346. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in Iceland1
166476. Subject: US Approach on Iceland Whaling Issues.
1. C—Entire text.
2. Begin summary. Ambassador Robert Dean chaired an interagency meeting on whaling issues on May 20. Representatives from the NSC, State, NOAA, Defense, CEQ, and Interior participated. They reviewed preliminary reports of the meeting of the IWC Scientific [Page 989] Committee in San Diego2 and the actions which the U.S. should take prior to the IWC meeting in Aukland and at the meeting itself. They agreed that the Government of Iceland should be made aware of U.S. concerns about the failure of Iceland to take remedial steps to improve its scientific whaling program and the possibility that the USG would be forced to take actions to fulfill the requirements of its own laws if Iceland proceeded to take whales under its present program. For action requested see paragraph 11. End summary.
3. US IWC Commisioner-Designate William Evans briefed the group on the background of the Icelandic whaling issue and the five-year scientific whaling program which Iceland had submitted at the outset of the moratorium on commercial whaling.3 He went over the three points of the Ottawa agreement4 and the subsequent meetings which Secretary Verity and he had had with Icelanders on these subjects. Evans said that the U.S. had not received a revision of the Icelandic program nor had any substantial revisions been tabled at the meeting of the Scientific Committee in San Diego. Iceland had, Evans said, produced 17 reports on its whaling research at the meeting in San Diego which varied widely in their content and scientific value. Of the 17 only three studies used research data which required taking whales.5 The U.S. delegation at the Scientific Committee meeting had avoided public criticism of the Icelandic program at San Diego and had not taken a leading position in discussions on the program. According to the latest information he had, Evans said that he understood the report of the Scientific Committee on the Icelandic program would be stronger this year than last and that those supporting individual positions would be identified. He said he also expected a fairly clear statement that Iceland had not addressed previous criticisms of its program by the Scientific Committee.
4. Evans said that he believed that even without the direct involvement of the U.S. delegation at the IWC meeting in New Zealand, the IWC would ask Iceland not to issue permits for scientific whaling this year. He noted that the UK had a new Environmental Minister6 who strongly opposed whaling and who would control the UK IWC Commissioner. If the UK did not offer a resolution against the Icelandic program, then the New Zealanders or the Australians would. If Iceland [Page 990] were to take whales under these circumstances, it would have broken its commitments under the Ottawa Agreement as well as gone against an IWC resolution on the Icelandic program. Evans said that when the Icelandic whaling program would begin would depend on the Gulf Stream and when it brought the fish on which the whales feed into the waters around Iceland. Other things being equal, he expected Iceland to be able to begin taking fin whales in mid-June and sei whales in September. Given this timetable, Evans said there would probably be about one week between the end of the IWC meeting in New Zealand and the beginning of the Icelandic whaling season.
5. Evans added that because of the silence of the U.S. delegation on Icelandic issues at San Diego, the Ottawa Agreement, and an awareness by the other scientists of the importance the U.S. attached to the base at Keflavik, the U.S. delegation had lost some of its scientific credibility. In order to counter this, Dr. Evans stated how important it was to have Dr. Robert Brownell, Department of Interior and Current Vice Chairman of the IWC’s Scientific Committee, as a member of the U.S. delegation. Mr. Twist of the Marine Mammals Commission supported Evan’s recommendation. The support of Interior was also requested.
6. Evans noted that Icelandic Fisheries Minister Asgrimsson had discussed the ecosystem approach when he saw Secretary Verity in February, and had been encouraged to work with the U.S. on this idea since it had some positive aspects which the U.S. could support.7 At the invitation of NOAA Asgrimsson had subsequently addressed a U.S. symposium on this topic, but subsequently the Icelanders had taken no further action. Evans said that even getting Asgrimsson’s talk on the agenda and into the record of the IWC would have been a positive step.
7. Ford Cooper, representing EUR at the meeting, expressed the appreciation of all members to the group for the cooperative role which Dr. Evans was playing on whaling issues. He said that we were not where we had hoped to be at this stage of the game. We had hoped that the Icelanders would have put forward something different for the Scientific Committee and at least made a gesture toward satisfying the criticisms of the program. They have apparently done nothing and have given no evidence that they wish to avoid a confrontation over whaling this year or to help get us both off the hook. In these circumstances, Cooper said he did not know how we could advise the U.S. [Page 991] delegation to vote against an IWC resolution which criticized the Icelandic program.
8. Cooper recommended that the U.S. should be candid with the Icelanders about our concerns and the likely consequences of their failure to revise their program. In the meantime, however, the U.S. should keep its options open with Iceland. He said he hoped Evans would convey to the Icelandic delegation at the IWC meeting the following points:8
—The positions taken by the Icelandic delegation at San Diego did nothing to resolve the problems in the Icelandic program which the Scientific Committee had previously identified.
—We are bound by the provisions of the Ottawa Agreement.
—We now see the situation moving toward certification unless corrective steps can be taken.
—We continue to stand ready to work with Iceland on developing and improving its research program in an effort to find a solution.
Cooper said he believed that at the IWC meeting the U.S. delegation should vote on the basis of the facts. If a resolution critical of the Icelandic program were to be introduced, he asked that the U.S. delegation not lead the charge. We should leave open the option of a solution if the Icelanders have the will to reach a compromise, he said.
9. It was decided that Dr. Evans would inform the Icelanders at the IWC Meeting in New Zealand of U.S. concerns and willingness to cooperate with Iceland in resolving the issues raised by the Scientific Committee along the lines described in paragraph 8 above and that Ambassador Ruwe would be instructed to make a similar demarche. It was also agreed that the U.S. delegation at the IWC meeting would remain in close touch with Washington and keep the interagency group apprised of developments there.
10. On the question of the proposed Norwegian scientific whaling program, Evans said that the proposal had been criticized at the meeting of the Scientific Committee in San Diego. He did not, however, expect that a resolution against it would be offered in New Zealand due to internal political maneuvers within the IWC which involved Norway supporting Sweden for the presidency of the IWC.
Cooper pointed out that approval of—or lack of a critical resolution on—the Norwegian program might have a salutary effect on the Icelanders while disapproval could lead them to conclude that no program, however well constructed, could receive IWC approval. Cooper [Page 992] suggested that if an anti-Norway resolution were proposed, the U.S. should abstain. Evans took the point.
11. For Reykjavik: Charge should convey the points contained in paragraph 8 to appropriate senior levels of the Icelandic Government.9 He should stress the goodwill of the U.S. in seeking a resolution of the problem as demonstrated by the attitude of the U.S. delegation at San Diego. He should stress, however, that unless the report of the Scientific Committee is markedly more positive than has so far been reported by members of the U.S. delegation or Iceland acts to resolve the problems identified by the Committee, we see serious problems ahead. Having struck a bargain at Ottawa last year to avoid certification, we will be bound to uphold that agreement this year.
- Source: Department of State, Dumping; Arctic; Whaling; Antarctic; Scientific Research, 1976–1987, Lot 94D419, Whales: Other Norway, Iceland, USSR, etc. Confidential; Priority. Drafted by Johnson; cleared by Cooper, Evans, Smith, Longmyer, and Flournoy; and approved by Wilkinson. Sent Priority for information to Reykjavik, Oslo, and Tokyo. Sent for information to Copenhagen.↩
- A May 11 report entitled “Mike Tilman’s Second Report from the Scientific Committee” is in the Department of State, Dumping; Arctic; Whaling; Antarctic; Scientific Research, 1976–1987, Lot 94D419, Iceland Law Suit—Document Production.↩
- See footnote 2, Document 313.↩
- See Document 339.↩
- Not found.↩
- Nicholas Ridley.↩
- In telegram 47286 to Reykjavik, February 17, the Department transmitted a summary of the February 8–9 meetings. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D880133–0420)↩
- In telegram 179916 to Bern, June 4, the Department summarized the negotiations between the U.S. and Icelandic delegations at the IWC. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D880477–0936)↩
- Telegram 1159 from Reykjavik, May 24 reported on the discussions. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D880807–0341)↩