317. Telegram From the Embassy in Norway to the Department of State1
1923. Subj: Norwegian Whaling. Ref: Oslo 1692.2
1. C—Entire text.
2. Summary and action requested: Norwegian IWC Commissioner Tresselt has predicted privately that the GON will authorize a modest northeast Atlantic minke whale hunt in 1986, hinting the quota will be in the range of 150–350 animals. Tresselt said that the Norwegian scientific studies will be presented to the IWC Scientific Committee in May. He described the IWC decision last fall to protect the northeast Atlantic minke whale as unreasonable and expressed doubt the IWC would act differently if the issue were reopened. Tresselt claims to have received indications that the USG will not object to Iceland’s plans for continued whaling, and he opined that any USG effort to apply stricter standards to Norway would not be understood here. Embassy infers from Tresselt’s remarks that the GON intends to authorize a very small whaling quota at about the time of the IWC Scientific Committee meeting in the expectation that the USG will decide that such a small quota does not justify invoking Pelly Amendment sanctions against Norway.
3. Foreign Minister Stray will visit Washington April 3–4.3 If Tresselt’s understanding that the USG will not object to Iceland’s continued whaling and his expectation that the USG would not invoke Pelly Amendment sanctions against a very modest Norwegian whaling quota this year are incorrect, Embassy recommends strongly that Foreign Minister Stray be given an authoritative explanation of USG views. We would also reiterate our recommendation that the USG offer to support the GON reopening the issue at the IWC. End summary and recommendation.
[Page 886]4. In an informal conversation at a reception, Per Tresselt, MFA Legal Advisor and Norway’s IWC Commissioner, told DCM that domestic pressures would in all probability require the GON to authorize a whaling quota for 1986. The GON-sponsored scientific study clearly justified a modest quota. In addition, a second private Norwegian study indicated that even a substantially larger quota would not harm the stock. Tresselt commented that the findings of this second study appeared to be very soundly based. The Whaling Conference in Svolvaer showed strong local support for continued whaling in north Norway, a strategic area which had been steadily losing population because of its declining economy.4 (Comment: The communities in north Norway which are the center of the whaling activity have been hit this year by the twin blows of a disastrous fish catch and declining prospects for offshore oil development, resulting from the drop in oil prices.) Tresselt said he expects that any GON decision to overrule the Norwegian scientific conclusions by not authorizing a quota would be severely criticized within the government and Storting.
5. When asked, Tresselt said the GON did intend to present its scientific data to the IWC’s Scientific Committee which meets next in May. However, he said that the whaling season usually begins in late April or May and that the government would be under pressure to authorize a quota in time for the hunt to commence as usual. When it was noted that if the quota were very small, delaying longer would not prevent completion of the hunt, Tresselt did not respond. DCM said that Norway had thus far adhered to IWC decisions and expressed the hope that the GON would not authorize a quota in defiance of the IWC. Tresselt then noted that the IWC had decided to protect the northeast Atlantic minke whale despite the Scientific Committee’s approval of a modest quota of about 350 for 1986. He termed the protection unreasonable. Tresselt asked whether the US expected the IWC would be more reasonable if the issue were raised again. When DCM demurred, Tresselt commented that he did not see much hope that the IWC could be expected to be more reasonable. Tresselt was quick to add that the GON had appreciated the USG attitude when the issue was discussed at the IWC last fall.
6. Tresselt then said that one question for the GON was how big a quota to authorize. Speaking personally, he said that if Secretary Shultz should indicate to Foreign Minister Stray next week that the USG would not object to a quota of 150 and would be prepared to see such a quota continue indefinitely, such views would reinforce those [Page 887] who were calling for a very low quota. DCM said that he did not see how the Secretary would be in a position to do this, particularly in the context of an indefinite continuation of Norwegian whaling.
7. Tresselt then said that he had received the very strong impression that the USG would not object to Iceland’s plans for a quota of about 200 whales per year. He also interpreted the USG’s decision to appeal the Japanese whaling issue to the Supreme Court as an indication that the USG was optimistic about winning that case.5 In this context, Tresselt said that any decision by the USG to single out its ally Norway for particularly stringent treatment would simply not be understood or accepted in Norway. DCM replied that he could not comment authoritatively on Iceland, but that there were considerable risks to Norway’s fishing interests implicit in any assumption that the USG would in fact have the flexibility not to invoke Pelly sanctions if Norway hunted in disregard of an IWC decision.
8. Tresselt said such a modest hunt might be described as being necessary in order to protect other species or to avoid a growing whale stock becoming a danger to fish farming along the Norwegian coast. He noted that the US-Norway talks in 1984–5 about the possibility of defining Norwegian whaling as non-commercial coastal whaling had broken down and said he would be prepared to resume these talks if the USG wished.
9. Tresselt said he recognized there were risks but that the issue was an emotional one in Norway. He noted in particular that Prime Minister Willoch had decided views on the matter, and that Willoch was a man of conviction who would not back down under pressure if he was convinced that his position was justified. The conversation was then interrupted, and Tresselt ended by saying he would have no objection to his personal views being reported to Washington.
10. Comment: Tresselt is a careful diplomat who acts quite deliberately. Embassy infers from his remarks that the GON will present its scientific data to the IWC Scientific Committee in May and that, at about the same time and almost certainly before the IWC itself meets in June, the GON will approve a modest quota (probably in the 150–350 range) for 1986, in the belief that there is no hope of favorable IWC action and the expectation that neither the USG nor the environmentalists will take effective action against Norway for doing so.
11. Concern that either USG or environmentalists actions in response to continued Norwegian whaling would harm Norway’s eco [Page 888] nomically more important fishing exports to the US has not figured prominently in recent discussions of the Whaling issue. This probably reflects the perception that neither the USG or the environmentalists will react in a way that will harm Norway. The GON has everything to gain domestically from authorizing a modest quota and it perceives that it has little to lose internationally from doing so. While we have urged the GON not to expect USG flexibility under the Pelly Amendment, it is clear that the GON believes we will exercise the discretion which is available under the amendment.
12. The GON also believes there is a scientific basis for a modest hunt, a view that was endorsed by the IWC Scientific Committee last fall. We are not aware what basis there is for concluding that such a modest quota would “diminish the effectiveness of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.”
13. Whatever the merits of a hunt, we believe it essential in light of Tresselt’s assertions, that Foreign Minister Stray be given an authoritative statement of the USG attitude toward Iceland’s plans for continued whaling and of the degree of flexibility that we may be able to exercise under the Pelly Amendment should Norway authorize a modest quota this year. Given Tresselt’s comments, we believe MFA will interpret an absence of comments to Stray as an indication of USG acquiesence in a modest Norwegian quota. As recommended previously, we believe the USG should also offer to support a GON effort to reopen this issue at the IWC.
- Source: Department of State, Dumping; Arctic; Whaling; Antarctic; Scientific Research, 1976–1987, Lot 94D419, Whaling—Norway 1985–86. Confidential; Immediate. Sent for information to the Department of Commerce, Copenhagen, Reykjavik, Tokyo, Moscow, and Ottawa.↩
- In telegram 1292 from Oslo, October 23, 1985, the Embassy reported that the Government of Norway had filed a reservation to the IWC decision to list the minke whale as a protected stock with a zero quota. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D850757–0517)↩
- In telegram 116227 to Oslo, April 15, the Department reported that neither Stray nor Shultz raised the issue of whaling during their meeting. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D860286–0561)↩
- In telegram 1576 from Oslo, March 11, the Embassy noted that the Government of Norway had publicized a study on the minke whale stock at a conference in Svolvaer. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D860186–0867)↩
- In telegram 211037 to all East Asian and Pacific diplomatic posts, July 4, the Department reported that Japan had dropped its objection after a June 30 5–4 Supreme Court ruling in favor of the agreement. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D860516–0588)↩