This has been most notable in the Caribbean countries, but also evident inside anti-whaling countries.

Earlier this year, the multi-national eco-Terrorist Greenpeace released the results of a "survey" it conducted in the Caribbean countries – Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia and St Vincent and the Grenadines. This survey supposedly demonstrated the level of support for the New Zealand and Australian proposal to establish a whale sanctuary in the South Pacific.

Then we saw worldwide articles on Dominica alleging the buying of the Dominican vote at the IWC by Japan. And only last year, Peter Melchett of the UK branch of Greenpeace, wrote to the Caribbean Banana Exporters Association saying that "Greenpeace will certainly not call for boycotts of Caribbean bananas or Caribbean holidays … but we are concerned that when the public learn that these islands may well hold the decisive votes on whether commercial whaling is resumed or not … there will be some impact on these vital parts of the economy." (Very caring of Greenpeace!)

And to top it off for the Caribbean states, anti-whaling groups were telling them they were only receiving Japanese aid because of their votes at IWC, not because they are also dependent on ocean resources. But Caribbean nations’ opposition to the proposed South Pacific Whale Sanctuary last year was based on the fact that the proposal has no scientific basis and that it is contrary to the principle of sustainable use, a subject on which Caribbean nations are very well informed.

But we are now seeing environmental organisations no longer targeting governments like they used to, the example of Greenpeace buying membership of the IWC through small nations, and rather focussing on building up grassroots support. It’s a cynical move. It appears to demonstrate that the anti-whaling support is coming from the people, when in fact it is merely a political ploy to obtain skewed media coverage. The people of Caribbean do not support the South Pacific Whale Sanctuary.

What was heartening to see was the members of Dominican Prime Minister Pierre Charles’ party – the Portsmouth Constituency Association – urging him not to change Dominica’s stance on the Sanctuary proposal. If the people were so against the Sanctuary, they would not be publicly opposing it.

But there was another side to the community support against the Sanctuary and for sustainable whaling to be resumed. And it came from an unlikely place – New Zealand.

The same issues, however, were apparent, at a community level in New Zealand when the World Council of Whalers held its 3^rd Assembly and Conference there, in the small fishing town of Nelson. A huge amount of pressure went on the indigenous Maori people to not attend, and certainly not to host the meeting.

There are many similarities between Maori and whaling peoples. Maori have for centuries utilised beached whales for food, oil, meat and bone, even milk. In fact, the World Council of Whalers was invited by Maori via the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission and tribes (Iwi) of the top of the South Island to hold the assembly in New Zealand.

Unfortunately this led to complete panic by the New Zealand Government. A Maori liaison officer for the Department of Conservation was prevented from attending the meeting, and a Government media adviser, asked to join a panel to discuss the New Zealand media and the whaling debate, was forced to leave his job because of his association with the conference. The DOC Maori liaison officer did attend but was forced to take unpaid leave to do so.

This demonstrated to whaling nations the completely intractable position of the New Zealand Government – that it is not prepared to hear any views to the contrary of its position, and will even go to great lengths to silence its own citizens who offer alternative viewpoints. That people were forced to leave their jobs for the inalienable right to free speech is appalling.

What these two examples demonstrate conclusively is that the whaling debate has reached the far corners of every community in numerous nations. But it also certainly shows that for some IWC member governments, their stances on various issues are not as pure as they would like, and they should adopt a more conciliatory approach to reflect the competing demands within their own countries.