DEMARCHE DELIVERED: INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION AND US

UNCLAS PHNOM PENH 000373

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

STATE FOR EAP/MLS, OES/OPA

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: EFIS KSCA PREL SENV IWC CB
SUBJECT: DEMARCHE DELIVERED: INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION AND US
PRIORITIES FOR 2009 ANNUAL MEETING

REF: STATE 57020

SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED


1. (SBU) Econoff delivered reftel demarche and talking points June 5
to NAO Thouk, IWC Alternate Commissioner for Cambodia and Delegate
of the Royal Government of Cambodia in Charge of Fisheries
Administration, Ministry of Agriculture, Forests, and Fisheries.
Mr. Nao praised Commissioner Dr. Hogarth, stating that the process
and situation have improved under his leadership and suggested that
the new Chair should be "someone just like him." He also spoke
highly of the U.S. delegation's constructive role and flexibility on
issues facing the IWC and the "Future of the IWC" talks. He also
commented that having an expert in multi-lateral negotiations
chairing the SWG has been effective.


2. (SBU) However, Mr. Nao was candid in his criticism of the severe
polarization between the anti- and pro-whaling members, which he
feels threatens the basic mandate of the IWC. In his view, the
absence of a third way, one in which both sides are at a minimum
willing to negotiate on issues, has significantly undermined the
effectiveness of the Commission. Without both sides being willing
to compromise (here he singled out Australia, New Zealand,
Argentina, and Brazil as being intractable in their anti-whaling
positions) there could be no consensus. He frankly stated that
unless things change, there is no future for the IWC. Should the
new Chair be inclined towards the anti-whaling camp, he said that
there would be "no hope at all" for the future of the IWC.


3. (SBU) Regarding observers and the number of members, Mr. Nao was
indifferent, stating that the participation of observers (which he
welcomed) or a smaller number of members would be irrelevant unless
these contributed in some way to achieving consensus. Whether there
are 30 or 10 members, the Commission would still face the paralysis
of polarization, he said.


4. (SBU) He criticized what he termed "double standards" of the
Commission, citing the prohibition of secret voting on proposals but
allowing secret voting on staffing issues, such as election of the
Chair and Vice-Chair. He said that allowing members to vote by
secret ballot on proposals would better facilitate the work of the
Commission and assist members who face significant pressure to vote
a particular way.


5. (SBU) He also criticized decisions of the Commission for being
based on emotional and political not scientific grounds. Mr. Nao
cited the Commission's rejection of Greenland's proposal to allow
the taking of ten whales for aboriginal subsistence whaling, despite
scientific evidence that such numbers would not impact the
sustainability of stock. Outcomes such as these, he stated,
undermine the credibility and very mandate of the IWC.


6. (SBU) He also expressed concern about the undue influence and
pressure placed on members of the commission who are active
politicians in their home countries, singling out Australia and New
Zealand. He explained that their need to please public opinion back
home constrains their ability to actively engage on issues to reach
a consensus. He suggested that the Commission could function more
effectively if members were not politicians.


7. (SBU) Lastly, Mr. Nao commented on the unhelpful relationship
between two member countries and Green Peace. He explained that
while the Commission has condemned the activities of Green Peace on
several occasions, he lamented that no disciplinary or corrective
action has been taken by the countries with such responsibilities.
He explained that the Netherlands is Green Peace's flag state and
Australia is its port state. He suggested that it would "help a
lot" for discussions in reaching consensus if these two states
terminated their roles regarding Green Peace.

RODLEY