« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
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.
It is this cogent reality that flies in the face of the current whaling issue which has been brought about by the lack of objectivity and the polarization of international comity by environmental forces and their allies. I am puzzled, therefore, by the lack of U.S. delegation support for a simple compromise figure of 5400 for the Minke whale quota, particularly in view of the IWC's own scientific committee's assertion that the taking of 5000 whales would not have a deleterious affect on the Minke whale stock. Furthermore, in spite of the scientific committee's conclusion that the taking of 400 sperm whales would not have a deleterious affect on this stock, the U.S. delegation support of a zero quota for Japan again appears illogical and unreasonable.
Because of our abiding concern for the global responsibilities which the United States carries and because of the unique partnership that we have painstakingly developed with Japan, I am seriously concerned about development of these anomalies in our otherwise good relations with the Japanese. I shall be expressing my personal concern to Chairman Fascell of our full Committee and I shall be working likewise with Assistant Secretary Wolfowitz through our Subcommittee for greater efforts on behalf of cooperation and security for both of our nations. Your consideration of these views is requested, and I would appreciate a response at your earliest convenience. I have taken the liberty of enclosing a copy of my statement which I issued in Buenos Aires and which I further inserted in the Congressional Record during a special order of the House.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD INSERT BY REPRESENTATIVE DYMALLY, REGARDING THE 36TH INTERNATIONAL WHALING CONVENTION
[From the Congressional Record, June 21, 1984]
House of Representatives
INTERNATIONAL WHALING CONVENTION
Mr. DYMALLY. Thank you very much Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, recently I had the opportunity to attend the International Whaling Convention in Buenos Aires, Argentina. During the sessions of the IWC, I disseminated a position paper. Today I wish to present this paper using this forum because of its importance.
I am fully aware that the formal session of the House is completed and most if not all the Members have since departed. As I indicated earlier, I believe the paper is of some significance and I shall proceed to deliver it in this special order:
THE 36TH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE INTERNATIONAL WHALING CONVENTION (JUNE 18-22, 1984, BUENOS AIRES, ARGENTINA)
Mr. Chairman, distinguished representatives of the member nations of the International Whaling Commission (IWC), I am attending this meeting as a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Science and Technology of the United States House of Representatives.
As a member of the United States delegation, I wish to commend the nations convened here for their dedication to the ideal of conservation of natural resources, and for their admirable work in ensuring that the world's whales will not perish.
The International Whaling Commission and its Scientific Committee have greatly advanced the science of conservation management, with the result that a continued yield can be taken from the resource while safeguarding whale population from depeltion.
As a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Science and Technology of the U.S. House of Representatives. I am here because I am greatly concerned with a situation which is creating a great deal of problems among otherwise friendly nations, and which may threaten the common conservation, economic and political goals of some of this Convention's member nations. I am speaking, of course, about the whaling moratorium issue.
As a Legislator and an outside observer until now, I am aware of the history and developing circumstances which have culminated in the vote of the IWC for this moratorium on commercial whaling. It is my understanding that this moratorium will take place on all commercial whaling in spite of the fact that all the highly depleted species were already fully protected against commercial whaling. The moratorium would prohibit catches of species and stocks which could well support the low levels of utilization permitted, particularly when the condition of such stocks are so carefully monitored by your Scientific Committee, and the allowable catch quotas are established at such conservative levels. As a Legislator under whose Committee jurisdiction this issue arises, I take serious note of the fact that the moratorium was voted with nonconforming opinions from your own Scientific Committee and that of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
I know that a whaling moratorium was set as a goal by many environmental groups in the early 1970's, when it appeared that the International Whaling Commission could neither set its own house in order nor develop scientific management procedures that could adequately safeguard whale populations from depletion. But to your great credit you have now done both. There now is no question that you have succeeded in protecting those species in need of protection and in reducing catches to levels that will not deplete the stocks.
My own government in 1972 set a total whaling moratorium as a goal. We even continued endorsing this goal year after year, in spite of the resource management progress which was being made by the IWC. Unfortunately, we have not taken notice of possible hardship suffered by nations which traditionally lived by harvesting the food resources of the seas. Because it has little direct effect on Americans and was lobbied by various anti-whaling groups, officials of my government took an active part in promoting a commercial whaling mortorium for a decade, even
though some of their allies believe that whales are a natural resource and should be utilized as long as they are not endangered.
A reflection of this dichotomy of concern for both the international marine environment, as well as the appropriate taking of marine stock, is represented in the United States Congress today. Two major committees of the Congress are currently considering several pieces of legislation—the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries are grappling with congressional policy related to marine mammal protection as well as the policy of sanctions regarding whaling nations who object to the moratorium of the IWC.
Recently in April, 1984, my colleague Congressman John B. Breaux submitted testimony to the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Organizations, concerning his serious reservations regarding the imposition of sanctions on whaling nations who object to the moratorium, and which may continue after 1985 when the moratorium goes into effect. On the other hand, it appears the Subcommittee will send to our full Committee on Foreign Affairs, their recommendations on this issue to which all sides of the issue of sanctions will be heard.
I would be less than candid if I were to say to you that Congress is overwhelmingly of one opinion on this issue of imposing sanctions on friendly nations. Clearly our relationships with other nations will be impacted and affected!
With his permission, let me quote the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife, Congressman John B. Breaux:
"The United States has been a world leader in the develoment and implementation of programs to encourage the wise use and protection of living Marine resources. For example, the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 is a landmark in conservation efforts for cetaceans and other marine mammals. Certainly, we all applaud and support efforts to conserve threatened and endangered international whale resources. The means through which we express our support are an important consideration, however, and I believe that a balanced approach which recognizes the status and potential of current diplomatic efforts and the realities of the U.S. Fishing Industry is desirable.
"The U.S., in conjunction with other concerned nations, has applied steady pressure over the years to encourage wise management of international whale resources. While the status of some whale stocks is unfortunate evidence that we have not always been as successful as we would like, we have made inexorable progress in our quest for rational management, particularly in recent years, and I believe that we will continue to do so."
Before this issue becomes a divisive element among all nations, it would be wiser to settle the differences between the whaling nations and protectionist nations in the spirit of compromise and comity. If sanctions are imposed and relationships deteriorate, Congress may have to review its legislative policy in support of the moratorium and the sanctions which it has authorized the Federal executive agencies to implement.
As an ethnic politician representing a multi-minority community in the Los Angeles area of the State of California, I have come to appreciate the subtleties on political life, and so it is, that the policy of the moratorium on commercial whaling is now a "fait d'acomplait". The world will have a moratorium on commercial whaling in 1985, although the effectivness of such a moratorium will depend upon voluntary compliance based on rational conviction.
As the IWC monitors and assesses the effectivness of its moratorium during the period after the effective date, it would be wise and prudent to remain open to both the scientific management data generated about the whaling stock, as well as to the resulting political ramifications inherent in the use of sanctions and other methods to obtain compliance. The political repercussions and the effect that it exerts on world comity and international relationships will be closely monitored by Congress. The effects of possible retaliation forced upon the objecting whaling nations could cause severe internal problems for the United States, particularly with regard to our joint venture fishery agreements, and more importantly, to a world co-existing under greater pressure now among the United States, its European and Asian allies, specifically Japan, and the Soviet Union.
For members of the International Whaling Commission, there are momentous decisions ahead of you; in particular, I am certain that you will give serious deliberate consideration to the steps which the IWC and its member nations will take regarding enforcement of the impending moratorium. In my view, the choices will be difficult at best:
Choices involving complex negotiations in the years ahead toward voluntary compliance;
Or for stringent enforcement sanctions which would exacerbate current relationships among the whaling and non-whaling nations;
Ör for continued monitoring and continued adjustment of the moratorium policy in order to meet the realities of the limited and diverse world in which we all live; of our racial and cultural diversities; and of our perceived values and national interests.
The work you are doing here is very important, and I wish each of you well during coming years. Thank you.