344. Telegram From the Delegation to the Conference on the Law of the Sea to the Department of State1
862. Law of Sea.
Part One. Further to ourtels 836 and 8502 last few days have seen definite swing toward Article 3(2) formula of ILC draft as “flexible compromise” alternative to “extremes” of rigid three-mile rule on one hand and greater limits of up to 200 on other. Our estimate is that 3(2) formula will continue to gain ground in absence vigorous support any new proposal, because of its apparent reasonableness, the blessing ILC has given it, the happy freedom of choice it gives to individual states already somewhat conditioned to idea three-mile rule constitutes criterion “imposed” by great maritime powers of a past era, and the idea that flexibility is progressive.
We have reported gains made by Article 3(2) formula among Afro-Asian-Middle East countries and certain LAs as well as its espousal by Soviet bloc. Calculating conservatively, can foresee early crystallization substantial vote for it in absence countervailing ideas with possibility of bandwagon movement bringing it dangerously close to two-thirds. In any event, it would marshal well over simple majority, which would greatly weaken our position after conf and afford ground for unilateral action by many states, perhaps beyond 12 miles.
[Page 660]Sentiment growing among some three-milers as well as 200-mile extremists that perhaps it best for conf to end in failure on this point. In view USDel such failure quite likely lead results described last sentence previous paragraph.
In circumstances we concerned over ambiguous UKDel attitude. When conf started, they were pessimistic re ability to muster blocking minority; now, when tide is running strongly away from three miles, they profess more optimism that possibility. UK appears to be pursuing two lines of thought which seem to us patently unwarranted: first, that since we may get support for three-mile limit if we hold to that alone it is premature and dangerous to suggest an acceptable compromise; second, that a prior agreement on fishery articles (presumably Articles 48–59) would materially help in holding line on territorial sea question. We fear there is dangerous element wishful thinking in this.
Noteworthy that Fitzmaurice of British Del who has been here continuously and has many points of contact other dels, today expressed his personal surprise at almost fanatical opposition to three-mile limit and wondered whether even Canadian proposal could hold it.
Part Two. Had luncheon today with Sen of India and his principals. Cordial but not definitive. Sen had seen Drew in hospital this morning. Drew mentioned to him amending Article 66 to give nine-mile exclusive fishery jurisdiction in addition territorial waters and amending Article Three para 2 limiting territorial sea to three miles. Sen expressed himself as interested and said he was asking his govt for instructions.
Sanders and I saw Drew and Cadieux at Drew’s hospital room this afternoon, he had fractured four ribs. Said definitely on Monday he would make proposal outlined above and in case his disability Cadieux of Canadian Del would make it. Planned to outline proposal over weekend to other dels and attempt line up support. He requested our cooperation to that end to which we agreed.
Believe foregoing only feasible method if three-mile rule to have fighting chance acceptance. If we were to withhold support believe proposal based ILC Article 3(2) would gain wide approval.
Will be problem to keep proposed Canadian amendments Articles 66 and 3 as package but believe can do so.
Drew and Cadieux most appreciative our support and most apologetic because delay in their presentation.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 399.731/3–1458. Confidential; Niact; Limit Distribution.↩
- Telegram 836 is Document 341; in telegram 850, March 13, Dean reported that a consensus of the Afro-Asian and Middle East groups at the conference favored the ILC draft of Article 3(2). (Ibid., 399.731/3–1358)↩