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

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

Geneva, April 9, 1958—10 p.m.

1085. Law of Sea. I again spoke to Drew last night and today urging he take prompt action to amend Canadian proposal incorporating recognition historic rights in some form. He again said Canadian Cabinet considering matter but he raised certain practical difficulties in defining historic rights and danger losing other support, and continued express doubt its practicability and feasibility and whether for Canada did not take away attractive features their proposal.

If Ottawa’s 755,² paragraphs 2 and 4, to Department is indicative extent Canadians will go on historic rights, it seems evident: (A) It too little and too late to achieve objective enlisting West European support at conference, (B) would not resolve problem US fishing off Mexican and Canadian coasts (last paragraph Deptel 1080³).

If foregoing estimate Canadian position correct, and it subject Department’s view possibility persuading Canadian Cabinet make prompt and definite shift in form of proposal at conference rather than attempt to negotiate bilaterally later (third paragraph Ottawa’s 755), question arises whether time has not come for US to disengage itself from support Canadians and to regain our full freedom of action.

Assume basic US objectives are still first to retain three mile rule inform conference pronouncement its favor; by same token, second to avoid conference pronouncement favoring extension territorial sea and, third we would really prefer conference failure of breadth territorial sea to an actual extension thereof.

Assume also we still prepared to pay price in loss to commercial fisheries, if absolutely necessary for retention three miles involved in US decision support original Canadian proposal.

There no doubt Canadian draft cannot achieve our main objective of retention three mile rule since in present form it has little prospect acceptance by conference. It also doubtful it can serve purpose our first fall-back of avoiding extension territorial sea. With three mile states divided because of opposition to Canadian proposal and with UK proposal affording them vehicle for positive rather than purely negative position, chances Canadian proposal of competing against flexible or straight twelve mile proposals have very considerably diminished. Statement of Indian position today supporting flexible proposal with maximum twelve miles territorial sea and further statement cannot support either Canadian or UK proposal makes this conclusion all the more certain, especially as he stated neither Canadian nor UK proposal could at present obtain majority and urged necessity for compromise within maximum of twelve miles which may mean six and six.⁴ In present mood of conference such a proposal might win. It would not be surprising if in end Canada switched to support straight twelve miles which was their original position taken in 1956.

Means for US independent course is available in US proposal which filed as previously reported in order to retain our freedom of action in case it necessary. US proposal could be used for this purpose either by: (1) Amending it to provide for appropriate recognition historic rights or (2) amendments along line suggested beginning paragraph 6 ourtel 1053,⁵ with addition historic rights within contiguous zone of six miles.

In our view amendment along lines Portuguese proposal (our 1074⁶) not adequate in view of strong general sentiment in conference favoring extension jurisdiction coastal state.

It could be expected that voting alignments at the conference would form over issues of limited as against extended territorial sea rather than over historic rights issue. Iceland and perhaps Canada would be exceptions. Opposition to either alternative would be centered in Soviet and Arab groups, LAs and Afro-Asians other than Arabs would probably in first vote be divided but general support might be forthcoming from members of these groups if proposals weathered initial heavy weather in committee. While support of Iceland would be lost WE support might be gained; Denmark and Norway might favor it as compromise and several WEs now opposed Canadian proposal and preferring conference failure to it might vote for either alternative. Same would hold for Australia, New Zealand and perhaps South Africa and Liberia.

In view of great importance of tactics involved in voting priorities, consider it advisable consider have both alternatives before the conference. The first could take the form of an amendment of US proposal providing for appropriate recognition historic rights. Subject Department and Defense views the second could take the form of a proposal perhaps by other delegations along lines suggested our 1053 with addition historic rights which could be submitted as last minute proposal to be voted upon last. Other delegations are urgently asking whether we really plan to stick to three mile limit and whether we plan make any compromise proposal and whether security aspects of three miles are really as serious as we have painted them. Voting in Committee 1 on Articles 1–3 and 66 may start at any time.

1. Source: Department State, Central Files, 399.731/4–958. Confidential. Repeated to Ottawa and Reykjavik.
2. Telegram 755, April 8, reported that in a conversation with an Embassy official, Cadieux had offered a 5-year continuation of historic fishing rights to Iceland, Denmark, and Norway and was considering approaching India on the idea of a flat 12-mile limit. (Ibid., 399.731/4–858)
3. Telegram 1080, April 7, reported that the Department of State had begun a program of regular congressional briefings and asked for a “realistic” assessment of resolving the question of U.S. historical fishing rights off Mexican and Canadian coasts. (Ibid., 399.731/4–258)
4. For a more extensive summary of this statement, see U.N. doc. ACONF. 13/39, pp.118–119.
5. Document 356.
6. Telegram 1074, April 8, provided that states with historic fishing rights would be able to continue to fish in the contiguous zone subject only to internationally recognized conservation procedures. (Department of State, Central Files, 399.731/4–858)