Who is the bigger bully?
THE GREENIES...
CITES has been criticised for being influenced by Westeg.q NGOs such as the Humane Society of the US and International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), and ignoring the demands of local groups, particularly in Africa. "For the last few years, CITES has become a battleground between the North and the South, where developed countries, and thos%,seeking their favour, assume the authority to impose trade sanctions on Southern resources, but none of the costs," say southern African NGOs.
The pro-sustainable use groups claim that NGOs of the North use fiscal power to bully smaller states into following their ideology. Sanctions have been aimed at smaller countries in the past. The US evoked the Pelly Amendment against Taiwan for trade in tiger parts. But no action has been taken against Norway, which continues its whaling 0 ations. Despite holding a reservation against the CITES ban before the 10th COP, Zimbabwe did not trade its ivory, ring sanctions.
...OR THE RICH?
A report published by the Eastern Caribbean Coalition for Environmental Awareness (ECCEA) accuses Japan for gathering votes to push their agenda on the issues of ivory, whaling and marine fish. It says that Japan has been promising aid in return. Described as a 'vote-consolidation operation' by the Japanese Press, multi-million dollar grants for fisheries are given to developing countries to buy their votes. The operation has mainly been concentrated in tropical and sub-tropical regions of the South Pacific, Latin America and Africa. The donor-recipient relationship in these regions also helps reinforce Japan's access to fish stocks in these regions.
The report documents how countries such as St Lucia and St Vincent made abrupt policy U-turns at 1986 IWC meetings in favour of whaling, after receiving aid from Japan. The year after the turn-around, each country received fisheries grants of approximately V290 million (US $3 million) and much more in technical cooperation. In 1988, each country received a further US $3.7 million apiece. The Japanese Overseas Development Agency statistics show a total of US $24 million grant-in-aid in fisheries for St Lucia between 1987 and 1995, and US $24.5 million for St Vincent in the same period.
Four days after the IWC entertained a proposal for the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary in 1992, the director of Japan's Fisheries Agency revealed "an initiative to urge the participation of developing countries in order to reform the management of the IWC". Two eastern Caribbean states, Dominica and St Kitts, joined the IWC before the 1992 meeting. St Kitts sent a delegate to this meeting, but did not participate in any of the sessions. It has not returned to the IWC since, though it remains a member.
Dominica had been a member in the early 1980s, but never participated in a meeting and eventually withdrew. On rejoining in 1992, Dominica paid the total of US $259 million it owed the IWC from the time of its previous membership and for 1992. It voted in line with Japan's interests on four out of eight proposals and abstained on all others. The Dominican Prime Minister paid a visit to Japan two months later. thanked for supporting Japan and promised aid for a fishery complex worth :evweraasl million Yen. It later received a grant of US $6.4 million for a fishing port and a market in Roscau, Dominica's capital.
The ECCEA report documents various such grants to Dominica, Grenada, St Lucia, and St Vincent which coincide with the sanctuary proposal. Japan was able to block its adoption for two years with their help until a 'sustained regional and international campaign' secured abstentions from all four, and the sanctuary was finally decreed in 1994.
