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

315. Action Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Canadian Affairs (Ridgway) to Secretary of State Shultz¹

Washington, January 23, 1986

SUBJECT

• Icelandic Scientific Whaling proposal

Issue for Decision

Whether to send a letter from you to Icelandic Foreign Minister Hallgrimsson highlighting the Department of Commerce’s inability to assure his government or the government of Japan that US sanctions would not be forthcoming should Iceland resume whaling for scientific purposes without appropriate action by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and trade in whale products from that program with Japan.²

Essential Factors

In the 1985 May meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) Iceland submitted a proposal to resume whaling for scientific purposes.³ The GOI asked for our opinion on its proposal but, as is normally our practice on such questions, we deferred to the IWC which has under consideration the general question of whaling for scientific purposes as well as the specific Icelandic proposal. The IWC is expected to comment on the Icelandic proposal at its 1986 meeting which will occur at about the same time that the Icelandic whaling season would start. U.S. environmentalists have opposed the Icelandic proposal since it became public in early June 1985 and the major US purchasers of Icelandic fish products have expressed concern to GOI officials about commercial pressures which would be applied to them by these groups should Iceland pursue its proposed scientific whaling program without appropriate action by the IWC.

When you stopped in Reykjavik in November Prime Minister Hermannsson and Foreign Minister Hallgrimsson objected to the probable negative effects of the Pelly and Packwood-Magnuson amendments on Iceland’s ability to undertake a scientific whaling program in 1986.⁴ Under these amendments the GOI proposal, if initiated before the IWC completes its consideration of scientific whaling, would require USG review for certification and sanctions against Iceland and Japan for diminishing the effectiveness of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling or its conservation program.

The Icelanders handed you a memorandum (Tab C) which summarized the GOI’s views on this issue.⁵ In essence the GOI would like the US to ensure Iceland’s ability to undertake its scientific whaling program and to sell resulting whale by-products to Japan by addressing both the issue of US sanctions as well as that of environmentalist pressures. You assured the GOI leaders that we would study and comment on this memorandum.

On January 21 we received written comments on the Icelandic proposal from the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the Department of Commerce (Tab B).⁶ The NOAA/Commerce position is clear: they will abide by commitments made to Congress to do everything including certification to encourage compliance with the IWC moratorium on whaling and discourage trade in whale products. We can therefore provide no assurances to the GOI that the Congressionally mandated sanctions would not be applied to Iceland and Japan if they proceed with Iceland’s current plans before the IWC completes its review of Iceland’s proposal.

We have prepared a letter for your signature to Foreign Minister Hallgrimsson which explains the NOAA position.⁷ We have also pointed out that as a separate question from that of USG sanctions, the ineffectiveness of USG influence on environmental groups in the past (even if we wanted to weigh-in on Iceland’s behalf in this case) does not augur well for commercial consequences for Iceland should Iceland undertake its proposed whaling program. The letter notes that regardless of the USG sanctions possibility the potential damage to Iceland’s US fisheries export trade ($180.7 million) vs. the value of its trade in whale products with Japan ($10.4 million) would seem to offer compelling reasons not to undertake any whaling program before appropriate action is taken by the IWC.

The Prime Minister and Foreign Minister seem to have a realistic appreciation for the potential impact of negative environmental group pressure which would have a more defined, immediate and financially more significant impact on the Iceland economy than sanctions. On January 15, Iceland’s leading newspaper, Morgunbladid, closely associated with Hallgrimsson’s Independence Party and with him personally, published an editorial strongly criticizing the GOI’s approach and pointing out the dangers for Iceland’s marine trade with the United States. The Minister of Fisheries, who is the prime architect of the present GOI position, seems increasingly isolated on this issue.

Recommendation

That you authorize the transmittal of the telegram at Tab A⁸ which conveys a message from you to Foreign Minister Hallgrimsson regarding the USG position on Iceland’s scientific whaling proposal.

1. Source: Department of State, Dumping; Arctic; Whaling; Antarctic; Scientific Research, Lot 94D419, Whaling: Iceland 1985–86 Including 1986 Agreement. Confidential. Drafted by Horsey on January 22 and cleared by Wilkinson, Wenick, Wachob, Smith, Flournoy, Kendrew, Sofaer, and Verville. A typed notation in the upper right-hand margin reads: “Cable dispatched 1/24 0830.”
2. In the margin next to the sentence, Shultz wrote, “OK but don’t they have a new Foreign Minister now.”
3. See Document 313.
4. See footnote 13, Document 313.
5. Attached but not printed.
6. Attached but not printed.
7. See Document 316.
8. Attached but not printed. The text of the letter is in Document 316.