Visit China

Question:

On July 24, the Eastern Caribbean countries of:    Antigua & Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts and Nevis,    St. Lucia, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines all voted with China, Denmark, Japan, Korea and Norway to block creation of a whale sanctuary in the southern pacific. It seems a bit of a strange thing, especially for countries like Dominica which make considerable money flogging the "eco tourism" name tag, and also out of whale watching excursions by respectable operators.   But then again, Japan knows it can count on these countries as a quick supply of valuable votes, especially when it supplies them with development investment money in exchange for their votes.  When the islands can play both cards, they’re laughing all the way to the bank. The same vote defeat was fairly well publicised back in 2000, but this years vote was less noticable.  Dominica’s environment minister resigned over the issue last year [as I recall]. Anyway, if you consider yourself an eco-tourist, or if this issue bothers you, perhaps you should consider Tobago as a suitable caribbean eco destination, in protest.  Tobago has had great success in recent years in their efforts to protect sea turtles.  Reward their efforts with your visit and interest. Remember: in this area, it’s your $$ that speak for you. For more info, search groups.google.com on: — Ken Tough

Response:

While I really wanted to keep Tobago quiet, I must say this is remarkable!!  How shortsighted these other islands are.  We are certainly glad we are heading back to tobago this year!! Melanie – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->On July 24, the Eastern Caribbean countries of: >   Antigua & Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts and Nevis, >   St. Lucia, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines >all voted with China, Denmark, Japan, Korea and Norway to >block creation of a whale sanctuary in the southern pacific. >It seems a bit of a strange thing, especially for countries like >Dominica which make considerable money flogging the "eco tourism" >name tag, and also out of whale watching excursions by respectable >operators.   But then again, Japan knows it can count on these >countries as a quick supply of valuable votes, especially when >it supplies them with development investment money in exchange >for their votes.  When the islands can play both cards, they’re >laughing all the way to the bank. >The same vote defeat was fairly well publicised back in 2000, but >this years vote was less noticable.  Dominica’s environment >minister resigned over the issue last year [as I recall]. >Anyway, if you consider yourself an eco-tourist, or if this >issue bothers you, perhaps you should consider Tobago as a >suitable caribbean eco destination, in protest.  Tobago has had >great success in recent years in their efforts to protect sea >turtles.  Reward their efforts with your visit and interest. >Remember: in this area, it’s your $$ that speak for you. >For more info, search groups.google.com on:

Response:

> On July 24, the Eastern Caribbean countries of: >    Antigua & Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts and Nevis, >    St. Lucia, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines > all voted with China, Denmark, Japan, Korea and Norway to > block creation of a whale sanctuary in the southern pacific. > — > Ken Tough

One does wonder why these marxists and socialist countries did vote that one down.  I guess whale blubber still pops a lot of popcorn in Asia. LOL

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> On July 24, the Eastern Caribbean countries of: >    Antigua & Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts and Nevis, >    St. Lucia, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines > all voted with China, Denmark, Japan, Korea and Norway to > block creation of a whale sanctuary in the southern pacific. > — > Ken Tough > One does wonder why these marxists and socialist countries did vote that one > down.  I guess whale blubber still pops a lot of popcorn in Asia. LOL

IIRC, Carriacou (Grenada) does one whale a year.

Response:

>> > On July 24, the Eastern Caribbean countries of: > >    Antigua & Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts and Nevis, > >    St. Lucia, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines > > all voted with China, Denmark, Japan, Korea and Norway to > > block creation of a whale sanctuary in the southern pacific. > One does wonder why these marxists and socialist countries did vote that one > down.  I guess whale blubber still pops a lot of popcorn in Asia. LOL >IIRC, Carriacou (Grenada) does one whale a year.

The point really isn’t what each island does in terms of whaling, rather that they each have just as big an impact as any other country when it comes to establishing world policy.   They have decided that whales should not be protected in the South Pacific, primarily because that keeps Japan happy, and Japan gives them money when it’s happy. Even those who don’t consider whales needy of protection can see the hypocrisy of countries that promote "eco tourism" actually just selling off those values.   If Japan comes to collect the resident Dominica sperm whale pod for its "research", I would hope someone gets a few good pics for the tourists. — Ken Tough

Response:

>> On July 24, the Eastern Caribbean countries of: >    Antigua & Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts and Nevis, >    St. Lucia, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines > all voted with China, Denmark, Japan, Korea and Norway to > block creation of a whale sanctuary in the southern pacific. >One does wonder why these marxists and socialist countries did vote that one >down.  I guess whale blubber still pops a lot of popcorn in Asia. LOL

I’m not sure I’d call all those islands, Japan, and Korea as socialist.  I don’t think there’s a political left-right factor in the decision.   Many small socialist island brothers in the pacific are a bit pissed off about it. — Ken Tough

Response:

> I’m not sure I’d call all those islands, Japan, and Korea > as socialist.  I don’t think there’s a political left-right > factor in the decision.   Many small socialist island > brothers in the pacific are a bit pissed off about it. > — > Ken Tough

Someone always gets their governmental nose out of joint when they don’t get their way.  But, I see very little motivation for Caribbean Islanders to be jumping on the band wagon.  Whale watching just doesn’t bring in enough tourism dollars to worry about.  The only money spenders are land based tourists using facilities and hiring guides, etc.  The rest is window dressing.  Even cruise ships are disaster for the islands.  Other than a port fee, the only money spent is on a few tour rides, trinket sales, and junk food.  When I stay in Dominica for two weeks in a luxury hotel and hire guides, eat in all the restaurants 3 times a day, I am MUCH more valuable than a cruiser or ferry stop-over.  Not all parts of eco-tourism is necessary to make a go of it.  Dominica has the falls, rain forest, and such. Offshore isn’t that big a deal to them, I would suspect.

Response:

>Remember: in this area, it’s your $$ that speak for you.

What   –   in your view   –   is the legitimate case in favor of opposition to the proposed whale sanctuary?   Your post makes it sound like there is none.  Opponents are not only ill-advised but money hungry,  anti-public interest,  pigs.   All good people must favor this idea and evil ones oppose it,  I guess.   Is this true?   I’d like to hear the other side, or at least a glimmer of same.  After all,  are eco-ideals and political realities always the same? T.

Response:

>What   –   in your view   –   is the legitimate case in favor of opposition to >the proposed whale sanctuary?   >Your post makes it sound like there is none.  Opponents are not only >ill-advised but money hungry,  anti-public interest,  pigs.   All good people >must favor this idea and evil ones oppose it,  I guess.   >Is this true?   I’d like to hear the other side, or at least a glimmer of same. > After all,  are eco-ideals and political realities always the same?

I suppose legitimate opposition would be one based on the principle that exploitation of the animal resource should be allowed.  Most consider that the eastern caribbean vote was not really about that principle, but rather the way they will be treated by another country if they throw their hat into the ring.   I believe that protection of the rarer south pacific whales fits in with general ‘ecological’ ideals, but then again, I suppose except for their peculiar whale-hunting zeal the Norwegians are far more ecologically- minded than many countries. The argument that they should assert their power to say that people should be allowed to exploit what they want might have some merit, and would have more if they were actually whaling nations. — Ken Tough

Response:

> What   –   in your view   –   is the legitimate case in favor of opposition to > the proposed whale sanctuary? > Your post makes it sound like there is none.  Opponents are not only > ill-advised but money hungry,  anti-public interest,  pigs.   All good people > must favor this idea and evil ones oppose it,  I guess. > T.

I think there could be lots of reasons not to join the herd, but each country has to decide for itself.  Dominica, for example, is not aligned with China and has done a lot of business with Tawain.  It is their choice.

Response:

>I suppose legitimate opposition would be one based on the >principle that exploitation of the animal resource should >be allowed

You may be right but not knowing the specifics of the politics involved I would have expected the point to be less black and white. For instance  -   and I am just speculating without knowing the details  -   the Eastern Caribbean nations may find they own ecological interests to be superior to Pacific whaling protection.  In other words,  they have their agenda and don’t give a damn about whales and will further whales only if not at the cost of their own interests. Maybe they’ve cut a deal to give up whales in favor of their own interests,  in return for which they will receive Japanese support.  Stuff like this is fairly common in politics and it would be naive to think it is always a corrupt trade-off. My point is simply this:   harsh words are  spoken about "sell out". That’s a very strong term to use,  especially  where only superficial information is cited.   Of course,  maybe it is as simple as you make it out.  Maybe its just a case of  noble ecology vs. ignoble economics.    But it is usually a little more involved when the issue is not merely high minded ideals,  as with whale preservation,  but the politics of nations.   When they are both in the stew it  requires consideration compromise to achieve anything!!   T.  

Response: