329. Telegram From Secretary of State Shultz’s Delegation to the Department of State1
10062. Subj: Memorandum of Conversation: Secretary’s June 12 Meeting With Iceland’s Foreign Minister.
1. Confidential—Entire text.
2. The following is approved text of memorandum of conversation of Secretary’s meeting with Foreign Minister Mathiesen.
3. Summary: Secretary Shultz held a bilateral discussion on the margins of the NATO Ministerial meeting with Icelandic Foreign Minister Matthias Mathiesen and Fisheries Minister Halldor Asgrimsson. As expected, the talks centered almost exclusively on scientific whaling and the upcoming International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting at Bournemouth, U.K. The Secretary began the conversation by noting that the USG would not be able to meet Iceland’s request for a bilateral agreement prior to the IWC meeting guaranteeing that we would not certify Iceland under the Pelly or Packwood Amendments.2 The Secretary stressed our strong desire to see Iceland introduce its draft resolution on scientific whaling or formally table amendments to ours at Bournemouth. Surprisingly, the Icelanders did not press the Secretary on this issue, but rather sought assurances that if they did so, their points would be taken seriously. The Secretary responded that Dr. Calio, the Head of the U.S. IWC Delegation, is prepared to continue discussions with Iceland. He added that we expect to continue discussions both during and after the Bournemouth meeting and that no [Page 923] decisions would be taken on certification without full bilateral consultations. No matter what final outcome emerges from the meeting.3
There was a brief discussion of Iceland’s desire to have increased flights between Reykjavik and Orlando. The Secretary replied that we would have to look at the request and get back to the GOI. End summary.
4. On June 12, Secretary Shultz met with Icelandic Foreign Minister Matthias Mathiesen and Fisheries Minister Halldor Asgrimsson on the margins of the Reykjavik NATO Ministerial meeting. Also participating for Iceland were: Hannes Hafstein, Permanent Under Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Helgi Agustsson, Deputy Permanent Under Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs; and Arni Kolbeinsson, Secretary General, Ministry of Fisheries. Accompanying the Secretary were: Assistant Secretary of State for European and Canadian Affairs Rozanne L. Ridgway; Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs Designate Charles Redman; Ambassador Ruwe, Iceland; Howard Perlow, EUR/NE Notetaker.
5. The Secretary began the meeting by thanking the Icelanders for the exceptional job they accomplished as hosts to the Reagan-Gorbachev meeting last October.4 He added that the current NATO Ministerial was an equally outstanding example of Icelandic hospitality, hard work and efficiency. The Secretary added that when the history of this period is written, the name of Reykjavik will be closely identified with important steps forward in arms control.
6. Mathiesen began the substantive discussion by referring to the Secretary’s letter5 which he had received the previous evening and asking if the Secretary would care to provide additional comment. In response, the Secretary reiterated the points made in the letter—we strongly urge that Iceland go to the IWC meeting prepared to table its draft resolution on whaling or formally introduce amendments to the USG draft resolution. This will be the only means by which a full debate on the issues can be held. When the results are in, we can take stock and decide if any further discussions or steps are warranted. He added that he recognized the Icelandic desire for a bilateral agreement prior to the commissioners meeting, but we must be careful not to [Page 924] preempt the IWC meeting. Such an agreement could cause serious problems for the Secretary of Commerce with Congress.6
7. Assistant Secretary Ridgway seconded the statement made by the Secretary and added that it was important for us that both sides of the issue be presented at Bournemouth. Only by presenting its case can Iceland hope to have a final outcome that meets its needs. In reply, Fisheries Minister Asgrimsson agreed that Iceland would also prefer to work within existing international bodies such as the IWC to resolve differences. However, Iceland believes that the U.S. draft resolution will be passed to the IWC no matter what Iceland does or does not do since our influence is so strong. Before engaging in an effort to win approval for its draft resolution or proposing amendments to ours, the GOI would like to be assured that its proposals will be taken seriously by the U.S. If Iceland is going to compromise a principle that it holds strongly, i.e., the right of IWC states to issue special permits for scientific whaling without involvement of the Commission, as provided for under Article 8 of the IWC convention, then it would like to be assured that the final result will be acceptable.7 Asgrimsson repeated the well-established GOI position that the U.S. draft resolution would give the Commission a responsibility not justified under the convention. Such a step would lead to “politicization” of scientific research and be dangerous for the IWC’s future.
8. The Secretary responded that he is not familiar with the working of the IWC, but he assumed that like most similar international organizations, members spanned the spectrum from the serious and well-informed to fanatics. Nevertheless, it is useful and essential to work through the process. He would be surprised if the IWC could agree to a final product that all members would like. Iceland should help shape a resolution that it can live with—it will be better in the long run for the IWC as well as bilateral relations. The U.S. will continue to work with the GOI both during and after the Bournemouth meeting on this issue.
9. Agrimsson explained that Iceland, like the U.S. was not happy with the resolution on scientific whaling that passed last year.8 However, the GOI had agreed to it, on the understanding that the issue was resolved at least through 1990 (i.e., the end of the moratorium on commercial whaling). He expressed doubt that the IWC could pass a resolution this year that would be any improvement over the 1986 [Page 925] resolution.9 Iceland would prefer to live with last year’s decision and allow more time to see how effective it is.10
10. Mathiesen voiced his hope that the U.S. will not again raise the question of certification and trade sanctions, as happened during last year’s bilateral confrontation over scientific whaling. The Secretary assured Mathiesen that before any decision was taken on certification, we would consult fully with the GOI. Mathiesen expressed his thanks for the Secretary’s efforts on this matter and his hope that all will turn out well.
11. Just prior to the conclusion of the meeting, Mathiesen stated that he had been asked to raise the question of additional flights to Orlando, Florida, for Icelandair. The route has been very successful and Icelandair would like to move from three flights per week to five. The Secretary noted that he had worked a number of civil aviation issues with the GOI during the past few years and he was certain that we would be able to work together well on this one also.
- Source: Department of State, Dumping; Arctic; Whaling; Antarctic; Scientific Research, 1976–1987, Lot 94D419, Whaling: Iceland July 1987. Confidential; Immediate. Sent Immediate for information to the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Navy, Tokyo, Oslo, the White House, and the Department of Commerce. Shultz was in Manila to meet with President Corazon Aquino. The NATO meeting was held in Reykjavik, June 11–12.↩
- See footnote 5, Document 328.↩
- An unknown hand drew an asterisk to the right of this sentence.↩
- Documentation on the Reagan-Gorbachev meeting at Reykjavik is scheduled for publication in Foreign Relations, 1981–1988, vol. V, Soviet Union, March 1985–October 1986.↩
- In telegram 178511 to Beijing, June 15, the Department transmitted the text of a version of the letter, but the text was garbled. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D870470–0249)↩
- An unknown hand drew two question marks to the right of this sentence.↩
- An unknown hand bracketed this sentence and drew an asterisk to the right of it.↩
- See Document 322.↩
- See footnote 3, Document 326.↩
- An unknown hand drew an asterisk to the right of this sentence.↩