That the future of the IWC may be in doubt would not come as a surprise to any of the nations that are members. The Secretary General of CITES, William W. Wijnstekers, also noted in a letter to the previous IWC Secretary Ray Gambell that he had "serious concern about the escalating and increasingly divisive conflict within the Conference of the Parties to CITES concerning issues related to the conservation and use of cetaceans" and that the "lack of progress – even the alleged obstruction of progress – at the IWC on certain issues are equally of concern to many CITES parties".

Of course, most of the anti-whaling nations would feign ignorance and say, "But why is its future in doubt? There’s no reason for it to be so!" The fact that for the recent past the majority of the IWC members have not given one iota they have had flagrant disregard for the provisions of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), it’s no wonder the organisation is on the verge of splintering, if not exploding.

IWMC believes that the political manipulation of small island nations, the proliferation of anti-whaling NGOs has brought the IWC to its knees and to where it is today.

That the Solomon Islands, a small nation in the south Pacific cannot even cast a vote without its larger neighbour Australia bearing down on it both politically and economically is a travesty of justice. Indeed, it is an example of just how manipulative the debate has become. The Solomon Islands pulled out immediately prior to the IWC voting on the South Pacific Whale Sanctuary last year in Adelaide.

The other side is the claim by the former renegade Dominican MP and director of the International Fund for Animal Welfare Atherton Martin that Japan is using its muscle to seek that country’s vote at IWC, ignoring the fact that Japan is the world’s largest donor of foreign aid and contributes more to anti-whaling nations than pro-whaling nations.

But it demonstrates the level to which nations aim to influence IWC voting measures and also the extent to which all parties will go to make it appear one way or the other. Peru is another example.

Peru has a large debt at the IWC and has not been attending meetings. However, an initial decision to leave IWC was overturned in the Peruvian Congress after a "Green" MP became involved. Soon after, the Peruvian Ambassador to the United Kingdom was approached by the UK Government and a payment schedule established, allowing Peru to actively participate at IWC.

IWMC asks, on whose behalf will Peru be attending: Peru’s or Britain’s?

So, who or what will be to blame if the IWC implodes? Will it be the nations themselves or the political dilemmas that nations have been finding themselves in merely by being a member?

If the IWC does disintegrate, however, it won’t be the sustainable use proponents that suffer. It will be the international community and those nations holding up key areas and that want the IWC to be the regulator of whaling worldwide. Like Canada, many of the nations that are pro-sustainable use will no doubt establish national regulations to allow for whaling to continue, probably along the lines of the proposed Revised Management Scheme.

There is only a limited amount of time the IWC can continue to operate in this way. IWMC believes the time is running out, and the clock is speeding up year by year.