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

314. Telegram From the Embassy in Norway to the Department of State¹

Oslo, July 10, 1985, 0843Z

3888. Subj: International Whaling Commission Annual Meeting, July 15–19. Ref: State 201312.²

1. (C—Entire text.)

2. Begin summary. Norwegian IWC Commissioner Tressert gives no indication that Norway’s position on commercial whaling, the moratorium and Norway’s reservation will be any different than it has been in the past. He notes it is not Prime Minister Willoch’s style to bow to outside pressure, either from governments or special interest groups, if Norway is living up to its international obligations and a matter of principle is at stake. Tresselt also doubts sanctions under the Pelly Amendment would be consistent with USG obligations under the GATT. It could be a cause for concern, he noted, if the USG attempts to treat its close ally Norway more harshly than it does the Soviet Union. Tresselt says the U.S./Japan arrangement is not a matter for IWC consideration, and agrees with our concerns on IWC finance and administration. He is “hopeful” for final instructions which will enable him to go along with recommendations from the Technical Committee subcommittee on the U.S. catch of bowheads,³ despite some sentiment to hoist the USG with its own petard. Tresselt sees no pressing need for interpretative guidelines for the scientific catch of whales, and says Iceland has a great deal of legal leeway under the basic 1945 agreement.⁴ Action requested: Department evaluation of consistency of USG obligations under the GATT with Pelly Amendment sanctions (see paragraph 10). End Summary.

3. Emboff first described points in reftel concerning U.S./Japan arrangement to local Japanese Embassy Officer responsible for whaling; he was generally aware the USG would be seeking to smooth the way for the IWC meeting, but provided no details about his own demarche. Emboff then discussed the upcoming IWC meeting and Norway’s thoughts with MFA Legal Advisor (and Norwegian IWC Commissioner) Per Tresselt, who will lead the GON Delegation. Tresselt was pleased Byrne will head USDel.

4. Commercial Whaling. Despite intense probing, Tresselt parried all attempts to determine whether the GON’s approach to this annual IWC meeting, the last before the moratorium takes effect for Norway, would differ from known policy and what USG would expect. Emboff noted that some Norwegian politicians have informally indicated it is only a matter of time before Norway would have to phase out its limited whaling. Tresselt responded that Norway is on solid legal ground and has always complied with the recommendations of the Scientific Committee. He noted the result of the recent USG certification of the Soviet Union—fishing rights were affected (Norway has not fished in U.S. waters), but Soviet exports of fish products to the U.S. were not.⁵ He said it would cause some concern if the USG were to treat one of its closest allies more harshly. Noting that significant pressure might be brought to bear on the USG to do something, Emboff expressed concern that U.S./Norwegian bilateral relations—so trouble free—could be in for tough sledding next year. Tresselt said Prime Minister Willoch has shown on other occasions that he does not believe it is in Norway’s long-term interest to bow to outside pressure if Norway has consistently lived up to its agreements and important interests are at stake. Tresselt added that President Reagan had also shown he could resist pressure if he thought he was right. When Emboff asked about the threat of private boycotts in the U.S. against Norwegian fish imports, Tresselt responded that if a matter of principle were at stake, the Prime Minister would not be easily swayed.

5. Both Emboff and Tresselt expressed some regret that Norway and the U.S. had not been able to work out a bilateral arrangement earlier, agreeing that the U.S./Japan agreement would probably make it more difficult to do so now. Tresselt reiterated that the “Japanese model” is not a good one for Norway; the situation is just too different. Emboff wondered aloud if the GON might be in a position to show more flexibility about the future of Norwegian whaling after the fall parliamentary elections. As expected, Tresselt did not concede this would be the case. Finally, Tresselt said there is considerable doubt the USG is on firm footing concerning its GATT obligations if it seeks to restrict legitimate trade in fish products under the Pelly Amendment. He said the USG has looked into this question, and may well have come to the same conclusion.

6. U.S./Japan Arrangement. Tresselt agrees that the arrangement is not a matter for IWC consideration. He noted, however, that it could raise a question about our bilateral relations. It would “be noticed” for example, if Japan continues to whale after 1986 and is not “punished” for this by the USG but Norway is.

7. Finance and Administration Matters. The GON agrees with reftel points on this topic. Tresselt said Norway has run out of patience with Peru, and the special circumstances which excused it before no longer apply.

8. Aboriginal/Subsistence Whaling. Tresselt noted that the Technical Committee subcommittee had not yet made a decision. He said there was some sentiment in Norway to hoist the USG with its own petard. He “hoped”, however, for instructions which would enable him to be flexible enough to take into account the interests of both our governments.

9. Future Activities of the Commission. Tresselt foresaw no major differences with the U.S. Emboff specifically asked about Icelandic intention to take whales under scientific permits, and noted last sentence of talking point on this issue in reftel.⁶ Tresselt said he saw no pressing need for interpretive guidelines. The issue has been discussed in the Scientific Committee, with mixed reactions. Nevertheless, Iceland has a great deal of legal leeway under the basic 1946 agreement.

10. Action requested. Embassy has attempted for some time to obtain information on USG interpretation of consistency of its obligations under the GATT with sanctions under the Pelly Amendment. We understand the Department has looked into this issue; we know Tresselt is generally aware of it; and would appreciate a readout, if only for our own internal guidance.⁷

Stuart

1. Source: Department of State, Dumping; Arctic; Whaling; Antarctic; Scientific Research, 1976–1987, Lot 94D419, Whaling—Norway 1985–86. Confidential; Immediate. Sent Immediate for information to London. Sent for information to Moscow, Reykjavik, and Tokyo. An unknown hand wrote in the upper right-hand margin, “What is the issue/answer? Thanks [illegible initials].”
2. In telegram 201312 to multiple diplomatic posts, July 1, the Department asked the Embassies to convey U.S. views on issues to be discussed at the IWC to their host governments. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D850465–0256)
3. In telegram 224444 to multiple diplomatic posts, July 23, the Department provided the Embassies with a summary of the IWC meeting and mentioned that the United States had requested permission for 35 Inuit Bowhead strikes yearly, but received permission “for 1985, 1986, and 1987 26 strikes, with the provision that any strike not used in any one year can be carried over with no more than 32 strikes in any one year.” (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D850520–1061)
4. Reference is to Article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, which discusses the taking of whales for scientific purposes.
5. See Document 312.
6. The sentence reads, “In this connection, USG may suggest that the working group recommend that the Technical Committee consider drafting a set of interpretive guidelines that may be of use to contracting governments that may be contemplating the exercise of their authority under Article VIII of the Convention to issue scientific permits involving the taking of whales.”
7. Not found.