Lapas attēli

testify today, but he declined. I am submitting, for the record, the letter from State which provides the reasons.

[The letter follows:]


Washington, DC, May 2, 1985.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Organizations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. YATRON: Thank you for your letter of April 29 requesting that I testify at a hearing before the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Organizations on May 8, 1985.

The principal areas which you ask me to address are: the preparations for the annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) which will be held July 15-19, 1985 in Bournemouth, United Kingdom; the 1984 arrangement between the United States and Japan concerning whaling; and the House Concurrent Resolution 54. Unfortunately, State Department testimony at a May 8 hearing would be unproductive since I would be unable to discuss the substance of these issues at that time.

The specific reasons include: the preparations for the IWC, which involve an interagency process with broad participation, including non-governmental organizations and Congressional representatives, has just been initiated with only a review of the preliminary agenda; the November 13 agreement between the U.S. and Japan has been challenged by a lawsuit against the United States Government which is not expected to be resolved before the beginning of June; and our opposition to House Concurrent Resolution 54 rests on the same grounds as the lawsuit which is still unresolved. We would be pleased to provide a copy of the State Department comments on House Concurrent Resolution 54 requested by the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries which outline the reasons that the Department of State is opposed to the adoption of the resolution, as drafted.

If this hearing were held in June, we believe that productive consideration could be given to these areas of interest to the Subcommittee. We would be pleased to provide any assistance to the Subcommittee's staff in furthering our mutual goal of achieving successful implementation of the IWC commercial whaling moratorium as soon as possible.


Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Oceans and Fisheries Affairs.

Mr. YATRON. I also ask unanimous consent that the exchange of letters between Japan and the United States, regarding an arrangement whereby the U.S. Secretary of Commerce might refrain from certifying the sperm whaling by Japanese nationals, be included in the record.1

I would now like to call on our colleague, the gentleman from California, Mr. Dymally, for a statement.

Mr. DYMALLY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the privilege of saying just a few words. I am not a member of the subcommittee and I very much appreciate your giving me this time. I shall be very brief.

Some time last year I visited Buenos Aires as an observer of the International Whaling Conference. As a result of my observation there, I took a more conciliatory position than the participants at the conference. Basically, I am not opposed to the moratorium. I simply said that we needed some time to negotiate some of the troubling problems between the United States and Japan.

1 See apps. 1 through 6.

So, Mr. Chairman, I believe this resolution would not serve the commendable goal of the protection and conservation of whales. Instead, it would become counter-productive to our good relations with Norway and Japan and could only serve as a negative propaganda device. Rather, in view of the substantive progress made by our State Department in its negotiations with Japan, and in particular observance of the current litigation, we in the Congress should do nothing which will exacerbate current international agreements and the prerogative of the courts to determine the authority of the President to act in a sensitive manner.

The Japanese have already announced their intention to observe the moratorium and withdraw their objections. I believe we should let this matter be resolved through the negotiation process rather than to impose upon the executive and judicial branch the will of Congress.

Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to enter into the record my statement and some correspondence which I forwarded to the Secretary of State regarding my visit to Buenos Aires.1

I thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Mervyn M. Dymally follows:]

1 See apps. 7 and 8.


Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International


Regrettably, I must oppose H. Con. Res. 54 today, and I trust that this Subcommittee will provide a substantive review of the entire policy on the protection of whales, with a particular focus on the use of economic sanctions against whaling Nations. As some of you may know, I attended the annual meeting of the International Whaling Association last year in Buenos Aires, and what I reported to the full Committee last year and to you today was that the IWC meeting was an overriding exercise in arrogance and what I view as 8 lack of objectivity by the IWC and both its non-governmental membership!



At that time I issued a Statement in Buenos Aires acknowledging the fait d'accompli of a world-vide moratorium on the taking of whales which is to become effective in 1985 Whaling season. I felt then as I do today, however, that the principle of the moratorium has indeed been established by the world community, and that imposition of economic and political sanctions

against Japan, Norway and the Soviet Union would only serve to exascerbate and deepen current antagonisms toward these three Whaling nations. I sent this Statement to Secretary Schultz last year and in a personal letter, I requested his personal intervention to exercise his influence to negotiate a settlement to this viotile situation which threatened our otherwise strong and cordial relationship with Japan, in particular. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, may I enter into the record my Statement issued in Buenos Aires and the letter to Secretary Schultz. (Statement and letter to be provided to the Clerk of the Committee).

This Committee and you, Mr. Chairman, are undoubtedly appraised of the subsequent conducted jointly by the

developments in the


Departments of State and Commerce and the resulting agreement; These are

the salient points:

1. Japan has agreed to withdraw its objections to the Moratorium
and has agreed to phase out its Whaling industry;



The United States has agreed not to impose economic sanctions
provided for in the Packwood-Magnuson and Pelly Amendments;
Conservation groups have taken this agreement to the Federal
Courts where it is currently under judicial review at the
Appellate level.

This Resolution, H. Con. Res. 54, would clearly be counterproductive to the
hard negotiations and hard won agreement negotiated by the Administration!
Briefly, this Resolution would be counterproductive for the following reasons:
Specifically, the Resolution would define noncompliance with


the Moratorium on commercial whaling established by the IWC
as an act which "undermines" international whale conservation
efforts, even though the International Convention for the

Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) provides for a legal exemption to such a moratorium, and even if such noncompliance does not, in fact, adversely affect the whale stocks.

2. Secondly, this Resolution seeks to impose its judgment over that of the Executive and Judicial branches of our Government. The Resolution improperly asserts that an agreement between the United States and Japan, legally exercised under the constitutional powers of the President is a violation of U.S. law. This issue is currently being decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals and it would be extremely unseemingly, if not embarrassing, for this Congress to try to anticipate the Court's decision.

3. Thirdly, the Resolution


further directs the President to

take all necessary actions to support the whale conservation
efforts of the IWC, including urging those nations which
have filed objections to the moratorium. The Administration
has already accomplished that, and has succeeded in getting
Japan to withdraw its objections to both the moratorium and
the zero quota on sperm whales.

And finally, this Resoultion unnecessarily and inappropriately
directs the Secretary of State to reduce fish allocations to
foreign nations fishing in our 200 mile territorial waters
under currently valid and good faith treaties through which
millions of dollars in fishing fees accrue to our country,
along with millions of dollars in U.S. fishery development
assistance. The Resolution attempts to do this in contra-
vention of U.S. obligations under the International Convention
for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), which requires our
country to accept and honor the absolute right of all other
signatories to the Convention to file objections to changes
in the provisions of the ICRW.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »