Animal rights and animal welfare non-governmental organizations have regularly made an issue of their allegations of vote-buying at the IWC. The theory that nations will only support the sustainable use of wildlife if they receive some sort of financial pay-back is, of course, absurd. The value of foreign aid packages going to countries that oppose all whaling are far greater than those provided to countries that support managed whaling.

Still, if NGOs really did believe what they say – that vote-buying is taking place – then, logically, they should be embracing Japan’s proposal for secret ballots at the IWC. That way, countries would be in a position to receive financial aid and still vote whichever way they wanted without risking any negative consequences. Nations that wanted to reveal how they have voted could still do so.

But wait. Has any political pressure been placed on new members of the European Union to join the IWC and vote with the non-whaling countries (even if they have no coastline)? And what about the diplomatic pressure placed on Pacific Island states by developed nations, urging them not to vote with whaling nations at the IWC?

If secret ballots existed, countries could vote freely according to the logic of the arguments before them. IWMC believes this would lead to much less polarization and could even be the key to saving the IWC from its own demise.

IWC delegates are accountable to their own people, not to the delegations of other nations or campaign groups. Is it too much to expect from countries that supposedly rally for democracy and freedom that they could actually support a little free-will at the IWC, by endorsing secret ballots?