By seeking to compromise, the EU may actually be sanctioning commercial whaling. Whale fail!
Ask anyone who the bad guys are on fish and whales. The resounding answer will most probably start with the letter 'J' and end in 'apan'.
And with good reason. Not only is the Japanese government's recent record on (and defence of) commercial whaling scandalous, but as huge consumers of seafood Japan plays a major role in driving the fishing industry worldwide. Like many developed nations, Japan has long since outgrown its ability to depend on local fish in its own waters, so it also has a distant-water fleet scooping up seafood around the globe.
And of course as we know from bluefin tuna, Japanese companies like Mitsubishi make good business out of trading in seafood caught far away from Japan. The corollary of this vested interest in whaling and seafood sees the government of Japan playing an obstructive role in many international fora, seemingly resistant to any measure that might hamper trade or increase conservation measures. For examples we need look no further than the IWC, CITES, or ICCAT.
But there is another potentially sinister force at work in these international fora too. And it's one you might not expect to be playing the bad guy. Step forward, the European Union.
The EU is of course happy to be seen as the good guy, a progressive force for good in the world. Joining together 27 European countries creates a powerful bloc, it's true. When that is used to drive forward progressive change that can only be a good thing, but it works the other way too. In getting to an agreed EU position, back-room deals need to be done and expendable horses must be traded. Not every EU country cares much about the sea or whales, and those that do will have separate agendas. So how does that play out?
Well let's look at CITES, where big, bad Japan corralled all those votes to block the trade ban on Atlantic bluefin. The EU were there too, and in a perverse outcome, eventually voted en masse* against the proposal for a ban, because it didn't quite match the woolly compromise position they'd taken themselves. That meant the 27 EU nations were effectively held hostage by the minority of EU countries that fish for bluefin tuna. You know, the ones with a vested interest.
Just this week, it hasn't gone unnoticed that the EU couldn't even sign up to a joint statement on bluefin with other fishing nations. And at last year's ICCAT meeting, who was haggling for the biggest possible bluefin quotas? Why yes, that would be the EU.
And let's not even mention what the EU's distant water fleet is doing in places like West Africa.
So coming full circle back to whales, at least the EU are the good guys on that, right? Well, maybe not. Whilst many EU countries, like the UK, are staunchly against commercial whaling, there are others who take a weaker view. Some like Denmark do have a vested interest, with their links to the Faroes and Greenland.
In the current climate, with the much-touted possibility of a 'compromise' being floated by this year's IWC meeting, some countries seem just keen to do a deal. And some, like Sweden, seem to think it's a good deal that's on offer. So despite the people they represent being against commercial whaling and quietly expectant of their politicians to agree, the official position of some EU countries is a bit, er, flexible.
What does this mean? The fate of Atlantic bluefin tuna at CITES tells us a salutary tale. The EU has to agree a common position in advance of the IWC meeting later this month, so just how persuasive will the advocates of compromise manage to be? Just in case we forget, whilst 'compromise' may sound innocuous, it's worth realizing that in this instance it almost certainly means the sanctioning of commercial whaling in some form.
Is that really what we expect from the good guys?
* There were a couple of notable exceptions, including the UK, whose conscience made them vote against the EU's whip. This pleased journalist Charles Clover so much he wanted to kiss the minister. Allegedly.
