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

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

Geneva, April 12, 1960—10 a.m.

1633. Law of Sea. As expected, now that US-Canadian proposal tabled, Latin American States demanding higher price their support, this price being preferential rights coastal state beyond 12 miles as expressed in Peru and Argentine proposals, our 1629 and 1631.² In addition, for what I believe to be essentially political reasons, Cuba has made similar proposal, our 1630.³

While I most anxious obtain support these States in committee for our proposal, am concerned that US acceptance any of these proposals likely lose more European votes than it will gain Latin American votes, result in poor vote our proposal in committee and certain conference failure. Canada and UK equally concerned problem obtaining substantial majority committee and suggest we deal with problem now by attempting convince Latin American States their resolutions certain result conference failure, and offering seek solution in plenary in exchange their vote in committee. Specifically UK and Canada willing we offer resolution along lines 58 South African resolution⁴ and this failing, offer further additional resolution referring problem “special situations” UN for study by ECOSOC and FAO and possibly later technical conference this question. We and UK anxious specific offers not be made prior plenary fearing premature move will only encourage greater demands.

I am inclined take firm line Latin American States, pointing out that without question to press their proposals is to insure conference failure since fishing states which under US-Canadian proposal are giving much, will prefer conference failure to giving more. I question that such States as Argentina wish conference failure and am hopeful firm approach will be productive. Believe I should be prepared however to indicate willingness offer resolutions in plenary along lines suggested Canada and UK as something they can take home. Am extremely reluctant do this since I consider it breach in 12-mile fishing limit wall and contrary interests US fishing industry.

My view, present instructions do not authorize me offer or support resolutions along lines set out above. Accordingly urgently request authorization do so should I consider it necessary achieve basic US objectives. Wish point out fish people here concur this request only with great reluctance.

Iceland has also submitted special situation proposal, our 1560,⁵ but I consider this of different type and believe current instructions adequate.⁶

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 399.731/4–1260. Confidential; Niact.
2. Both dated April 11. (ibid., 399.731/4–1160)
3. Also dated April 11. (Ibid.) For text of the Cuban resolution, which was circulated in the Committee of the Whole as ACONF.19/C.1/L.9, see U.N. doc. ACONF.19/8, pp. 171–172.
4. For text of the South African resolution, April 25, 1958, see U.N. doc. ACONF.13/38, p. 114.
5. Dated April 7. (Department of State, Central Files, 399.731/4–760) For text of the Icelandic proposal see U.N. doc. ACONF.19/8, p. 168.
6. On April 14, the Department authorized Dean to offer or support a proposal along the lines of the South African resolution and other “special situations” if necessary to assure the requisite vote. (Telegram 2345 to Geneva; Department of State, Central Files, 399.731/4–1360)