349. Telegram From the Delegation to the Conference on the Law of the Sea to the Department of State1
908. Law of Sea. Fitzmaurice of British Delegation just called and advised Cabinet. After careful consideration, had voted not only not to support Canadian proposal but issued instruction to delegation to oppose it.2 Fitzmaurice advised they would not publicly make their position known for time being but commented there was meeting Western European delegations tomorrow at which they would have to make their position known and would inform other delegations their position in private conversations. Stated definitely they would not continue advance 6-mile proposal for time being. Fitzmaurice, however, made it abundantly clear their admiralty still felt 6-mile limit imposed no operational difficulties but had bowed to our decided views in the matter. Fitzmaurice stated in addition to grave economic consequences to Britain’s fishing industry of Canadian proposal fishing interests generally voted conservative and failure of government if question raised in House to state unequivocally they were against Canadian proposal might result in a vote of lack of confidence, which Cabinet felt it could not risk at this time. Fitzmaurice stated British [Page 666] Delegation here had repeatedly warned Cabinet this stand might result in conference accepting 12-mile proposal, which, for fishing purposes at least, is the same as the Canadian proposal; and that decision taken with full realization our position and the consequences.
In conversation today with Portuguese Ambassador, he reiterated Portugal’s historic fishing rights off Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and emphasized cod, and especially dried cod, staple article of diet of Portugal’s masses and that if government attempted dictate where Portuguese could fish or if cod were to be unavailable in Portugal, as formerly, would cause social revolution, which government just could not risk; and while they wished to cooperate USDel in every way they could not support Canadian proposal. We commented that perhaps Canadian assurances could be had that Canada would not, in the exercise of its exclusive jurisdiction for fishers over additional nine miles, restrict fishing rights of nations who had exercised them for many generations. Portuguese Ambassador commented this would be nice to obtain their vote, but that subsequently Canadian Parliament would probably ignore. Suggested might be useful at joint conference with Canadian Delegation to see if something with respect to historic rights could be worked out; to which we agreed.
Subsequently, had conversation with Spanish Delegation, who repeated almost verbatim what Portuguese Ambassador had said. They were critical in that we had induced them to agree to abandon six-mile limit in order to sustain validity of three-mile limit and now we were proposing to abandon the historic principle high seas to extent granting exclusive fishing jurisdiction in nine-mile contiguous zone.
Both Portuguese and Spanish Ambassadors stated France, Holland, Belgium, West Germany and possibly Sweden took same position. It may be that addition of an historic rights amendment to Canadian proposal would undoubtedly arouse ire of Iceland and might possibly lose vote Southeast Asian nations who wish to exclude Japan from fishing in proposed contiguous zone.