´óÏó´«Ã½

At the International Whaling Commission meeting in Madeira

As Bill Clinton might say: "".

Or perhaps Tony Blair would adopt the form of to read "politics, politics, politics".

The conference hall here at the (IWC) meeting rings with statements about what's right and wrong, what ought to be done, how others are failing to abide by their moral obligations, and different visions of the world based on traditions and ethical stances.

So on Wednesday morning, as I sit listening to statements from non-governmental organisations that represent - or claim to represent - various constituencies on the pro- and anti- sides, we hear, for example, contentions that Western nations are wrong to offer port services to the "pirates" of the , that regulating by indigenous groups is "demeaning" and "neo-colonial", and the decades-long argument that anti-whaling countries always act in good faith and pro-whaling countries do not.

Judging by comments and e-mails coming into the ´óÏó´«Ã½ - not least those on my last blog post (for which many thanks) and on this week's - statements aired here are a pretty good reflection of genuinely-held views in the big world outside this hall.

But what holds the key to sorting out the mess that the IWC has been in for years surely doesn't lie in expressions, however incisively phrased, of right and wrong.

Only politics - or perhaps more accurately, politics, politics, politics - can do that.

Time after time, for example, environmental organisations say that Iceland, Japan and Norway should just stop whaling.

It plays well in the speakers' own constituencies and often in their home countries; but having heard it 1,000 times, what realistically is the chance that the 1,001th utterance will see whaling captains suddenly stand up, bend an ear to the wind and say "you know what - they're right", before turning their harpoons into gardening forks and their boats into pleasure cruisers?

And how likely is it that on hearing yet another contention that science would support the limited resumption of commercial hunting, the countries and individuals who worked for years to ban the practice will suddenly agree and wish Japanese harpooners good speed as they head into the Southern Ocean?

I had a chat yesterday with someone equipped with a long and substantial understanding of the conservation movement and more wisdom than most of us can aspire to.

"I've said to youngsters in the field 'don't think you're going to change anything just because you're right'," she said.

"They look at me askance but that's the reality. It's a political issue and you have to play the politics."

If you feel passionately about whales and whaling - or about any other conservation issue - this can be a hard point to see.

To bring things into focus more clearly, think of something you would like to change in the world and ask yourself how, realistically, you would go about doing it - especially if it's going on in another country with an unfamiliar history and different traditions.

Will standing outside an embassy waving banners do it? Will writing a pamphlet do it? Will going to the place concerned and telling people to stop do it?

Hmm... probably not. So you have to be cuter about finding a point of entry to the issue, a foothold you can gain... and now you're playing politics.

The whaling issue has been around for so long that every bloc has people who have grown very cute, and the best observers read the opposing side's strategy like a book printed in the boldest type.

That means they're also cute enough to know that their opponents are often prepared to go much further in private than their public statements would indicate. Without that understanding, the current would not even exist.

Strident demands are, properly used, part of the political game - any political game.

What they must not become - and there is a danger of this in the IWC arena, because not everybody involved, particularly on the anti-whaling side, appears to understand the importance of reading runes and giving clues and playing the long game - is a wall that blocks exploration of wiggle room.

At the appropriate time, in effective negotiations, the grandstanding stops and the private words begin - and that, often, is when the real progress is made.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?