(from "Chair's Report of the 54th Annual Meeting")

'Votes can be taken by show of hands, or by roll call, as in the opinion of the Chairman appears to be most suitable, or by secret ballot if requested by a Commissioner and seconded by at least five other Commissioners except that on any matter related to aboriginal subsistence whaling, voting by secret ballot shall only be used when all the Commissioners representing the Contracting Parties where the aboriginal subsistence take or takes will occur requests the use of a secret ballot and where such requests are seconded by at least five other Commissioners.'

Japan considered that in addition to being available for electing the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Commission, appointing the Secretary of the Commission and selecting Annual Meeting venues, voting by secret ballot should be possible for setting catch limits and deciding other regulatory measures. It noted that the secret ballot is a system commonly used in other international organisations, including fisheries management bodies, and that its broader application within IWC would help implement Resolution 2001-1 ⁴ adopted by consensus at last year's meeting. That Resolution, inter alia 'endorses and affirms the complete independence of sovereign countries to decide their own policies and freely participate in the IWC (and other international forums) without undue interference or coercion from other sovereign countries'. Japan urged Contracting Governments to act consistently with other international organisations.

3.2 Commission discussions and action arising
As the Commission had addressed Japan's proposal last year, the Chair proposed to limit debate by ruling that interventions be limited to two countries speaking in support of the proposal and two countries speaking against. The ruling was challenged, but was upheld when put to a vote.

Mexico and New Zealand spoke against Japan's proposal. Mexico opposed the proposal since it considered that IWC should function in an open and transparent manner. New Zealand considered that Japan's proposal was inconsistent with the sentiments of transparency expressed in Resolution 2001-1. It further noted that although 12 out of 16 Conventions allow secret ballots, in most cases they are never used. New Zealand commented that the Commission is accountable for its decisions to the different governments and the people they represent, and that accountability can be ensured through maintenance of a high level of transparency particularly through the disclosure of each country's vote. It did not agree that the disclosure of votes put small countries, like those of the Caribbean, at risk since these countries argue their positions publicly and make no secret of their views and how they intend to vote.

St. Lucia considered that opposing the proposal for widening the use of secret ballots would condone the activities of those threatening vulnerable economies with boycotts and economic sabotage that suppress a nation's sovereignty. It noted that these countries have nothing to hide and appealed for support for Japan's initiative. Norway agreed with Mexico and New Zealand on the merits of transparency that should be employed wherever feasible, but believed that the real threats of victimisation, intimidation and coercion surrounding the whaling debate should be taken into account. It therefore supported Japan's proposal.

The proposal was put to a vote but failed to attract a majority. There were 19 votes in favour, 25 against and 1 abstention. Chile explained that it voted against the proposal since in its view, public votes are needed to ensure transparency and that the right to secret ballots lie in their exceptional nature and restricted use. Antigua & Barbuda indicated that it voted in favour of the proposal in view of the continued boycotts and threats against Caribbean countries. It believed that sovereign rights of countries should be protected by all and expressed disappointment in the lack of support, particularly from those countries that had supported the use of secret ballots to select officers for IWC's Scientific Committee (see Item 17.5.2).

³See Ann. Rep. Whaling Comm 2001: 8.
⁴Ann. Rep. Whaling Comm 2001: 54.

_