402. Telegram From the Delegation to the Conference on the Law of the Sea to the Department of State1
1387. Law of Sea. It is my plan to table our preferred proposal, Alternative “A” on Thursday at which time I shall speak seeking support for it. As things now stand it seems clear that Alternative “A” is unlikely to attract even a simple majority; in fact our estimate is that initially it may receive between a minimum of 23 and a maximum of 36 votes, assuming that the Canadian and other extreme proposals remain to be debated and voted upon. Initial strength of Canadian proposal somewhat less and no present indication of willingness to compromise. While psychologically it could be damaging to our position to sponsor a proposal which we know won’t win, on other hand we believe there are compelling tactical reasons for introducing “A” without delay and to build support for it. To do so may demonstrate that the strength of the “fishing” states is at any rate sufficient to convince “coastal” states that some concession on their part is necessary if conference is to reach agreement.
[Page 769]It is now apparent that we will have to be prepared to move to support of Alternative “B” and I consider that paragraph 5 of the Basic US Position Paper2 gives me authority to do so when I deem such action necessary. The outlook for “B” seems tactically good and we believe it should eventually command more support than either the Canadian proposal in its present form or any other proposal now envisaged.3
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 399.731/3–2260. Confidential.↩
- Document 395.↩
-
At the Secretary’s Staff Meeting on March 22, Hager noted: “Mr. Dean has recommended that we now sponsor a 6-plus-6 formula with no cut-off of fishing rights in the outer six. We have agreed to his recommendation.” (Ibid., Secretary’s Staff Meetings: Lot 63 D 75)
For text of the proposal as introduced by the U.S. Delegation on March 23, see U.N. doc. A/CONF.19/8, pp. 166–167.
↩