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

400. Telegram From the Delegation to the Conference on the Law of the Sea to the Department of State¹

Geneva, March 19, 1960—10 p.m.

1364. Reference our telegram 1360² Law of Sea. Each amendment proposed by Mexico related to particular parliamentary dispute between Garcia Robles (Mexico) and Bailey (Australia) who was chairman First Committee 58 Conference. [6 words not declassified] His proposals indicated his conclusions 3-to-12 mile proposal unlikely win and he determined prevent conference agreement on any other proposal. Voting on amendment indicated close and effective cooperation between Mexican and Soviet delegations which influenced Africans and certain number among Latin Americans. Garcia Robles had clearly solicited support for his amendments prior their distribution, while those who might have opposed had no opportunity seek support their views. [1 sentence (6 lines of source text) not declassified]

[14 words not declassified] Turkey, Pakistan and Denmark have instructions vote initially for Canadian proposal. This means that it could in end get about 51 votes if supported by US. This figure might be increased to possibly 55 votes if Canadian proposal were be amended to provide effective date cut-off of say 12 to 15 years or if that defeated possibly 58 votes for Alternative B³ with phase-out of about 10 years.

Canadians are using argument Alternative “A” is typical imperialistic proposal which can only benefit possibly 15 to 16 nations in perpetuity as against interests other 73, whereas nations unable to qualify under base period theory can never achieve reciprocal rights in the outer 6 miles of the 15 nations no matter how powerful their fishing fleets may become in future. In contrast Canadian proposal without discrimination gives every nation, large or small, old or new, immediate control over 12 miles off its coast with no possibility of fishing state tieing coastal state up in expensive arbitral proceedings for years while it continues to fish. This similar argument used in 58.

Gros (France) advised me yesterday they would like be sponsor Alternative A but would gladly accept our advice not sponsor if we thought their co-sponsorship detrimental. He also said he had no instructions authorizing him go to B except after failure of A after maximum effort and then only on basis cut off after long period years. Petren (Sweden) advised they favor Alternative A but not B.

At lunch with Hare (UK) and Drew (Canada), Drew indicated great confidence they could get two-thirds without help from US and at least did not wish discuss possible collaboration now. In my view this unrealistic because with US and key Western Europeans opposed Canadian proposal unlikely attract more than 28 votes. Gros (France) asked Cadieux (Canada) for terms proposed bilateral treaties if Canadian proposal voted and Cadieux declined information.

Pakistan’s instructions now preclude them as Asia co-sponsor possibility Malaya and Thailand may co-sponsor but little likelihood any substantial Latin American will do so. Alternatives are sponsorship Alternative A by US alone or by US joined by several West Europeans. Possibly most effective method would be for US to sponsor alone.

Easter this year comes late, April 17, and conference apparently plans adjourn Thursday, April 14, until Tuesday, April 19, and Stavropoulos advises many delegates may not come back. Because of this and because it takes approximately 6 to 10 days for most delegates obtain new instructions if required, think Alternative A should be tabled soonest regardless of co-sponsorship. As you are aware, present plan after bona fide effort for A is to go from Alternative A to Alternative B with appropriate phase-out and, if that fails, in accordance Dept. tel. 2006,⁴ would then go to Canadian proposal, after attempting to negotiate bilaterals; but in view fact only 31/2 weeks remain before Easter adjournment, time table may have to be re-studied.

In view well-organized Mexican-Soviet on one hand and determined Canadian efforts on other, it clear we face exceedingly tough fight to save 6-mile limit.

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 399.731/3–1960. Confidential.
2. Telegram 1360, March 19, reported that at the plenary meeting the morning of March 18 several Mexican-sponsored amendments to the conference rules had been passed, but that the proposal to provide for verbatim records had been withdrawn. (Ibid.) For a summary of the discussion at the plenary, see U.N. doc. A/CONF.19/8, pp. 3–6.
3. Regarding Alternatives A and B, see footnote 2, Document 384.
4. Telegram 2006, March 17, transmitted the text of the second paragraph under point 5 of the Basic U.S. Position (Document 395). (Department of State, Central Files, 399.731/3–1760)