Office of the Historian

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

Geneva, April 8, 1960—2 a.m.

1576. Law of Sea. Request above Embassies be instructed urge support US–Canada compromise proposal2 using arguments below:

(1)
US and Canada proposal follows realistic acceptance here that neither immediate cut-off of present fishing rights (Canadian proposal) nor perpetual fishing rights for a limited number of states (US proposal) can command required two-thirds majority. Proposal worked out in recognition danger involved of 12-mile proposals or conference failure with probable unilateral adoption of 12 miles by large number of countries. As practical matter, to be successful in plenary, proposal must receive more votes in committee than 12-mile proposals. This will require full support from states committed to 6-mile limit. Proposal supported by states with widely divergent interests including US and Canada, UK, Germany, Norway, Ireland, China, Pakistan, Israel, Brazil, etc.
(2)
If argument is made proposal is too early, the following information may be useful:
(A)
Committee vote now fixed for April 13–14 with April 8 the last day for submitting proposals though amendments can be submitted through Tuesday noon, April 12.
(B)
Conference failure would probably lead to 12-mile territorial sea by unilateral action. New states expected to be created in next two or three years would almost certainly adopt a 12-mile sea, so that majority might favor 12 miles in case matter raised in ICJ. This conference may therefore be last hope for retaining 6-mile limit and additional 6-mile contiguous fishing zone. Historical rights of fishing, no matter how ancient, within three miles of another nation’s coast cannot in view present world opinion be enforced by admiralty as British experience Iceland shows. Many countries, namely Iceland, Chile, Peru, might extend fisheries jurisdiction still further in the absence of agreed limitation. Meanwhile fishing, airline and defense interests would be lost at same time.
(C)
Only three possible results from conference are acceptance joint US-Canadian proposal for 6-mile territorial sea plus six miles additional fishing jurisdiction for coastal state with continuation of fishing rights for those fishing states who have made a practice of fishing in outer zone for five years prior to January 1, 1958 with such right phasing out after ten years, which, with support, we believe, has good chance; alternatives are 12-mile territorial sea or conference failure with probable chaotic conditions. [1 sentence (23 words) not declassified]
(D)
Good spirit here and most states are relying on us to bring about conference success and if there is conference failure, blame will probably be placed on military powers.
(E)
With 12-mile proposal now supported by 16 Afro-Asian states3 plus India and Philippines and with proposal obtaining initial support from those who hope support US-Canadian proposal later may initially receive 40 to 43 votes should it receive more votes in committee than US-Canadian proposal, pressure in plenary will be for some settlement of 12-mile territorial sea or possibly 9-mile territorial sea with no fishing rights, with some gesture toward continued fishing for a limited number of years. Both Canadian delegation and US will state publicly no further reduction can be considered in cut-off time.
(F)
Considerable time required for many delegations, particularly Far East, Latin America and Afro-Asians to seek new instructions. Failure US compromise to obtain two-thirds in 1958 largely attributable this factor.

Where appropriate, defense arguments and NATO position should be reviewed.

Copenhagen should probably avoid Icelandic issue because of Faros.

Re Latin American countries, we believe following steps would be helpful:

(A) Ecuador, Chile, Colombia, Uruguay, Guatemala, El Salvador. These countries will probably have to vote for Afro-Asian 12-mile proposal first but attempt should be made to persuade them after vote in Committee of Whole to abstain on 12 miles in plenary. They should also be persuaded that failure to support US-Canadian proposal will seriously prejudice chances of conference success. Since Ecuador expected possibly abstain special efforts might possibly be made there. Reference Mexico, Panama, Venezuela and Peru these countries probably hard core of opposition but attempt still might be made at Embassy discretion influence them by above arguments.

  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 399.731/4–860. Confidential; Priority. Repeated to Paris, Madrid, The Hague, Lisbon, Copenhagen, Brussels, and Stockholm.↩
  2. See supra. The Embassies are listed in footnote 1 thereto.↩
  3. For text of the 16-nation Afro-Asian proposal, April 6, see U.N. doc. ACONF.19/8, pp. 167–168.↩