When Socrates was accused of "corrupting" Athenian youth and thereby being guilty of treason against the state, he responded that he was ipso facto innocent – a sane man does not work against his own interests and, as an Athenian citizen, he would never have worked to undermine his own interests. The teacher of Plato was a great philosopher but a lousy politician. Governments and individual politicians alike, all too often, work to sabotage their own professed interests and goals in the pathetic quest for short-term PR gain and favorable headlines.

Consider the behavior of the lead anti-whaling nations: U.S., Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Italy etc. here at the IWC over the past four days. They have routinely trumpeted their commitment to "saving" the cetacean (whether or not he needs it). However, they have, simultaneously, worked double overtime to encourage the sustainable use

camp to exit the IWC and establish an alternative pro-whaling forum that will, quite speedily, promulgate a Revised Management Scheme for the regulated harvesting of abundant whale species (indeed, the scheme is all but ready to be promulgated) and recommence commercial whaling.

And what will the US, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Italy etc. be able to do to demonstrate their outrage when this development becomes reality? Precisely nothing.

By overplaying their hand and demonstrating their intention to transform the IWC into a purely "conservation" institution which never again would allow significant interaction between humans and whales, the anti-use countries placed the sustainable use countries is a quandary from which they have only one escape – the clearly marked "EXIT".

If they stay in the IWC, they condemn themselves to watching several more years of efforts to: undermine the text of the ICRW; exclude pro-use nations from the voting rolls all the while disbursing thousands of dollars in air travel to discuss the minutiae of a revised Management Scheme (RMS) that many of the negotiators have zero intention of ever implementing.

Surely, a much more sensible course – indeed, the only course – for them would be to exit the IWC and establish their pro-use sustainable whaling forum. Given the extensive – indeed too extensive – work that has gone into the RMS already, that scheme can be promulgated virtually overnight and the organization can begin to issue quotas for the regulated harvest of plentiful cetacean species.

What input into and control over this process will US, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Italy etc. have over this process? Zero. To what extent will they be able to impact the process, to alter the RMS and possibly lower catch quotas of some species – they will have no such capability.

In effect, by their intransigence and their clumsiness, anti-whaling nations have handed over the future management of the world’s cetacean population to others. By voting for the Berlin resolution and allowing outside money to begin to flow into the IWC, they probably felt that they were handing over the organization to their friends in the NGO’s. In the event, the NGO’s may control the IWC but the IWC will control nothing. Responsibility for management of the world’s whale populations will pass to those sustainable use nations who are, alone, truly interested in scientific management.

In the meantime, the rump of the IWC can meet each year in a pleasant venue and discuss how much they like whales.