Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, United Nations and General International Matters, Volume II

353. Telegram From the Delegation to the Conference on the Law of the Sea to the Department of State¹

Geneva, March 29, 1958—9 p.m.

1005. Law of Sea. Reourtel 998.² At meeting we called for Drew with heads Belgian, French, Italian, Dutch, Portuguese and Spanish Dels believe he surprised at vehemence their opposition to Canadian proposal and their concern its consequential effects on their fishing rights off other countries. At end of meeting there still some question concerning the facts of West Eur fishing within 12 miles of Canadian coast and effects proposal on port and other facilities of fishing vessels. It was agreed to have technical discussions these questions and to explore ways and means by which fishing rights now enjoyed by West Eur in northern Eur waters (Iceland, Norway, Denmark) could be protected. It was agreed we should call meeting Monday all West Eur fisheries experts together with those from northern Eur countries in endeavor ascertain facts and explore possibility of arrangements to mitigate harmful effects Canadian proposal.

During meeting we pointed out serious consequences conference failure on territorial sea issue. French, Port and Span Dels said that while they might recognize security considerations involved, they were not prepared to pay the high economic cost which meant depriving their population of greatly needed food. Moreover they saw no need to pay the price since conference failure would leave matters as they were at end Hague Conf 1930. Spain at end indicated would accept coastal state’s right to regulate if no discrimination between national and non-national.

Before and during meeting I brought up this possibility with Drew but found him completely noncommittal. Canadian refusal accept our draft providing for regulatory powers coastal state and even Drew’s draft providing exclusive fisheries rights demonstrate Canadians’ strong present position favoring in effect sovereign rights over contiguous zones for fisheries and their present inflexibility toward West Eur position. Told Drew later in evening believe their proposal in for rough sledding unless they willing make some modifications. Without committing himself, he said he realized that. Perhaps present Canadian attitude dictated by political considerations arising elections March 31 and that more flexibility may be in evidence after elections.

While non-discriminatory principle would be helpful in enlisting West Eur support, it likely antagonize LAs now in favor Canadian proposal as well as SE Asians who wish exclude Japanese. As reported ourtel 957³ Japanese appear to be doing comparatively little fishing within 12 miles other states but may be difficult convince others.

Foregoing shows need to walk tight wire between two camps, but believe Canadians must show some realization economic effect their proposals.

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 399.731/3–2958. Confidential.
2. Telegram 998 from Geneva, March 29, transmitted a Canadian proposal for Articles 3 and 66 which provided that the coastal state could control misuse of marine resources in the contiguous zone. (Ibid.)
3. Document 350.