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

330. Memorandum From Robert Dean of the National Security Council Staff to the President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs (Carlucci)¹

Washington, July 1, 1987

SUBJECT

• Whale of a Problem

Summary

A recent resolution by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) bans any killing of whales by Iceland. Lawyers at the Department of Commerce assert that if Iceland does not adhere to the resolution, the Secretary of Commerce is required under the Pelly Amendment to “certify” Iceland in contravention of the IWC resolution. Indeed, some at Commerce believe that the Secretary is already obligated to certify Iceland because of whaling practices.

Given the importance of trade (mostly fish) with the US, even certification represents, in the Icelandic view, a highly threatening measure and could harm our security interests there. We recommend you discuss the issue with Secretary Baldrige and emphasize the importance of finding acceptable alternatives to certification (talking points are attached).²

We have a host of security concerns with the Icelanders, not the least of which is our desire to install two new radar sites, develop an alternative airfield to Keflavik, and to keep our F–15’s and AWACs on site. Mac Baldrige would prefer that this issue not be vetted through the interagency process.³ However, he has promised to consult with NSC, DOD, and State before certifying Iceland as not adhering to the IWC. We have, nevertheless, initiated an interagency review and State will be submitting an interagency cleared options paper to the NSC no later than July 8.⁴ We have asked that the paper address the degree of statutory discretion available to the Secretary of Commerce; that is whether the Secretary must certify Iceland given the facts of this case.

Background

The IWC was formed in 1937 to monitor rapidly dwindling whale stocks. Over the years the IWC has become a force for preserving whale stocks and includes contracting parties from both whaling and non-whaling countries. In 1982, the IWC passed a resolution placing a moratorium on all commercial whaling, but it reserved the right of nations to engage in scientific whaling. In response to this moratorium the Icelanders reduced their whale kill from roughly 400/yr to 120/yr.

Although whaling is not important to the Icelandic economy, the GOI insists that the current take of 120 whales is essential to make a determination on the implications for Iceland’s fishing industry, far and away the most important sector in their economy. “Scientific whaling,” if it meets IWC criteria, is permitted under the convention. The Icelanders argue, with some merit, that whales compete for the same feedstock as the commercial fishstocks. They do not wish to stop their whaling program until the research indicates their fishstock population will not be harmed.

The Icelanders take Fin and Sei whales, neither of which are on the endangered or threatened list. The recent IWC meetings determined that the Icelandic scientific whaling program no longer met the appropriate criteria for acceptable whaling. Should the Icelanders continue to kill whales (under their scientific program), the Secretary of Commerce is required to certify them in contravention of the IWC, a legal requirement under U.S. law. Once certification occurs, the President must decide whether to impose trade sanctions. We would recommend against putting the President in a position of deciding between whales and our security interests in Iceland.

Next Steps

There are some steps we can take to keep this issue from getting out of control. Clearly, part of the concern with the Icelanders is the issue of sovereignty. The Icelanders see the U.S. as threatening them on an issue which they believe is none of our business. If they continue whaling, Mac Baldrige believes he has no choice but to certify Iceland. We do not agree. We believe the Secretary of Commerce has discretion both from a policy and legal perspective. For example, we could open consultations with the Icelanders to examine proposals for augmenting their scientific program in a manner that would be acceptable to the IWC (i.e., they could continue taking whales but under a more rigorous scientific protocol). With our help, the IWC might approve a new scientific program and we would avoid certification.⁵ Other alternatives also exist. There is precedent for not certifying Iceland. The Supreme Court recently upheld a decision by the Secretary of Commerce not to certify Japan for violating the IWC. Commerce, however, argues that Iceland’s violations are so egregious as to require certification.

The attached talking points inform the Secretary of Commerce that we have genuine security concerns and wish to avoid prejudice to them if at all possible. Regarding the interagency process, you inform the Secretary that we will ensure that his views will be included in any options paper forwarded to the NSC. However, it’s important that Mac understand that once he certifies the Icelandic program in contravention of the IWC, he may escalate the problem with Iceland to the point where our options are limited and our security concerns harmed.

Peter Sommer and Nick Rostow concur.

RECOMMENDATION

That you discuss this issue with the Secretary of Commerce and use the attached talking points at Tab I.⁶

1. Source: Reagan Library, Cobb, Tyrus: Files, Whaling (Folder 1). Confidential. Drafted by Pugliaresi and concurred by Sommer and Rostow. Sent for action. In the upper right-hand margin, Carlucci wrote: “SecState has committed to consult w/Iceland before USG takes action/ ie certifies.”
2. Attached but not printed.
3. In an undated draft memorandum to Shultz, Baldrige wrote: “Arguably I should have already certified Iceland for diminishing the effectiveness of the IWC. On June 26, the IWC recommended that Iceland suspend its research whaling until the uncertainties identified by the IWC’s Scientific Committee have been resolved to the satisfaction of the Committee.” (Reagan Library, Cobb Files, Whaling (Folder 1))
4. No interagency paper was drafted. A summary of conclusions from a July 7 meeting between Carlucci and Baldridge describes a compromise where: “Consultations will be initiated with the Icelanders, telling them that the Secretary of Commerce is by law considering certification, but that we are willing to work with them to attempt to find solutions within the IWC which would avoid certification.” (Ibid.)
5. An unknown hand underlined the previous two sentences and wrote in the left-hand margin: “Work with Iceland—Support them to an IWC approval.”
6. There is no indication of approval or disapproval of the recommendation.