364. Circular Telegram From the Department of State to All American Diplomatic Posts1
965. Law of the Sea. Unless you perceive objection you are requested to convey immediately to FonMin, or highest official available, estimate of situation at Geneva and urge his support of compromise indicated below using arguments you believe most persuasive. We believe there is definite probability of breakdown of Law of Sea Conference over width territorial sea unless some compromise can be reached between British proposal for qualified six-mile limit, Canadian proposal for three-mile territorial sea plus nine-mile fisheries zone, and Mexican proposal (which Soviets are supporting) for flexible three to twelve-mile territorial sea which is twelve-mile sea in disguise. FYI. Flexible 3–12 proposal also being supported by India thus far. End FYI.
Breakdown would leave question width territorial sea and other important related aspects of law of sea in state anarchy from which all or most free world states will suffer. Only extremists could benefit.
To prevent this wholly undesirable consummation Conference, U.S. Del. after canvass of situation and discussion with many other Delegations believes some compromise between British proposal and Mexican proposal can produce Conference agreement. Such compromise must take account of widespread desire for special fishery zone and same time meet drive for wider territorial sea. Apparent now Canadian compromise cannot swing necessary votes away from twelve-mile territorial sea, particularly since introduction UK compromise proposal.
US believes this last clear chance obtain Conference agreement which would assure stability maritime law and yet would not give rise completely dire consequences twelve-mile limit would with respect maintenance overall free world interests.
Based on above US believes following package compromise proposal will work and hence willing support: Maximum six-mile territorial sea plus maximum six-mile fishing zone provided nationals other states fishing in outer six-mile zone regularly last ten years may continue do so subject right coastal state impose conservation measures.
[Page 693]This would not affect existing or future bilateral or multilateral arrangements on fishery problems with respect to the parties to those agreements.
FYI. We estimate only two possible endings of Conference if our new compromise cannot win (1) acceptance of three to twelve-mile flexible provision or (2) adjournment of Conference in disagreement. In latter case this may mean twelve-mile limit territorial sea because number of states will immediately unilaterally claim twelve miles. End FYI.
Posts in countries supporting narrow territorial sea can emphasize that abortive conference is definite defeat of proponents of narrow territorial sea since this would mean we had failed twice in thirty years sell narrow territorial sea, and fresh outbreak extended unilateral claims would be inevitable. Furthermore, believe much better chance getting historic rights proviso tacked on outer six mile than on outer 9 of Canadian proposal.
Info addressees: Can raise the matter if it would prove useful purpose.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 399.731/4–1558. Confidential. Drafted by Looney and Pender; cleared with Raymond, Bacon, ARA, EUR, IO, L, NEA, and the Navy; approved by Pender who signed for Dulles. Also sent for information only to Bucharest, Budapest, Moscow, Prague, Warsaw, Belgrade, Mexico City, Cairo, Jidda, Tripoli, Rabat, Tunis, Beirut, Baghdad, Reykjavik, Geneva, Djakarta, Vientiane, Phnom Penh, and San Salvador.↩