Office of the Historian

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

Geneva, April 19, 1960—11 a.m.

1711. Law of Sea. FYI Approval of Icelandic proposal in committee (31 affirmative 11 negative 46 abstaining including US) confronts US with necessity determining its position on proposal when subject arises in plenary. Arguments for support are: (1) Iceland has meritorious case as exceptional situation overwhelming dependence on fisheries; (2) both in general debate and when introducing joint US–Canada proposal US referred to need for conference consideration such situations and to willingness US entertain proposals to meet them, hence conference (and Iceland) has been led expect sympathetic action our part so that integrity of US would be called into question if US does [Page 795] not now support some realistic proposal for special situations, particularly Iceland’s; and (3) US opposition could have severe political repercussions for US-Icelandic relations as well as on other small countries viewing Icelandic problem sympathetically with adverse implications for NATO, particularly if Soviet bloc supported or abstained and possibly on attitude small countries on passage of warships in outer six. Important Soviet fishing interests require defeat of Icelandic proposal but USSR might abstain instead of voting against as in 1958, if confident US and Western Europe would mount blocking third.

On other hand, following outlines argument against US support of the proposal:

(1)
UKDel unhappy with the limited opposition to Icelandic proposal, particularly with abstention by US though they were fully advised in advance and know reasons. UK believes proposal may well get two-thirds in plenary unless US votes and works against it. If approved in plenary would become part of 1960 convention (which would include US-UK proposal). UK and Iceland continuing discussion and on return Hare (UK) from England may have something to report.
(2)
If amended to broaden criteria by removing “overwhelming dependence”, or to make applicable to coastal communities or parts of a state, it would pose threat to some US fisheries.

Discussing whole situation in detail with head UKDel and will advise.

  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 399.731/4–1960. Confidential. Received April 20 at 1:36 a.m.↩