Foreign Relations of the United States, 1981–1988, Volume XLI, Global Issues II

313. Telegram From the Embassy in Iceland to the Department of State¹

Reykjavik, June 27, 1985, 1304Z

1446. Subject: Fishing Minister Requests U.S. Response to Iceland’s Proposal to Whaling for Scientific Purposes. Ref: Reykjavik 1278.²

1. (C—Entire text.)

2. Ambassador met with Minister of Fisheries, Halldor Asgrimsson, on June 24 to discuss his recent trip to the U.S.³ and Iceland’s proposal for scientific whaling. Asgrimsson said that he felt his trip to Washington was productive and useful and that he had several good talks with U.S. officials during the course of his visit. However, he expressed some disappointment that during his meetings in Washington he had received no specific response to Iceland’s draft proposal for scientific whaling over the next several years.⁴

3. Asgrimsson stressed that Iceland’s proposal⁵ is entirely serious, that it was drafted in consultation with international scholars interested in whale habits and thus it was aimed at obtaining critical scientific data.⁶ Iceland is a nation which depends entirely on the resources of the sea for its livelihood, particularly its cod catch. Both cod and whale feed on capelin and krill.⁷ It was therefore essential for Iceland to have a clear understanding of what effect an increase in the whale population would have on Iceland’s principal resource.⁸ Iceland, he said, plans to submit its proposal to the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) which meets before the main IWC meeting scheduled for July in Bournemouth, England.⁹ He requested USG reaction to the draft proposal. Iceland needs the research findings from such a study, but if these can be obtained by means other than those presented in the proposal, Iceland was open to suggestions and would modify the proposal accordingly.¹⁰ Asgrimsson stressed the need to receive the USG response as soon as possible so that modifications can be made before the Scientific Committee meets.

4. Comment: Asgrimsson made clear at several points his willingness to modify Iceland’s proposal if good scientific rationale exists for such modification.¹¹ He implied particular flexibility on the number of whales¹² to be killed. Embassy believes we thus have a good chance to influence Iceland’s proposal in any way which best suits our interests. We should, however, of course avoid the pitfall of in any way committing ourselves to defend against charges and possible actions by environmentalists who may consider the proposal as simply a subterfuge in an effort on the part of the Icelanders to continue GOI whaling. The language of our response should be carefully crafted with that point in mind. Considering their vulnerability, the Icelanders clearly are playing with fire at this point in terms of risking action against their important economic interests in the U.S. for the sake of catching more whales, for whatever purpose. What way to an effort to insulate them from the fire that may [garble].

5. Action requested: Please provide a USG response to the proposal that can be passed to the Minister of Fisheries.¹³

Brement

1. Source: Department of State, Dumping; Arctic; Whaling; Antarctic; Scientific Research, 1976–1987, Lot 94D419, Whaling: Iceland 1985–86 Including 1986 Agreement. Confidential.
2. In telegram 1278 from Reykjavik, June 4, the Embassy reported it had received the Icelandic fishing proposal. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D850393–0270)
3. In telegram 1084 from Reykjavik, May 10, the Embassy reported on Asgrimsson’s planned May visit to Alaska. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D850331–0347)
4. An unknown hand underlined the phrase “some disappointment that during his meetings in Washington he had received no specific response to Iceland’s draft proposal for scientific whaling over the next several years.”
5. In telegram 1226 from Reykjavik, May 29, the Embassy transmitted a press release that outlined the Icelandic proposal. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D850376–0235)
6. An unknown hand underlined the phrases “drafted in consultation with international scholars interested in whale habits” and “aimed at obtaining critical scientific data.”
7. An unknown hand underlined the phrase “both cod and whale feed on capelin and krill.”
8. An unknown hand underlined the phrase “essential for Iceland to have a clear understanding of what effect an increase in the whale population would have on Iceland’s principal resource.”
9. In telegram 224444 to multiple diplomatic posts, July 23, the Department summarized the proceedings of the IWC meeting and mentioned that the Icelandic proposal had been submitted to the Scientific Committee. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D850520–1061)
10. An unknown hand underlined the sentence “Iceland needs the research findings from such a study, but if these can be obtained by means other than those presented in the proposal, Iceland was open to suggestions and would modify the proposal accordingly.”
11. An unknown hand underlined the phrase “willingness to modify Iceland’s proposal if good scientific rationale exists for such modification.”
12. An unknown hand underlined the phrase “flexibility on the number of whales.”
13. Not found. Shultz visited Iceland on November 6. A memorandum of the Shultz-Hermannsson meeting is scheduled for publication in Foreign Relations, 1981–1988, vol. VIII, Western Europe, 1985–1988.