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

332. Action Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Canadian Affairs (Ridgway), the Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs (Negroponte), and the Legal Adviser of the Department of State (Sofaer) to Secretary of State Shultz¹

Washington, July 13, 1987

SUBJECT

• Iceland and Scientific Whaling: US Position for Bilateral Talks

ISSUE FOR DECISION:

Whether to sign the attached letter to Secretary Baldrige suggesting changes in the Commerce Department’s position for bilateral talks with Iceland on scientific whaling and possible certification under the Pelly and/or Packwood Amendments.

ESSENTIAL FACTORS:

On July 9 we sent you a memo (Tab B) requesting that you call Secretary Baldrige to remind him of your involvement in this issue and your commitment to then Foreign Minister Mathiesen for full consultations before any decision was reached on certification.² The memo was returned with a notation asking that a letter to Secretary Baldrige be prepared making the same points.

Frank Carlucci spoke with Secretary Baldrige last week reminding him of the likelihood of significant consequences for our bilateral relations and the strategically important base at Keflavik were we unable to resolve in an appropriate manner our differences with Iceland over scientific whaling.³ Carlucci got Baldrige to agree that no precipitous steps would be taken on certification.

In Iceland’s view this dispute is also a question of national sovereignty. No Icelandic government, especially one that has just taken office, can be seen allowing itself to be “dictated to” by the IWC or the USG. Acceptance of an IWC recommendation on scientific whaling would mean aquiescing in an action the GOI deems illegal under the IWC Convention.

Fisheries issues in Iceland are considered a question of national security. In previous bilateral disputes, Icelandic governments have not hesitated to use the presence of the base and US forces at Keflavik as leverage. The GOI fully understands that the base is crucial to NATO’s sea lines of communication, our ability to reinforce Europe and ASW efforts.

After the July 9 memo was drafted, we notified the GOI of our desire to hold discussions in the very near future.⁴ The talks will focus on the recent IWC evaluation that Iceland’s scientific research program does not meet existing IWC criteria and should be suspended until uncertainties identified by the IWC Scientific Committee are resolved. Also to be discussed is a possible decision by Secretary Baldrige to certify Iceland under the Pelly and/or Packwood Amendments.

As an alternative to certification, Commerce has suggested a brief package of points for discussion with Iceland that would, inter alia, allow Iceland to continue scientific whaling, albeit at a reduced level for the remainder of the 1987 season.⁵ The US will require that Iceland resubmit a revised scientific research program in 1988 to the IWC for consideration if it wishes to continue research whaling and agree to abide by the IWC recommendation.

Although we support the thrust of Commerce’s position, the terms of discussion need to be modified if we are to have a realistic chance of resolving this matter and diminishing the likelihood of a bilateral crisis. Secretary Baldrige takes the position that unless Iceland agrees quickly to this offer, as presented, certification will follow immediately after the talks conclude. We find this totally unacceptable. If the US enters bilateral talks with that position, these talks can not reasonably be construed as the “meaningful consultations” you promised to then Foreign Minister Mathiesen.⁶

Three points need to be conveyed to Secretary Baldrige:

—The negotations must be undertaken in good faith. There may be other ways to accomplish our goal of seeing that the effectiveness of the IWC or its conservation program is not reduced.

—The US should be prepared to participate in scientific consultations with Iceland on how its program can be redesigned to meet IWC criteria in an appropriate manner.

—No decision should be made on certification until after bilateral discussions have taken place and there is a chance to assess the situation.

The Japanese and other governments will see an accommodation with Iceland as a precedent and are likely to seek equivalent agreements, therefore, discussions with Iceland must be viewed in this context.

Recommendation:

That you sign the letter to Secretary Baldrige at Tab A.

Tab A

Letter From Secretary of State Shultz to Secretary of Commerce Baldrige⁷

Washington, July 14, 1987

Dear Mac:

As you are aware, plans are underway for discussions in the very near future between the United States and Iceland on the decisions taken by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) at its recently concluded annual meeting in Bournemouth. For Iceland the most important result was an IWC assessment that its scientific research program did not meet existing IWC criteria. A recommendation by the Commission urged that Iceland halt its scientific whaling until uncertainties identified by the IWC Scientific Committee are resolved.

Based on the IWC decisions and Iceland’s continued research whaling there is, I understand, strong sentiment among some environmental organizations for you to certify Iceland under the Pelly and/or Packwood Amendments. Clearly, that is one way of bringing pressure on Iceland to cease scientific whaling until its program accords with IWC criteria. A certification of Iceland may not be the best way to ensure the effectiveness of the IWC and its conservation program.

I think our agreement to offer discussions to Iceland before you make a decision on certification is sound. It is consistent with past US practice as well as the commitments I made to the Icelandic Foreign Minister. We want to continue working with NOAA to assure that these discussions are meaningful and result in progress towards our goal of assuring that research whaling is scientifically valid and not used as a cover for commercial activity.

On behalf of the Department of Commerce, NOAA outlined for us steps that could be proposed to Iceland to bring it into compliance with IWC recommendations. In essence, they are that Iceland agree to limit its scientific whaling to no more than 80 whales this year and agree to be bound by IWC recommendations on scientific whaling starting in 1988. This would be in the best interests of the IWC conservation program. Commerce would also maintain its present position that Japan not be certified if it purchases no more than 49% of whale meat and by-products taken by Iceland under these special permits.

I think that this package forms an adequate basis to begin consultations. However, I am concerned about two aspects of the terms of reference for these talks. The first is the view that Iceland must accept the Commerce proposal as presented below or certification will immediately result. There may be other, equally valid ways to achieve the same ends. It is important that we listen to Iceland’s position and be prepared to consider alternatives that are consistent with our objectives of seeing that the effectiveness of the IWC and its conservation program are not reduced.

The second area I find troubling is the lack of discussions on Iceland’s scientific research program. In my May 22 [21] letter to Foreign Minister Mathiesen, sent with USDOC clearance, I stated that our draft resolution (since adopted by the IWC) was not intended to prohibit scientific whaling but rather to prevent possible abuses and to assure that it was conducted only for valid scientific reasons.⁸ I would like to see us take steps to help Iceland’s program meet those goals.

In the past, NOAA was reluctant to provide a scientific assessment to Iceland on a bilateral basis, arguing that this task should properly be done by the IWC Scientific Committee. At this year’s meeting the Scientific Committee reviewed the results of Iceland’s first year of scientific whaling and found the program flawed—a conclusion we helped shape and continue to share. Now that the IWC has spoken, I would think that NOAA’s inhibition about scientific discussions with Iceland could be reconsidered.

I think that it would be in our interest to work with Iceland to assure that its scientific research program meets IWC standards. A quality program would contribute to the comprehensive assessment and help support our own conservation goals. Furthermore, US advice in designing a research program that could win IWC approval is a strong incentive for Iceland to remain in the organization. Iceland’s withdrawal from the IWC, a real possibility in the wake of the recent Bournemouth decisions or a US decision to certify, surely would not serve our conservation objectives.

Finally, there is the question of dealing with the outcome of the discussions. I think it is essential that we have a chance to assess the results and take stock. Also, a new government has just taken office in Iceland and will need a reasonable amount of time to decide its policy and consult Parliament. I know you are aware of the important issues at stake and the need to proceed cautiously.

Although the dates of the discussions have not yet been set, we expect them to take place perhaps as early as this week or shortly thereafter. For this reason, I look forward to receiving your views at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely yours,

George P. Shultz⁹

1. Source: Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, P870119–1500. Limited Official Use. Drafted by Perlow on July 9; cleared by Cooper, Flournoy, Colson, Verville, Johnson, Kendrew, Krosby, and Maher; and approved by Wilkinson and Wolfe. A stamped notation on the memorandum indicates Shultz saw it. A typed notation at the top of the page reads “NOTE: Original letter given to EUR: BHartley for delivery. csolomon 7/14/87.”
2. Attached but not printed.
3. See footnote 4, Document 330.
4. Telegram 213814 to Reykjavik, July 11. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D870547–0541)
5. See footnote 4, above.
6. See Document 328.
7. Confidential.
8. See Document 328.
9. Shultz signed “George” above his typed signature.