impact of that deal is very hard to measure in its entirety. It gave hope to the whalers to continue, whereas if we had been firm, we would have been absolutely on course towards realizing the total moratorium.

In Japan the people were criticizing the U.S. Government for coming down hard on them, but behind the scenes they were ecstatic, that finally the conservation groups had been given a challenge. It was the politics that prevented the United States from taking a stand, to amplify a point that Congressman Bonker made. What we are now looking at is, if we lose this lawsuit that the Humane Society of the United States, Greenpeace, and the other groups have levied against the Secretaries of Commerce and State, the six other whaling nations which have already agreed to stop whaling in accordance with the Commission are now going to come knocking at the doors of the Commerce Department and the State Department and saying "What kind of deal can we make?" And where will we stand if we've already made a deal with Japan to say to these other countries, "No, we're sorry. Japan is the only exception," when there is no basis for Japan having an exception. There are people in those other countries that also have a marginal dependence on the whaling industry. There are poor communities in Brazil and Peru and parts of the Philippines where whaling is a part of their economy, but those countries are willing and have stated their commitment to abide by the Commission's decision. There is no reason why Japan and Norway can't follow suit also. Therefore, I would like to reamplify the points that my other colleagues made. In this coming meeting, it is absolutely critical that the United States not support any move on behalf of Japan and Norway to introduce a third category of whaling which would exempt them from the moratorium. There is no way that that can be outlined in such a way that it would only include Norway and Japan. All the other countries, nine whaling countries, are bound to say we need to renegotiate this entire moratorium.

The impact of the specifics of the deal are such that if Japan is allowed to continue until 1988 under the threat of sanctions, we will have lost the power to have those sanctions mean anything. In his deposition to the lawsuit, Secretary Baldrige has already stated that it is the U.S. policy to phase out foreign fishing in the U.S. 200-mile zone, so by 1988 it is quite possible that the PackwoodMagnuson amendment, which now has very real clout to reduce Japan's allocations in such a way that they would automatically comply, that that would be irrelevant at that point. It would have lost its clout and Japan would have had its deal and be able to go on indefinitely.

Beyond the moratorium, again to amplify a point that Mr. Van Note made, is the matter of imports. Although the Soviets do not fish extensively in U.S. waters-in fact, it just lost half of the small amount they did have-the Soviet whaling industry depends on its ability to export whale meat to Japan. The entire catch of their Antarctic minke operation is sent to Japanese factory ships at sea before the Russian vessels ever make it back to their home ports. In like fashion, the whaling operations in Korea, Spain, Brazil, Peru, and Iceland all depend on their ability to export their whale meat to Japan. So it is absolutely critical that the United States

take a stand and say, regardless of what happens with this lawsuit, regardless of what happens at the IWC meeting, we must be willing to invoke the Packwood-Magnuson amendment sanctions against Japan if they allow the importation of whale meat from any other country after the 1986 moratorium is due to go into effect.

I think it is rather obvious from my comments at this point that the Humane Society of the United States is greatly supportive of the resolution which you and Congressman Bonker have introduced and we fully support it.

I will be very happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.

[Mr. Plowden's prepared statement follows:]


The Humane Society of the United States appreciates the opportunity to present its views today on the whaling issue before the House Subcommittee on Foreign Affairs. Rearings convened by this committee have played a vital role of examining the status of the whaling issue and evaluating the effectiveness of U.S. government efforts to achieve a halt to commerical whaling. This hearing today may well be the most critical ever held since we are precipitously close to attaining this goal. The intention of the Humane Society of the United States is very clear - we are striving for total compliance by every whaling nation to respect the mandate of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) to stop all commercial whaling by the end of the 1985 whaling season. We are frankly appalled that the present administration has fallen so far out of alignment with this same goal. We, therefore, view this hearing as an excellent opportunity for bringing the administration back on track.

The most flagrant transgression of the administration from its stated commitment to actualizing the IWC moratorium commenced last October when Japan indicated to the U.S. that its coastal whalers were intent on resuming their fall sperm whale hunt in violation of an IWC ban on the killing of this greatly depleted species. All the U.S. would have needed to do to stem this direct challenge to the IWC was clearly state that the U.S. was uneqivocally committed to enforcing the Packwood-Magnuson Amendment if the Japanese vessels took a single whale. The

administration, however, chose a different course of action by

negotiating with the Japanese on what should have been a nonnegotiable issue.

Although the first round of talks in mid-October reached no definite conclusion, it was obvious the Japanese were so

optimistic about the prospective outcome of the discussions that the whaling vessels went to sea the day after the first round was finished. Apparently not wishing to have the issue come to a

head on

the eve of the U.S. Presidential election, the U.S. warned Japan that it should recall its vessels or risk immediate certification and sanctions. Japan complied. Even though there

was no reported catch from this one week of aborted hunting, a colleague and I witnessed red meat being removed from a bin at the whaling station at Wadaura during this time. There were unconfirmed reports that as many as seven sperm whales which had already been killed were dumped at sea when the four vessels were


The negotiations reconvened on November 1, and again, even though no formal agreement had been reached, the vessels left port to hunt on November 6 the morning of the U.S. election. On November 11, 1984 I witnessed a catcher boat deliver two dead sperm whales to the land station at Wadaura for processing.


even before the U.S./Japan discussions were concluded Japan had on at least one occasion violated the IWC sperm whaling ban without response from the U.S. Finally on November 13, the U.S. formalized its deal with Japan in which the U.S. agreed to not impose fisheries sanctions on Japan if they agreed to withdraw their objections to the sperm whaling ban and total

moratorium effective in 1988

four years and two years

respectively longer than the IWC had decided was necessary.

In response to this agreement The Humane Society of the United States, joined by twelve other animal welfare and conservation groups, filed a lawsuit against the Secretaries of Commerce and State for their failure to enforce the provisions of the Packwood-Magnuson Amendment. Our contention is that this statute clearly states that any nation whose actions reduce the effectiveness of the IWC should be certified by the Secretary of Commerce for these actions and lose at least 50% of the

allocations to fish in the U.S. 200 mile economic zone. Given the fact that the value of the Japanese fish take in U.S. waters approaches half a billion dollars more than ten times the value

[ocr errors]

of their entire whaling industry, such a penalty would undoubtedly bring about an immediate compliance with IWC regulations. Federal District Court Judge Charles Richey issued an opinion March 5, 1985 that he, too, believed that the administration officials acted improperly by making this agreement with Japan. The government has appealed the decision so the outcome of the legal aspect will probably not be know until June of this year.

We are anxiously anticipating a higher court decision in our favor since a loss would mean that the administration would then feel free to negotiate a special arrangement with any whaling nation which wishes to continue hunting beyond 1986. Norway will be a prime candidate for this type of discussion since they like Japan and the USSR have standing objections to the moratorium and

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »