Office of the Historian

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

Geneva, March 31, 1960—9 p.m.

1478. Law of Sea. On present basis, voting in Committee of Whole will start April 6 and because of amendments to rules reported our 13602 proposals defeated in Committee cannot be re-introduced except on basis two-thirds vote. At present time because nature of Soviet proposal with respect to possible 12-mile fishing zone and nature of instructions of delegates who would prefer to work with US on compromise proposal on voting in Committee, Soviet proposal may obtain approximately 40–43 votes, which because of abstentions, could conceivably constitute majority in Committee. At present writing approximate vote for American proposal is 23–34 and for Canadian proposal 23–28. Such a vote for Soviet proposal might give them strong rallying base and may enable them to prevent any split in an Arab vote or Africa-Asia vote and would enable them to continue to gain further adherence during time Committee of Whole functions and before proposals can be introduced in plenary. During this period delegates will remain confused as to precisely where US and Canada stand. Consequently concerned lest small votes on an American proposal might discourage success on possible compromise and will freeze situations so that ultimate success ⅔ vote on compromise might not be obtained in plenary. Western Europeans other than UK still allergic putting in compromise proposal in Committee though individually all except Sweden recognize some time limitation on historical rights inevitable. Continuing highly confidential daily conversations with Drew (Canada) and Hare (UK) and am negotiating possible joint Canadian-US proposal. So far have been trying for time limitation of at least 15 years and so far Drew not willing to go over 10. If proposal initially tabled3 time limitation 10 years, Western European cooperation difficult but believe can if time limitiation longer. Have been working closely with Asafu-Adjaye and Quarshie (Ghana) in effort get them propose 6 plus 6 proposal with historical rights terminating at end of 15 years but their proposal may take form of 12 miles territorial sea proposal with innocent passage ships same as inner six with unrestricted aerial overflight in outer 6 and innocent passage in territorial straits and they may balk at anything over ten years. Negotiations delicate since there is considerable split of opinion in Ghana Del itself and with Asian-African group. Have been pressing for split without so [Page 774] far being too argumentative over details lest we lose them entirely, though naturally concerned lest distinctions become so refined there is not much distinction between such proposals and 12-mile territorial sea. While Western Europeans would not welcome withdrawal our proposal believe very bad psychologically for US to take decisive defeat in first voting at conference in Committee and may recommend withdrawal and introduce in Committee joint US-Canadian proposal with such Latin American, African and Asian support as we can muster. With 9 Soviet votes, 12 Arab votes and Garcia Robles commanding at minimum Mexico, Peru and Panama and possibly Burma, Philippines and Indonesia, situation is very tight and possibility for maneuver extremely limited. If both US and Canadian proposals were to come to vote in Committee, we would of course hope that combined vote on separate proposals would exceed vote on Soviet 12-mile proposal. But even this is by no means a certainty. Since any US-Canadian proposal would have to be tabled at latest by 5th and we would have to have liaison officers working at least 48 hours before voting starts, may have to move fairly swiftly.

  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 399.731/3–3160. Confidential.↩
  2. See footnote 2, Document 400.↩
  3. For text of the Canadian proposal, introduced on March 24, see U.N. doc. ACONF.19/8, p. 167.↩