The annual IWC stoush happens next week in Morocco and there's already signs that people want to take pole position in beating up on their favorite bit of the discourse. The Coalition's environment spokesperson Greg Hunt - he of the original architect of the Emissions Trading Scheme - is now accusing Peter Garrett of turning a blind eye to the corruption in the IWC.
Opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt has accused Mr Garrett of using IWC forums to push for an end to whaling in the Southern Ocean as a way of distracting attention from the government's election commitment to take Japan to the ICJ.
Mr Hunt on Monday told AAP that under Mr Garrett's watch "the government has been turning a blind eye," to the alleged corruption in the IWC.
"The prime minister (Kevin Rudd) should indicate whether it was Mr Garrett's call to go to the IWC or whether it was his call.
"They were looking for an excuse not to take Japan to the ICJ and they ignored (allegations of) corruption in the IWC and wasted time on the IWC after everyone knew it was corrupt."
Mr Hunt labelled IWC consultations a sham.
Undercover reporters from the UK's Sunday Times newspaper say they had some success when they tried to buy the votes of representatives from poor countries at IWC.
The representatives told the reporters they would have to pay more than Japan, which gave generous aid and travel allowances in exchange for support at the IWC.
Japan has denied it hands out bribes.
There will be a showdown over whaling at a critical IWC summit in Morocco next week. The number of votes mustered will determine whether whaling continues.
Mr Garrett, who will attend the summit, said the media report showed it was time to change the IWC.
"The fact is that for decades the IWC has been riven by these types of claims and gridlock on key issues," a spokesman told AAP on Monday.
Which is funnier? The notion that Greg Hunt can be a spokesperson for the environment for a party that is willfully out to ignore global warming, or the fact that he can call the International Whaling Commission a corrupt organ without any supporting evidence, all so that he can score points against Peter Garrett, a lame duck Minister?
The problem is that the Australian polity believe that the International Whaling Commission is a body put in place to ban whaling, when it's not; and the fact that they can't get their way means the IWC must be corrupt. Certainly it's been good enough to attend for years up until this year when there's been a rumble that there might be a compromise deal to allow commercial whaling.
A better explanation might be that not everybody agrees with Australia's position. I'm sure that both Mr. Hunt and Mr. Garrett would feel like the IWC was a perfectly great international organ if it managed to secure a 100% comprehensive ban on all whaling.
As it is, it can't and it hasn't, and so these wild accusations of corruption are bandied about. If the deal that's being proposed by certain parties is agreed upon and Australia is left out of the deal, I'm sure we'll hear even more accusations that the IWC is corrupt because it didn't deliver what Australia wanted. It's a bit like blaming the ump of unfair bias before the game even starts.
It's going to be interesting to see if the alleged corruption of the IWC is going to be part of Australia's case against Japanese whaling at the International Court. In order for the Australia's case to make sense they have to abandon the IWC, because the IWC rules do allow for research whaling. However for Australia to abandon the IWC one imagines it has to create its own legitimacy by accusing the IWC of corruption, and thus present itself as the only pure-hearted, interested party on behalf of whales. It's a bit rich, but I guess this is how politics is played. I just wish people won't behave like it's otherwise. It's just pathetic that there are so many votes in it for both sides of politics.
They may as well be wearing tee-shirts declaring "Save the whales, fuck the climate."
No comments:
Post a Comment