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

393. Telegram From the Office of the Permanent Representative to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to the Department of State¹

Paris, March 9, 1960—9 p.m.

Polto 1785. NAC meeting March 9th—Law of the Sea Conf. Council held full and, we believe, useful exchange of views on issues confronting forthcoming Law of Sea Conference.

While some delegations had not received instruction due late distribution IS paper (PO/60/268²), all generally expressed support for US view on importance of maintaining 6-mile territorial sea for NATO security and that NATO countries should establish contacts at Geneva with view to securing acceptable solution of problem. However, statements of country positions revealed little change in known views re extent fisheries limit. Canada, Norway, Denmark and Iceland indicated, with varying nuances, support of 6 plus plain 6 solution. With exception Portugal and Turkey which had no instructions, and Luxembourg, which made no statement, all others came out for 6 plus 6 with maintenance of historic rights with various qualifying suggestions. At conclusion of discussion, it was agreed there was no need for further Council consideration of this item at this time but option left open to bring matter back to NAC if developments during Geneva Conference made this desirable.

After chairman (Casardi) explained purpose of discussion in terms promoting NATO unity at Law of Sea Conf, US made statement essentially as contained CA–5339³ with some revisions largely in interest of avoiding unnecessary duplication of points international staff paper. (Text of statement which was circulated being pouched separately.⁴)

Germany expressed agreement in principle with Secretariat paper and willingness to discuss 6 plus 6 territorial sea and fisheries limit but pointed out its interest in maintaining certain historical “uses” in outer 6-mile zone for unlimited time. France stated its support for 6-mile territorial sea and could accept additional 6-mile fisheries zone with maintenance historic rights but not 6 plus plain 6. Matter should be further discussed at Geneva Conference and if no solution attainable there Council might take up matter again to see if compromise could be effected.

Canada expressed strong support for US view security factor of major importance in NATO approach to Geneva Conference and agreed overriding consideration was to maintain 6-mile territorial sea. In seeking solution, however, must think in terms of settlement which would appeal to 89 countries participating in conf and not necessarily one which emphasizes non-security interests of NATO countries. Felt Canadian proposal for 6 plus plain 6 solution was only one acceptable to conference. It was also prepared to offer bilateral arrangements with countries whose fishing interests were affected.

Norway shared Canadian view. Agreed with US views on importance of security factor but pointed out NATO success in maintaining its security would depend on how fisheries question treated. Canadian proposal only one with chance of being accepted by conference. According Norway’s figures, 25 states already had 12-mile fishing limits and easy therefore for them to secure necessary 29 votes for blocking third. Norway, while it would try to get as much support as possible for Canadian proposal, understood position of other countries if 12-mile fishing limit were accepted at conference. Norwegian Government would be also prepared, therefore, to take up these problems with affected states and try to find solution serving best interests of all concerned.

Iceland stated willingness support any extent of territorial sea provided fishery limits problem dealt with adequately. Supported Canadian proposal wholeheartedly “in principle”. Could not, however, accept maintenance of historic rights in outer 6-mile zone which merely added up to 6 plus 6 minus 6. Re their acceptance Canadian proposal in principle, they could make no exceptions and, in addition in view Iceland’s dependence on fishing, felt special exception would have to be made for Iceland. Thus, even if Canadian proposal accepted, would like to have something additional done for Iceland.

Italy and Belgium stated support for 6 plus 6 with maintenance historic rights. Belgium indicated that like other countries, it was prepared to establish contacts at Geneva with view to developing tactical position. Netherlands said it had no instructions but Dutch preference for 6 plus 6 with maintenance historic rights well known. Emphasized need to find solution acceptable to all to bring order into an international situation that might otherwise degenerate into chaos and anarchy. Expressed importance from security point of view of working for solution at Geneva. Turkey and Portugal, having no instructions, did not express a position on this subject.

UK indicated its approach to problem was much like that of the US. Felt there was overriding need for international decision in territorial seas and fisheries problem in order to ensure “rule of law”. Hoped all would go to conference with this in view for if no agreement reached, international anarchy would result. UK supported 6-mile territorial sea and was prepared to agree to additional 6-mile fishing zone but felt measures should be taken to ensure some fair preservation of historic rights in this zone.

US expressed view discussion had been useful and had brought out meeting of minds on security factor involved in Law of Sea Conference. Felt discussion had been carried as far as possible in Council and matter now should be left delegations at Geneva with option to bring problem back to Council if Geneva developments made this desirable. After Canada had pointed out undesirability of having discussions carried on simultaneously at Geneva and in NATO, Casardi summarized as follows: 1) there should be no further discussion in Council, 2) delegations should report views expressed discussion to their govts so that they can be taken into consideration at Geneva, 3) governments recognize that close contacts should be maintained at Geneva and 4) if developments at conf demand it, matter could be taken up again in Council.

Burgess

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 399.731/3–960. Confidential. Repeated to Geneva and the other NATO capitals.
2. Not found.
3. CA–5339, December 31, reviewed the U.S. position on the Law of the Sea and transmitted a draft of a statement for Burgess to make at a Council meeting devoted to the subject. (Department of State, Central Files, 399.731/12–3159)
4. Not found.