395. Position Paper Prepared in the Department of State1
US/2nd CLS/S.POS/1 (Revision 2)
BASIC U.S. POSITION
Recommended U.S. Position:
1. The basic U.S. objective is to achieve Conference agreement on a territorial sea of not more than six miles in breadth. Failing this objective, the Delegation should strive to prevent agreement on a territorial sea greater than six miles in breadth, even if this should be at the expense of Conference failure.
2. In pursuing the basic U.S. objective, the U.S. Delegation should strongly support, as the preferred U.S. formula, a revision of the 1958 U.S. proposal which would provide for: (a) a 6-mile territorial sea, and (b) a 6-mile contiguous fishing zone in which foreign fishing currently pursued in this zone would continue at a level equal to but not above that prevailing in a pre-Conference base period. The Delegation should encourage support for this proposal to the maximum practicable extent. Should it become clear that this proposal is unlikely to be successful, it may indicate, however, that the U.S. is prepared to consider other 6 plus compromise 6 proposals, in the interests of achieving Conference agreement.
3. In pursuing the objective of the U.S., the Delegation should seek to maximize the protection to be accorded foreign fishing in a contiguous fishing zone not exceeding six miles in breadth.
4. The Delegation should make clear that a territorial sea of three miles serves the best interests of the international community. However, in view of the fact that such a proposal is considered to have no chance of winning the support necessary for approval, the U.S. Delegation [Page 758] should refrain from introducing a three-mile proposal and should discourage any such proposal by other countries, so as to avoid antagonizing many States which might otherwise be disposed to support a satisfactory six-plus-six formula. Moreover, the Delegation should discourage bringing any three-mile proposal to a vote in view of the great risk of its formal rejection and the difficulty such rejection would pose for continued assertion of the three-mile rule in the event of Conference failure.
5. In the event deemed necessary by the Delegation to achieve the basic U.S. objective, the Delegation may shift from public support of the proposal above and support openly a 6 plus compromise 6 proposal which would limit traditional fishing more severely, though such an arrangement would be damaging to U.S. fishery interests. It is contemplated such alternative proposal would provide for foreign fishing rights within twelve miles to terminate after “x” number of years. (If other 6 plus compromise 6 proposals appear to have a greater likelihood of adoption, the Delegation may, in its discretion, support such alternative proposals.)
Should it be deemed necessary by the Delegation to achieve the basic United States objective, that it support such an alternative proposal providing for a termination of foreign fishing rights after a short period of years, or another 6 plus 6 compromise proposal of equivalent effect, then prior to such support, provided that in the judgment of the head of the Delegation such a course would not endanger the achievement of the basic U.S. objective, and without restricting the above delegation of authority, the Delegation shall inform the Department, and shall endeavor to negotiate with the Canadian and Mexican Delegations commitments for post-Conference bilateral agreements with the U.S., which would continue traditional United States fishing at a mutually agreeable level indefinitely, or, as a minimum, for a period of years sufficient to provide for an orderly and equitable adjustment of fishing practices. In approaching these Delegations for this purpose, the Delegation should emphasize the domestic political difficulties which such support would generate in the United States.
6. In the event it is determined by the Delegation that support of the Canadian 6-plus-plain 6 proposal is the only alternative to Conference failure, or to agreement on a territorial sea greater than 6 miles in breadth, the Delegation may support such proposal. In such eventuality, and prior to such support, but without restricting the above delegation of authority, the Delegation shall inform the Department, and shall endeavor to negotiate with the Canadian and Mexican Delegations, in consideration of such support, commitments for post-Conference bilateral agreements with the U.S., which would continue traditional United States fishing at a mutually agreeable level indefinitely, or, as a minimum, for a period of years sufficient to provide for an [Page 759] orderly and equitable adjustment of fishing practices. In approaching these Delegations for this purpose, the Delegation should emphasize the domestic political difficulties which such support would generate in the United States.
7. In accordance with the foregoing conditions, the Delegation shall have discretion to adopt such tactics at the Conference as appear best calculated to achieve U.S. Conference objectives.
8. If there appears to be a reasonably good possibility of reaching agreement at the Conference on a 6-mile territorial sea, without simultaneously reaching agreement on a contiguous fishing zone, the Delegation shall have discretion to support a separate convention on the question of the breadth of the territorial sea. The Delegation should vigorously oppose separate agreement at the Conference, however, on the question of fishing rights in a contiguous zone.
9. In the event that the U.S. and its supporters cannot prevent a two-thirds majority from voting for some proposal which would authorize a wider than 6-mile territorial sea, the U.S. should vote against any such proposals and use every effort to have as many other States as possible vote against any such proposals.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 399.731/3–1660. No drafting information appears on the source text, but it was attached to a memorandum from Wilcox to Herter, dated March 16, together with the delegation’s instructions and eight other position papers. No copy of the first draft of the paper has been found.↩