Japan has denied paying for delegates from small states to attend international whaling negotiations

Japan's reputation continues to take hits in the whaling controversy. It looks like the international community (including countries they have considered bought and paid for) is turning their back on them:

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Japan has denied paying for delegates from small states to attend international whaling negotiations.

The statement follows a claim from the Solomon Islands that Tokyo had usually funded its attendance at meetings of the International Whaling Commission.

Anti-whaling campaigners have accused Japan of vote-buying to support its bid to end a ban on commercial whaling.

In recent years, a number of small countries have joined the IWC, many with little history of hunting whales.

'No offer'

One of these countries, the Solomon Islands, was conspicuously absent from a meeting called by the commission in London last week.

The islands' Prime Minister, Derek Sikua, said on Saturday that his country had not attended because it no longer wanted to accept Japanese assistance.

He said Japan had usually paid for the Solomon Islands to go, although he did not say how much money was involved.

This was the clearest statement yet from a serving leader on Japan's alleged financial role.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7288185.stm

Yeh not buying them off but paying them 1 million to attend

It really does looks like the rest of the world is a bunch of confused liars and the only correct people are the Japanese We are only doing research you know...really....we really are...

What a bunch of loosers...only a mater of time.....as they are going to dig themselves in so deep that they will just have to give up. Have you listen to that kiwi representative guy stick up for them...what an idiot....

Wags, Japan is merely playing the game according to the rules. As I mentioned in my thread :

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=23287

Garnering votes to upset the anti-whaling majority is a brilliant tactical move, albeit a morally reprehensible move. Malawi and Congo, all countries poor and eager to please. Then again it is the IWC's failure to recognize this as a problem in it's by laws and charters that's really the issue. Whaling isn't a club but all they have to do is flag the ship under a different country and boom, instant whaling permit! But the Japanese are too nationalistic to do this.

Just as we sent troops into the Middle East to stake claim to access to oil, the Japanese are bending the rules to stake claim to a food source.

What is encouraging to see, is just as sending in troops to claim oil has garnered disfavor with much of the world, buying votes to secure whaling rights seems to now be achieving similar disfavor. About time I think.

yeah but we still reelected the guy. So not much disfavor. Only when our ricebowls are hurt does it start to sting. Way of the world shawn.

A local S.I. story is that former Solomons' Prime Minister Sir Allen Kemakeza specifically instructed his delegate at the past IWC meeting in South Korea to abstain from voting on the whaling issue. Instead, the Solomons voted along with Japan to resoundingly accept their key proposal to end the two-decade ban on commercial whaling.

Outraged, Sir Allan said the vote undermined him and demanded to know why he was disobeyed. The delegate explained that the Japanese delegation had convinced him that by taking whales out of the ocean, the waters would not rise as much, thereby saving Solomon Islanders from drowning.

Perhaps the anti-whaling nations could offer these island nations more sponges for their surrounding seabeds, so they could soak up all this rising water, and then act as a substitute for the whales' removal.

That's a pretty harsh story. If I remember correctly, the fisheries minister supported the commercial vote and abstained from the scientific. Kemakeza had promised some Ozzie bigwig that'd he'd stay neutral (probably with another payoff of some kind). But the minister defied his orders and voted the other way, in exchange for some Japanese support for their fisheries. He was fired later but I think he was a scapegoat and got paid off well for his troubles. However the initiative failed and the motion to reintroduce whaling failed in 2005.

Countries like the Solomons depend on foreign aid and it's not surprising their vote sways with the bigger wallet. Solomons are at a disadvantage because now the new Ozzie government is even more antiwhaling and thus they switched sides again.

It is the way of the world where money talks.

The motion to reintroduce whaling failed in 2005, but as I recall it was pretty close. I was on a plane to Guadelupe (Carribean) and sat with the Canadian representative to the meeting that was about to take place. At the time his concern was about all the Caribbean islands that had been pretty much bought out by the Japanese.

I agree it's the way of the world, it's just important to know who's paying who when taking sides, as it puts a different perspective on things much of the time.

Yes the Japanese had enlisted loads of help with smaller countries (look at their present list of landlocked countries) and had a 50% majority back then. Back some back room manuveuring by the US, UK and Australia headed it off. I believe Dominica and St Vincent and the Grenadines are all pro whaling. In fact, many suspect that Jane Tipson's murder in 03 was the work of irate pro whalers in the Caribbean, though never been proven and the killer was never caught.

Look at Dian Fossey.

Here's an ugly bit of back-door, death for death sleaze: 15 years ago, none other than Vice President Al Gore brokered a 4.5 billion dollar missile deal to Norway as part of a defense shield along Norway's coast. In return for the sale, Gore then instructed the US whaling commissioner to approve the Revised Management Procedure (RMP) at the IWC meeting in Mexico in 1993. The commissioner's position asked for more rigorous requirements for scientific evidence before the USA would implement a boycott on Norwegian whaling that year.