394. Letter From the Secretary of State to Senator Warren G. Magnuson1
Dear Warren: Thank you for your letter of February 11, 1960 with its frank expression of your views concerning the position which should be taken by the United States at the coming Conference on Law of the Sea, particularly with respect to traditional fishing rights.
The Department is well aware of the importance of the fishing carried on by our Northwest fishermen off the coast of Canada within twelve miles of the shoreline, as well as the importance of fishing off foreign coasts to other segments of our fishing industry. Representatives of this Department and of the Department of the Interior have held repeated consultations with advisors from the fishing industry for the purpose of determining the nature and importance of such fishing activities so that these interests can be given the fullest consideration in any decisions made by the United States Government.
I am glad that you have had the opportunity to be briefed by the Department of Defense with respect to the importance of a narrow territorial sea to United States security interests. The importance of these considerations has led the Executive Branch to the inescapable conclusion that the overriding objective of the United States at the coming Conference must be to secure agreement on a territorial sea of not more than six miles. On the basis of extensive consultations we have had with other governments we have been forced to conclude that it would be impossible to get such agreement without making some concessions involving fishery jurisdiction in a zone contiguous to the territorial sea. In these consultations with other governments we have sought a formula which would attract the necessary support for a narrow territorial sea with minimum concessions regarding fishing jurisdiction. In the circumstances, the United States favors a territorial-sea formula which provides for a territorial sea of six miles with the coastal State having jurisdiction over fisheries in an additional six miles, with the proviso that countries which have fished in the outer six miles during the five years immediately preceding the 1958 Law of the Sea Conference may continue to do so at a level not exceeding that prevailing during such base period. However, since we have not been able to obtain reasonable assurance that such a formula will attract the necessary two-thirds support, we have urged countries espousing [Page 756] other formulas to enter the Conference with such flexibility in their positions as will enable them to support some compromise. In line with this appeal we have found it necessary to be willing to have the same degree of flexibility in the United States position. It is necessary to follow this line of action in order to minimize the possibility that delegations will enter the Conference with instructions so rigid as to leave them unable to cooperate in working out an acceptable compromise during the course of the Conference.
In your letter you refer to statements made by representatives of the Department in the course of a meeting with fishing industry and State officials at Seattle which indicated a spirit of compromise that seemed to destroy the bargaining position of the United States in relation to the fishing jurisdiction problem. Since in the consultations we have held with other countries, including Canada, to develop a territorial-sea proposal which would receive the necessary support the United States has emphasized its overriding interest in a successful Conference and, to this end, has evinced a willingness to consider possible compromises that have prospects of success. I do not believe that the statements at the Seattle meeting revealed information of which other governments were not aware. The Seattle meeting served primarily to acquaint the concerned people in that area with the security and other considerations which have led the United States to its present position, as well as to give them some forewarning of the possible results of the Conference and reasons therefor.
In your letter you urge that the United States Government should achieve an understanding with the Canadians before the Geneva Conference which would preserve the status quo on common fisheries until a mutual agreement can be formulated. In consultations with Canada we have sought to achieve a common position which would safeguard our historic fisheries but so far have been unable to do so. Canada adheres to its original position, which includes twelve miles of exclusive fishery jurisdiction. I assure you that our interest in working out such an understanding with Canada continues and that we will take advantage of any opportunity prior to or during the Conference to do so. Furthermore, I believe it most likely that any proposal agreed to at Geneva will provide for or permit the working out of separate fishing arrangements between countries.
Finally, I assure you that in seeking agreement on a narrow territorial sea the Department will continue to work for a formula which would have minimum effect on the United States fishing industry.
As indicated in our telephone conversation on February 19, 1960. I will be glad to discuss this matter with you if you wish.
[Page 757]With warmest personal regards,
Most sincerely,
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 399.731/2–1160. Drafted by Herrington on February 25 and cleared with Richards, Yingling, BNA, and H. Attached to the source text were: a nearly identical letter to Senator Jackson, Magnuson’s February 11 letter (Document 392), and a memorandum of a telephone conversation, February 19, in which Herter offered to discuss the question further with Magnuson.↩
- Printed from a copy that bears this typed signature.↩