397. Memorandum of a Conversation, Department of State, Washington, March 16, 19601
SUBJECT
- Law of the Sea Conference
PARTICIPANTS
- Mr. Rae, Chargé d’ Affaires, Canadian Embassy
- Mr. Nutt, First Secretary, Canadian Embassy
- Under Secretary Dillon
- Mr. Arneson, U/LS
- Mr. Willoughby, BNA
- Mr. Williamson, EUR
Mr. Dillon opened the conversation by saying that he had asked Mr. Rae to come in in order to review our positions at the forthcoming Law of the Sea Conference, and perhaps discuss just where we go from here. Mr. Dillon said we believe that ⅔ of the conference can be brought to agreement on a 6-mile territorial sea. The question of fishing rights in an outer zone is more difficult and will require compromise if agreement is to be reached. We felt that some states which initially would support a 12-mile territorial sea might at a later point in the conference switch their vote to support a six-plus-six formula in the interest of reaching an agreement. The Indian position, for example, remains unclear. To our mind, at the present time, the question of fishing rights in the outer six miles is the crucial problem. While our initial position at the conference will be a slight variation of our former proposal for continuing fishing rights in the outer six miles, we recognize that our chances of achieving a two-thirds majority for this position are not very good. As we see it, we will have to move beyond this position, and our analysis is that some sort of phase-out position in the outer six zone is most likely to get a two-thirds agreement at Geneva. We would hope that the Canadians in the interest of conference agreement could modify their position on the outer 6-mile zone and come to some agreement on a phase-out period. We realize there is some chance that the Canadian proposal might be adopted at the conference, and Mr. Dillon said that it was this possibility that he wished to speak about. He felt that if the Canadian proposal was adopted we would want to reach some firm prior understanding on bilateral agreements which would protect our own fishing industries. He thought that adoption of the Canadian proposal without firm agreement on these lines would have unfortunate repercussions on the economic relations between our two governments which we must both strive to avoid. He believed that it would be most unfortunate to have new economic problems between ourselves just when we have arrived at happy solutions to our earlier difficulties in this field. Mr. Dillon noted that while our fishing industry did not have a great economic position in the country as a whole, it was of great importance in certain localities where it was able to muster considerable political and emotional pressures. Unless some accommodation either through a phase-out period agreement at Geneva, in the first instance, or through bilateral negotiations was reached, the Department of State would be in a very difficult position. We would feel pressures which could threaten our present bilateral agreements with Canada in a broad way. Most certainly we would find pressures to limit our importation of fish from [Page 762] Canada. Another thing he wished to mention, although there is no direct connection between the two, is the fact that many people consider that the logic behind the Canadian position on oil exports to the US (which we had accepted) is quite similar to that underlying the American position on fisheries. That is to say, both these items represent resources developed on a joint basis which are now threatened by nationalistic pressures. It was striking also that the same area of the US was involved in both these matters, that is, the Pacific Northwest. Mr. Dillon reiterated that it was difficult to foresee the end result of the Law of the Sea Conference but that he thought it useful to bring up these questions now for mutually sympathetic and unhurried consideration rather than have them come up in a crisis atmosphere at the conference. He felt we should make a strong effort between the two of us which would prevent our fishing industries from throwing a pall over the good relations now existing between our two countries.
Mr. Dillon and Mr. Rae then discussed Mr. Murphy’s visit to Canada last fall.3 Mr. Rae observed that at that time the Canadians had offered bilateral negotiations with the US and that he understood that pressure from our Western European allies had forced us to refuse the Canadian offer. Mr. Dillon agreed and then went on to note that Mr. Murphy had stated during his trip to Canada that our fishing interests off Canadian shores were minimal and that it was security interests that were our primary consideration at the Law of the Sea Conference. Mr. Dillon wished to reaffirm that in terms of dollars and cents it was true that our fishing interest off Canadian shores was small, particularly when one compared it with our interests off Mexico. However, local interest in fishing rights off Canada was very high and existed on both coasts, although the West Coast was much more excitable and vocal about the issue than the East. He noted that Senator Magnuson of Washington, who has a direct interest in this matter, was Chairman of the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee of the Senate and, hence, was in a position to make his views felt.
Mr. Rae said he would report this conversation immediately to Ottawa. Mr. Dillon asked him to emphasize the friendly spirit in which these views were presented, the seriousness with which we view this matter, and the fact that we feel we must have some satisfaction from the Canadians on this subject. Mr. Nutt asked as a matter of clarification whether we looked upon the two zones (6-mile territorial sea and 6-mile fishing limit) as separable propositions. Mr. Dillon said we did not, and indicated that whatever formula of 6 and 6 we get at the conference must somehow satisfy our fishing industry or we would find ourselves in grave internal difficulties. Another reason for [Page 763] asking the Canadians to enter into bilaterals, if the contingency arose, was that this would certainly strengthen our hand when we came to deal with the Mexicans where our economic interests are larger.
Mr. Nutt then queried Mr. Dillon as to whether we envisaged these bilateral negotiations being conducted at the same time as the conference in Geneva. Mr. Dillon said we would of course prefer this but the time might be too short during the conference to negotiate the kind of full and firm agreements that we feel are necessary. In any event we would require a firm agreement in principle at the conference with detailed negotiation to follow immediately thereafter. Mr. Willoughby then asked if agreement on the Canadian proposal would affect our existing fishing treaties. Mr. Nutt said he personally thought that these were two separate matters and that our fishing rights would remain intact as guaranteed by treaty. He admitted, however, he had no answer to the question of whether, as a practical matter, Canadian and American fishermen could continue a 50–50 split of the catch of the fish covered by these treaties, particularly as regards trolling. In response to a direct question from Mr. Nutt as to whether the US industry could accept a phase-out of fishing rights, Mr. Dillon said he thought they would if they were convinced this was necessary to achieve our security objectives and if we could show that both sides were negotiating in good faith and with intent to meet our industry half way. After all, our industry did accept the fact that there were overriding security interests involved in this matter. Both sides agreed that it was most desirable for our delegations in Geneva to keep in close touch and for Mr. Dean to make the same points to the Canadian delegation there that Mr. Dillon had made here. Mr. Nutt asked whether Mr. Dillon thought that these bilateral or multilateral negotiations should be held outside the convention or should they be a part of the general rule adopted by the convention. Mr. Dillon indicated that our preference was for multilateral negotiations within the rule adopted by the conference. We regard bilateral negotiations as a very last resort. We intend to start with our own proposal of some limited form of fishing in the outer 6-mile limit, make a very serious effort to see that it is adopted, and leave to our delegation the decision as to which tactics to adopt in order to reach a position most in our own interest. We realize that the Canadians prefer bilateral and multilateral negotiations on this subject outside the rule, but that we feel we should, if possible, negotiate these agreements within the rule adopted at Geneva. Mr. Dillon said it was our view that this matter should be handled from here on out by our delegations at Geneva but we had wanted this meeting to emphasize to the Canadian ministers responsible the importance of reaching an amicable agreement on this matter.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 399.731/3–1660. Confidential. Drafted by Williamson on March 18 and approved in U on March 21. A summary of the conversation was transmitted to the Delegation at the Second Law of the Sea Conference in telegram 2044 to Geneva, March 21. (Ibid., 399.731/3–2160)↩
- See Document 382.↩