322. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in Iceland1
217976. Subject: U.S.-Iceland Consultations on “Scientific” Whaling—July 7–8, Washington, D.C. Ref: (A) Reykjavik 1357, (B) State 206688, (C) Reykjavik 1274.2
1. U.S. and Icelandic delegations led by Halldor Asgrimsson, Minister for Fisheries of Iceland, and Dr. Anthony J. Calio, Administrator of NOAA and U.S. IWC Commissioner, respectively, met July 7 in Washington to discuss Iceland’s “scientific” whaling. A small working group met on July 8 for more detailed discussions. The two sides presented differing interpretations of the paragraph in the IWC resolution on scientific permits which recommends that quote following the completion of scientific treatment the meat as well as other products should be utilized primarily for local consumption unquote. The Icelandic side held the view that Iceland’s small size and dependence on exports (90 percent of products are exported), particularly fisheries (76 percent of exports), require special consideration in interpreting this paragraph. A film was shown which underscored this dependence. The U.S. expressed the view that the intent of the resolution was to take commercial elements out of scientific whaling and to set a limit on the number of whales taken in order to avoid undermining the IWC commercial whaling moratorium. The meetings ended with commitment by GOI to provide USG with a “package” for consideration within the next few days.
2. The Icelandic side referred to the Secretary’s January 24 letter to Icelandic Foreign Minister Mathiesen3 which states that the best resolution of the matter concerning Iceland’s proposed scientific whaling program quote would be to work closely with the IWC and postpone initiation of the program until the IWC had taken appropriate [Page 901] action. Unquote. They expressed the view that this request had been met.
3. On the issue of local consumption, it was explained that Iceland was different than large countries or those less dependent upon trade (exports contribute more than half of GNP). The Icelanders explained that there was a stockpile of lamb and ox (?) meat and therefore, with Iceland’s small population, little hope of increasing consumption of whale meat significantly. The Icelanders emphasized that the purpose of the program was to contribute to scientific knowledge for the comprehensive assessment and to knowledge of the whales ecosystem because fish (which whales and fish consume in large quantities) are so very important to the Icelandic economy.
4. Gudmundur Eiriksson, Legal Adviser to MFA, pointed out there were three elements of this paragraph on local consumption in the resolution on scientific whaling that led the GOI to believe that its case-by-case approach was appropriate: 1) Begins with “recommends, 2) the use of “should” and not shall, and 3) the use of the word “primarily” and not all. In Eiriksson’s view the Icelanders would be enhancing the effectiveness of the IWC in implementing its scientific whaling program.
5. In response to U.S. query, the Icelandic side indicated that approximately 10 percent of the whale meat would be consumed within Iceland (150 to 200 tons). The 120 great whales (80 Fin and 40 Sei) would produce about 1500 to 2000 tons. They stated that in the past, when more whales were taken, 3–5 percent of the whale meat was consumed. They further explained that they expect to increase utilization. The U.S. side responded that even with a 100 percent increase only 20 percent would be consumed locally. In the U.S. view, this was the reverse of the appropriate interpretation of the amount to be exported to meet the criterion for “primarily for local consumption.”
6. The GOI on several occasions stressed that the Icelandic scientists had been under strict instructions to plan a scientific program with the bare minimum number of whales to be taken necessary to provide useful scientific results. The scientists would be asked again if the number could be reduced. The program was also designed to provide no profit for the whaling operation involved.
7. In response to USG demarche (ref B), GOI officials made presentation concerning minke whales. At the present time the GOI has only granted permits for great whales because the facilities for research are available and whaling is localized. The minke whaling on the other hand involves a small, scattered operation using 9 vessels of 15–30 tons. Plans now call for reducing the operation to 3 or 4 vessels and 2 landing sites to guarantee thorough expedited scientific processing of the whales. Until this is arranged, the permits will not be issued.
[Page 902]8. Icelanders confirmed U.S. understanding that minke whale meat was preferred by Icelanders. The blubber is pickled (soured) and eaten in the winter with, we were told, vast quantities of aquavit. If the meat from the 80 minke whales proposed to be taken was all consumed locally, then approximately 120 tons of meat would be eaten (about one and a half tons of meat per minke whale). (We observe that this will leave virtually all of the meat from the great whales for export.)
8 [9]. The GOI plans to implement the use of explosive harpoons in the minke whaling operation. They will use the same mechanism developed and currently utilized for Norwegian minke whaling operations, but no firm purchase order has yet been placed. Apparently a small firm in Switzerland makes the necessary trigger mechanism and will require a year to make delivery. It was also pointed out that in addition to the delivery problem, it will be necessary to teach inexperienced whalers to incorporate the necessary precautions and safety measures.
9. [10.] In the smaller meeting held on July 8, Mr. Eiriksson presented list of arguments that U.S. could use against assertions that Icelandic whaling was diminishing the effectiveness of the IWC: 1) Iceland’s proposed research program is dedicated to science. 2) The GOI was not seeking to circumvent the IWC moratorium on commercial whaling. (Dr. Calio had indicated on July 7 that he was convinced that this was the case). 3) As requested by the U.S., the proposal as now drafted took account of IWC Scientific Committee comments (e.g. excluding any taking of blue or humpback whales). 4) Research is mandated by the IWC. It is part of the comprehensive assessment which is incorporated in the IWC commercial whaling moratorium decision. Iceland considers its research proposal as necessary to provide information for the comprehensive assessment which the GOI interprets as necessary by 1990. 5) Iceland’s program is consistent with the terms of the resolution. 6) The question of local consumption should be treated on a case by case basis. Iceland’s special situation discussed above would justify the 10–20 percent level of consumption.
10. [11.] U.S. responded that a large segment of the U.S. population and many members of Congress are carefully observing Iceland’s activity and the U.S. reaction. While aspects of Eiriksson’s argument could be persuasive, in the U.S. view the IWC resolution on scientific whaling does not allow such a broad interpretation. Our interpretation of primary requires that substantially more than 10 percent of the whale meat be consumed in Iceland.
11. [12.] The Icelandic side pointed out that if the U.S. had the desire to interpret U.S. regulations favorably, then there certainly was a basis for deciding that the Icelandic scientific whaling proposal actually enhanced the IWC Convention. As an example of this “if there is a [Page 903] will there is a way scenario” it was explained that the U.S. base in Iceland has been the beneficiary of many favorable interpretations of Icelandic law, often requiring great effort by GOI officials. (At a lunch hosted by the GOI on July 8, a USG official was told that if the US threatens Iceland’s fisheries (even if certified without sanctions), the US base would no longer be welcome).
12 [13.] Fisheries Minister Asgrimsson telephoned Administrator Calio on the evening of July 8 and indicated that a “package” would be forthcoming soon, probably before the end of the week. (To date no such package has been received.)
- Source: Department of State, Dumping; Arctic; Whaling; Antarctic; Scientific Research, 1976–1987, Lot 94D419, Whaling: Iceland 1985–86 Including 1986 Agreement. Confidential; Immediate. Drafted by Kendrew, cleared by Christenson and McGovern, and approved by Scully. Sent for information to Oslo, Tokyo, and Seoul.↩
- In telegram 1357 from Reykjavik, July 4, the Embassy transmitted the Icelandic Government’s initial thoughts on the topics to be discussed in the meeting. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D860515–0298) In telegram 206688 to Reykjavik, July 1, the Department transmitted a démarche to be delivered to Asgrimsson and Eirikson before the meeting. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D860507–0657) In telegram 1274 from Reykjavik, June 25, the Embassy transmitted the text of a letter from Ingvarsson to Shultz, which proposed arrangements for whaling talks. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D860490–0777)↩
- See Document 316.↩