« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
9. Copy of the lawsuit between the American Cetacean Society, et al., versus Secretary Baldrige, the Japan Whaling Association, and the Japanese Fishing Association. Also included is a copy of Judge Richey's March 5, 1985 decision and the appeal presented by the same parties before the U.S. Court of Appeals......
10. Translation of article from the Japanese newspaper Mainichi Shimbun entitled "Cabinet Concedes to Give Up Whaling,” April 5, 1985.....
11. Article by Robbins Barstow published in Whales Etcetera entitled “Save the Whale: Save the IWC," Volume 1, 1985......
12. Congressional Record insert by Representative Bonker entitled "Whale Protection Will be Enhanced Through the Governing International Fishery Agreement with Japan," December 9, 1982. Appendixes to the Congressional Record insert include a letter dated December 3, 1982 from Hon. Charles H. Percy, a former Senator from the State of Illinois, and Hon. Bob Packwood, a Senator from the State of Oregon, to Hon. Kenneth Dam, Acting Secretary of State for Congressional Relations, regarding implementation of the United States-Japan Governing International Fishery Agreement (GIFA); and a letter dated December 4, 1982, from Kenneth W. Dam, Acting Secretary for Congressional Relations, to Senator Packwood, regarding the United States-Japan GIFA.....
13. Letter dated July 24, 1984 from Secretary Baldrige to Hon. Bob Packwood, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon, regarding implementation of the Packwood-Magnuson amendment to the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
14. Letter dated January 26, 1985 from Edward E. Wolfe, Deputy Assistant
16. State Department comments on House Concurrent Resolution 54..
19. Draft agenda for the 37th annual meeting of the International Whaling
20. Article by Robbins Barstow published in the Hartford Courant entitled "Japanese Whaling Threatens Integrity of International Agreements," December 14, 1984...
21. Statement by Representative Dymally before the 37th annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission meeting in Bournemouth, England, July 1985............
22. Packwood-Magnuson and Pelly amendments
U.S. POLICY WITH RESPECT TO THE INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION OF WHALES
WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 1985
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS,
The subcommittee met, at 2:18 p.m., in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Gus Yatron (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. YATRON. The subcommittee will come to order. The Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Organizations meets today to review U.S. policy with respect to the international protection of whales.
Over the past several years the subcommittee has played an active role in protecting marine mammals, holding extensive hearings and passing legislation. Last year the subcommittee approved House Joint Resolution 136, calling for a wildlife preserve for humpback whales, and House Concurrent Resolution 69, concerning nations that have filed an objection to the International Whaling Commission ban on commercial whaling.
In 1981, the IWC passed measures to end the commercial killing of sperm whales, and the following year invoked a moratorium on all commercial whaling, beginning with the 1985/86 season. Several member nations have filed objections to the IWC rulings, thereby exempting themselves from restrictions.
Congress has long recognized the dilemma posed by lack of enforcement of IWC decisions. In response, Congress enacted the Pelly amendment in 1971, providing for the embargo of fisheries imports from countries conducting fishing operations, which diminish the effectiveness of international fishery conservation programs. In 1979, a tougher measure was passed in the form of the Packwood-Magnuson amendment, mandating a 50-percent reduction of U.S. fisheries allocations for errant nations.
Last November, the United States and Japan exchanged letters outlining an understanding to permit a gradual phase-out of sperm whaling, exceeding specific IWC quotas, without certification under the provisions of the Pelly and Packwood-Magnuson amendments.1 In essence, the agreement allows Japan to kill 1,200 sperm whales
1 See apps. 1-6.
and thousands of Minke and Bryde's whales, if Japan agrees to withdraw its objections to the IWC quotas, effective in 1988.
On the surface, at least, the United States-Japan agreement not only ignores IWC rulings, but disregards the intent of Congress and contradicts the administration's own policy with respect to whale protection. The legislative history of Packwood-Magnuson clearly shows that the certification step in the amendment is mandatory and imposing sanctions is nondiscretionary.
The administration has applied Packwood-Magnuson sanctions against the Soviets in 1985, and in a letter to Senator Packwood in July of 1984,1 Commerce Secretary Baldrige reaffirmed the position that commercial whaling after the IWC moratorium takes effect diminishes the effectiveness of the IWC, and nations engaging in the practice would be certified. Several environmental groups have taken the administration to court to force the implementation of sanctions. The district court ruled against the administration, which subsequently appealed. A decision is expected in mid-June.
Today we are going to hear testimony from several experts regarding the United States-Japan letters, preparations for the 37th annual meeting of the IWC, and Congressman Bonker's House Concurrent Resolution 54, which urges that all diplomatic and legal means possible be taken to achieve compliance with IWC decisions. At this point, I would like to have entered into the record a statement by the ranking minority member, Congressman Solo
[The prepared statement of Hon. Gerald Solomon follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GERALD B.H. SOLOMON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE of New YORK
Mr. Chairman, the eyes of the world are turning toward the seas and the tremendous amount of resources the oceans contain. The development of these resources carries with it the responsibility for conserving the natural habitats and balances of nature that will ensure the right of future generations to tap the same resources. It is against this backdrop that we consider the international efforts to protect whales. I am proud that the United States has been a leader in this effort. And I trust that this hearing today will serve to advance greater public awareness and understanding of the issues involved.
I also hope that this issue will not be an irritant in our country's relations with Japan. At a time when our relationship has been subject to strain over a host of trade issues, neither the United States nor Japan desires yet another confrontation. And so it is very important that the good faith efforts now underway on both sides continue toward reaching a satisfactory settlement.
Mr. YATRON. At this time I would like to call on the gentleman from New Jersey, Congressman Chris Smith, for a statement.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the interest of time, I will keep it very short, but would ask that my full statement be included in the record.
Mr. YATRON. Without objection.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to commend you on the timeliness of this hearing on the vital issue of whale protection. I would also like to acknowledge the leadership taken on this issue by both you and Mr. Bonker, the prime sponsor of the resolution, House Concurrent
1 See app. 1.
Resolution 54, expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should forcibly encourage other nations to respect and implement the International Whaling Commission's moratorium on commercial whaling.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, whales are unique and special animals, not only in their massive size, but in the fact that they are not and cannot be confined or domesticated to specific geographical areas. They inhabit and roam the world's oceans and thus their acquisition, custody and care cannot be limited to or ignored by any one country. Whales, by nature, require collective care and protection, and today, they are threatened with extinction.
Mr. Chairman, in 1946 at the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, the original signatory nations, of which the United States is a part, established the International Whaling Commission [IWC], an agency to secure a collective responsibility for the survival and perpetuation of whales. In forming the IWC, the 16 member nations recognized "the interests of the nations of the world in safeguarding, for future generations, the great natural resources represented by the whale stocks." Since that time the IWC, now a 40-nation body, has worked effectively for the proper management, careful protection, and full understanding of the whale species. As a member nation of the IWC, the United States has been a leading and guiding force in the necessary conservation of whales.
In 1981, the IWC moratorium on sperm whale killing and the 1982 IWC moratorium on all commercial whaling were viewed as victories here in the United States. Given the American interest in protecting whales from commercial exploitation, we cannot help but be concerned and opposed to Japan's constant efforts to circumvent the moratorium put in place by the IWC.
It seems clear to me, Mr. Chairman, that the United States, as a member nation of the IWC, must work to uphold IWC decisions, rather than work out bilateral agreements with those nations like Japan who seek to override IWC policy. The IWC bans on commercial and sperm whaling are prudent proposals aimed at protecting an endangered species.
Mr. Chairman, like you, I look forward to the testimony from the several witnesses before us today and yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Christopher Smith follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER A. SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would like to take this opportunity to commend you on the timeliness of this hearing on the vital issue of whale protection. I would also like to acknowledge the leadership you and Mr. Bonker have taken on this issue with your sponsorship of H. Con. Res. 54, the resolution expressing the sense of Congress with respect to the implementation of the International Whaling Commission's moratorium on commercial whaling.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, whales are unique and special animals, not only in their massive size, but in the fact that they are not and cannot be confined or domesticated to specific geographical areas. They inhabit and roam the world's oceans and thus their acquisition, custody and care cannot be limited to or ignored by any one country. Whales, by nature, require collective care and protection. Today they are threatened with extinction.
Mr. Chairman in 1946 at the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, the original signatory nations-of which the United States is a part-established the International Whaling Commission (IWC)—an agency to secure a collective responsibility for the survival and perpetration of whales. In forming the IWC the 16 member nations recognized "the interests of the nations of the world in safeguarding for future generations, the great natural resources represented by the whale stocks". Since that time the IWC-now a 40 nation body-has worked effectively for the proper management, careful protection, and full understanding of the whale species. As a member nation of the IWC, the United States has been a leading and guiding force in the necessary conservation of whales. The 1981 IWC moratorium on sperm whale killing and the 1982 IWC moratorium on all commercial whaling, were viewed as victories here in the United States. Given the American interest in protecting whales from commercial exploitation, we cannot help but be concerned and opposed to Japan's constant efforts to circumvent the moratorium put in place by the IWC.
Mr. Chairman, after the IWC adopted its 1981 moratorium on sperm whale killing, the Japanese filed a formal objection thereby exempting themselves from the moratorium stating that they would not comply with the ban. Then in 1982, while passing the moratorium on all commercial whaling (beginning 1986), the IWC struck a compromise with Japan and granted her a two year exemption from the sperm whaling moratorium. At that time, the member nations had reason to believe that Japan would live out her two year exemption and then comply with the sperm whaling moratorium.
Consequently, however, after the IWC refused to extend Japan's exemption beyond 1984, Japan continued their sperm whaling and has blatantly violated the moratorium. Since then, the Japanese have also filed a formal objection to the 1986 ban on all commercial whaling, thereby indicating their plans to violate the 1986 moratorium, as well.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to note at this juncture, that while the IWC is a cooperative body it has no direct enforcement power. Thus a nation, like the United States, which firmly supports IWC decisions must work out its own sanctions if it wishes to see other nations abide by IWC proclamations. As you know, the Packwood-Magnuson Amendment to the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1979 is the American answer to those who pursue whaling operations which effectively diminsh and are inconsistent with IWC policy. Under the Packwood-Magnuson provision the U.S. began in 1983 a constructive program of limiting Japanese fishing of all sorts, in our waters as a way of persuading the Japanese to alter their whaling policy.
Mr.Chairman, the Japanese felt the ramifications of the U.S sanctions and for that reason they have appeared to be, once again, working to reach a new moratorium date for their whaling activities. They have approached the Administration and have submitted a proposal which extends the IWC moratorium but also seems to bring an eventual end to Japanese whaling in 1988. The Adminstration, I believe, is working in good faith to try to compromise and reach a final agreement with the Japanese, but I believe, the Administration must be warned.
The Japanese proposal looks too much like a stalling tactic. Another temporary extension, another delay. Inherent in their proposal are many conditions that the Japanese place on other IWC nations, such as removal of the U.S. Packwood-Magnuson sanctions before the Japanese will follow through on their own whaling commitments. Furthermore, we have reason to believe that the Japanese will expand their understanding of the term "non-commercial whaling" in order to allow them to continue a substantial amount of whaling far beyond the 1986 commercial whaling moratorium.
It seems clear to me, Mr. Chairman, that the U.S., as a member nation of the IWC, must work to uphold IWC decisions, rather than work out bilateral agreements with those nations like Japan who seek to override IWC policy. The IWC bans on commercial and sperm whaling are prudent proposals aimed at protecting an endangered species.
I look forward to hearing the testimony of our guests as their insight will illuminate the current problem and the best ways to solve it.
Mr. YATRON. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith, for an excellent statement.
Before I call on our other colleagues, I would like to say at this point that we asked a representative of the Department of State to