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

328. Letter From Secretary of State Shultz to Icelandic Foreign Affairs Minister Mathiesen¹

Washington, May 21, 1987

Dear Mr. Minister:

Thank you for your letter of May 11 concerning the United States proposed resolution for scientific research to be presented at the annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC), June 22–26, 1987 in Bournemouth, U.K.²

I welcome the sentiments expressed in your letter about the mutual respect and good will that have long characterized our relations. Iceland is a close friend and longstanding ally, whose views and cooperation we value. It is on the basis of our strong bilateral relationship that we try to find mutually acceptable solutions to the inevitable differences of opinion that can arise—even between close friends. It is this spirit of friendship and understanding that I hope can guide both of our efforts to find a solution to the scientific whaling issue.

Because we so highly value our friendship with Iceland, we have made exceptional efforts to consult fully and frequently with your government on this difficult issue. These consultations began last year when the two IWC Commissioners, Under Secretary Calio and Minister Asgrimsson, met in Washington to discuss the problems created by the resolution on scientific whaling adopted by the IWC last year.³ In March Dr. Calio spent several days in Reykjavik briefing Minister Asgrimsson on our draft resolution.⁴ It should be noted that Dr. Calio has not been able to afford the time to visit any other country for the sole purpose of consulting on the proposed resolution.

I regret that you interpret our efforts to establish within the IWC an objective evaluation and review system for scientific whaling as “an aggressive policy against a legitimate and well founded Icelandic research program,” or that you believe it “reflects a disregard for the will and well being of the Icelandic people.” Our proposed resolution is intended to reduce the possibility of abuses under the present scientific whaling system. It is not directed at the program of any nation. We do not contemplate or intend that our resolution, or any action by the IWC, would rule out the taking of whales for recognized scientific research purposes. The United States is not insensitive to Iceland’s legitimate research interests. For instance, when Dr. Calio was in Reykjavik he offered to provide substantial support—up to eight scientists and research vessels—for Iceland’s whale-sighting survey, which constitutes one part of your country’s scientific research program.

It is in our common interest to work together in the IWC to address the matter of scientific whaling in a cooperative spirit. At this stage, we believe we cannot withdraw the proposed resolution as you suggest. However, we are prepared to engage in meaningful and constructive dialogue with Iceland, prior to and during the meeting, to develop mutually agreeable changes to the resolution, which we would support. Thus, I urge you to provide us with your specific comments on the proposed resolution at the earliest possible time.⁵ I will ensure that your views are given fullest consideration.

I look forward to receiving your suggestions for revisions or other steps that can be taken to assure Iceland’s support for our draft resolution. As ever, I welcome the chance to see you again at the June NATO Ministerial meeting in Reykjavik.

Sincerely yours,

George P. Shultz

1. Source: Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, P870092–0419. Limited Official Use. Drafted by Cooper and Perlow on May 20; cleared by Whitlock, Kendrew, Wolfe, Krosby, Colson, Verville, and McGovern; and approved by Thomas, Smith, and Sofaer.
2. Mathiesen wrote: “It is very disappointing, therefore, that your government has chosen to pursue an aggressive policy against a legitimate and well founded Icelandic research programme which includes the taking of whales for scientific purposes. This reflects a disregard for the will and well-being of the Icelandic people, and for the sovereign rights of the Republic of Iceland. I regret to have to stress that the policy of your government on this matter does not serve our bilateral relationship and impedes our cooperation in multilateral affairs.” (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, P870092–0422)
3. See Document 322.
4. See Document 326.
5. In telegram 1200 from Reykjavik, June 5, the Embassy transmitted Mathiesen’s response which stated: “Most importantly, your government should recognize the view of my government that the friendly relations between our countries would be damaged by certification of Iceland by the United States Secretary of Commerce, pursuant to the ‘Pelly’ or ‘Packwood’ amendments, and that the consequences of such damage could be far-reaching, indeed.” (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D870439–0884)