429. Telegram From the Delegation to the Conference on the Law of the Sea to the Department of State1
1887. Attention: Secretary. Law of Sea. Would like to express appreciation of wonderful backing received your Department and of magnificent cooperation of Embassies and Ambassadors. Fully realize enormous burden hurry-up calls from conference such as this place on Embassies which have other important matters between countries to negotiate.
Sincerely sorry wording we finally worked out and hoped would satisfy Philippines could not bring them from an abstention to a “yes” vote, which would of course have carried the conference as we only lost by one vote.
[Page 808]In Committee of the Whole Argentina had presented an amendment to joint U.S.-Canadian proposal that coastal state had absolute preferential rights in coastal waters beyond twelve miles, which failed to carry with Soviet bloc abstaining.
Tunkin (USSR) then went to Pablo Pardo (Argentina) and stated that if Argentine amendment introduced in plenary Soviets and Arabs would support. Since many states had instructions to vote for such preferential rights and fishing interests were against, such an amendment might have crippled our proposal. Consequently called meeting several Latin American Ambassadors and worked out what subsequently became Brazil-Cuba-Uruguay proposal, or L.12 in plenary, that commission set up by Article 9 of Fishing Convention of 1958 would have jurisdiction to pass on coastal states preferential claims beyond twelve miles after hearing views fishing states involved, to which Argentina, Chile and Guatemala pledged support and Ecuador and El Salvador pledged abstention. Placing Cuba’s name as sponsor on this and by treating it as an amendment to other report of the Committee of the Whole rather than as an amendment to the U.S.-Canadian proposal. Garcia Amador (Cuba) was able to stay as sponsor and to vote “yes” on L.4 (second) in plenary, being U.S.-Canadian proposal as reported by Committee of the Whole as amended in plenary by Brazil-Cuba-Uruguay proposal [4 lines of source text not declassified]. After working out terms of Brazil-Cuba-Uruguay proposal Correa (Ecuador) and Ponce-Carbo, Under Secretary Ecuadorian Foreign Office then insisted on further amendment that if coastal state during base period of five years, in our proposal 1953–58, had passed its own internal law extending its territorial sea beyond six miles then fishing states involved would have to agree they acquired no historical rights to outer six mile zone under such circumstance. When fishing states refused such amendment, I undertook write letter that U.S. would not as executive member take steps to prove any practice of fishing by American vessels in outer six mile zone Ecuadorian waters in base period and that consequently Paragraph 3 U.S.-Canadian proposal not apply as between Ecuador and U.S.A. Immediately drafted agreement to this effect and submitted to Correa and Ponce Carbo and shook hands on basis Ecuador would abstain.2 Two days later Ponce Carbo (Ecuador) demanded I waive, release and quit claim to Ecuador all claims U.S. Government and American nationals against Ecuador by virtue Ecuadorian enforcement of its 200-mile territorial sea. Explained Congress alone could do this and had no authority sign such an agreement and would be fraudulent if I did. Then delegated Wainhouse to work this matter out finally and up to 1 a.m. Tuesday, [Page 809] April 26 Ecuadorians were still contending for this clause. At 1:15 a.m. politely but firmly told them we could not grant. At 10:30 a.m. while in Assembly Hall after plenary voting session called to order by Prince Wan, Correa (Ecuador) sent me note “must see in corridor,” where he and Ambassador Trujillo and Ponce Carbo insisted I sign document with above-mentioned release in it immediately or Ecuador would vote “no.” As I was explaining why this could not be done received message from Prince Wan he was holding up voting because I was not in my seat. Thereupon left to re-enter Assembly Hall. Upon leaving, saw Correa summon Melo-Lecaros (Chile) shake hands with him and say “it is a deal.” Whereupon as I resumed seat in Assembly, Melo-Lecaros approached me and said that although he had agreed vote “yes,” he had just received instruction President Alessandri (Chile) to vote “no” and could not change them.
After Brazil-Cuba-Uruguay proposal, L.12 plenary, received two-thirds vote with Paragraph 5 of proposed amended U.S.-Canadian proposal L.11 in plenary having been substituted for Paragraph 1 of Brazil-Cuba-Uruguay proposal in order to meet insistence of Italians and Koreans they had to have Paragraph 5 in order to vote “yes.” Japan then told us instructions were for her to abstain on U.S.-Canadian proposal as amended by Brazil-Cuba-Uruguay proposal because her fishing interests strongly objected to commission created Paragraph 9 Fishing Convention 1958 having jurisdiction to grant preferential rights coastal state beyond twelve miles. Consequently on voting on our proposal as amended Ecuador and Chile voted “no” and Japan abstained increasing “no” voting by two and reducing “yes” vote by one.
Burma despite strenuous Commonwealth efforts, voted “no” and Guinea, despite suggestion just before voting might abstain.
India voted “no” because Sen had received cable from Krishna Menon, Minister of War, instructing him to vote “no” unless we accepted prior authorization passage of warships in entire twelve-mile zone and prohibition against assembling or maneuvering of war vessels in such zone, Prime Minister Nehru having ignored personal message from Prime Minister Macmillan and President Eisenhower received during Chou En Lai visit New Delhi.
[Paragraph (17 words of source text) not declassified]
Melo-Lecaros (Chile) subsequently insisted Chile could not get written release of 1952 agreement with Peru and that [36 words not declassified] this “no” vote was actually on explicit instructions from President Alessandri.
[Page 810]Wish to emphasize significance at conference of being able to break Arab bloc despite solemn Arab League agreements vote as unit and should especially commend Tunisia and Jordan for voting “yes” and Lebanon for abstaining or more accurately for absenting themselves from voting due to threats.
Also consider significant Ethiopia and Ghana voted “yes”.
Impossible to describe third degree methods, threats of personal violence, threats of ostracism on returning to their own country and other methods [9 words not declassified] used in effort not to get them to vote “yes” and believe threats of personal violence on his return Lebanon had effect on Fattal’s absenting himself entirely. Think special efforts should be made to thank countries voting “yes” for their steadfastness and where Presidential messages previously sent Presidential appreciation should be expressed.
Ambassador Sohn, Kim and Han (Korea) very helpful and steadfast throughout and would appreciate McConaughy be advised at Seoul.
In State Department and Navy announcements and in State Department bulletins believe emphasis should be laid on fact international law is what majority of countries say it is and that this constituted a vote of 54 with 28 against and 5 abstentions for six miles as compared to vote of 39 in 1958 for 12 miles. In 1960 twelve miles were only able to muster 31.
Guinea representative advised that when they chose independence from French union within 48 hours all French officials and entire governmental records withdrawn from country and credits closed. Consequently there is great bitterness against France and because of Algerian war and possible incursion of French vessels into Tunisian or Libyan waters and explosion second French bomb there is a source of great feeling against France.
Sharpeville incident in Union of South Africa shortly after conference began had profound effect upon Africans forcing Union of South Africa delegate to withdraw from speaking and explosion of second French bomb in Sahara almost caused similar incidents against France, and boycotting of UAR ship Cleopatra in New York harbor caused tensions of that delegation to arise.
Since we started without agreement with Canada and with their proposal providing for no phase-out and we were able to table joint proposal with ten-year phase-out and did not have to grant either authorization or notification to warships either in inner six or outer six mile zone and we in statement made clear we only voted for Brazil-Cuba-Uruguay proposal giving Commission under Article 9 fishing convention authority pass on coastal state’s preferential claims beyond twelve miles as means to obtaining agreement on breadth territorial sea and fishing zone and that we did not stand for such [Page 811] proposal standing alone and also explained we would adhere three mile limit despite failure of conference by one vote on the whole believe we emerge from conference relatively unscathed and with our datas considerably advanced.
In forthcoming months or years USSR, Saudi Arabia and Mexico will of course do everything possible promote 12 mile territorial sea and emergence of new members of United Nations will make solution this problem more difficult as months go by.
Witman did yeoman work with Ethiopia, Ghana and Tunisia and was untiring in his efforts to convince Guinea and Libya, and believe would be helpful to have him write memorandum on how we can work with African States and what should be done to improve our working relations.
Since uncommitted nations may regard this as a military and diplomatic defeat by the Soviet Union of the US, every effort should be taken to point out nations such as Japan, Philippines and India who did not support us the fundamental importance of a narrow territorial sea although naval exposition with charts on this question at Delhi undoubtedly contributed to Krishna Menon’s instructions as Minister of War though Menon insisted that their demand on authorization passage warships was at insistence Asian-African nations.
Baig (Pakistan) informs me all of Sen’s (India) efforts on this score here were received coldly.
Ago (Italy), Quiroga (Spain) and Bailey (Australia) have suggested 54 nations would themselves sign convention or multilateral treaty in form present text US-Canadian proposal as amended by Brazil-Cuba-Uruguay proposal, deposit it in United Nations and ask all others to join. Bailey (Australia) also wants to promote this idea at meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers in London next week and asked me to have Secretary of State give matter his careful attention.
Throughout conference in effort to avoid embarrassing noncommitted nations, in all my speeches, talks and discussions, I have carefully refrained from talking defense matters, referring to Russian submarines or to have provided enemy submarines by wider territorial sea in time of war and many uncommitted nations have complimented us on this attitude.
On other hand Shukairy (Saudi Arabia) and Garcia Robles (Mexico) in close and daily conferences Tunkin (USSR) and Shukairy as representative Saudi Arabia, where we have air force base, continued repeated bitter attacks on USA and peaceful aims of USSR gloated over our defeat and filibustered against further action. This may have repercussions in capitals of uncommitted countries and Embassy Jidda may wish consider mentioning Saudi Arabian Prime Minister that [14 words not declassified] sale of their oil wealth is dependent on continued [Page 812] good economies in USA and Western Europe and narrow territorial sea essential to transportation. [1 sentence (27 words) not declassified]
These parliamentary tactics of delay, confusion and distortion are exceedingly confusing and disturbing to small uncommitted nations. They are I believe a part of much larger Soviet tactics to permit no constructive agreement on any subject to lull the world into a false sense security by a constant Pollyannaish manner of sweetness and light, to attack the capitalistic countries as war mongers and profiteers and to lead the world up the garden path of a do-nothing summit and hence build up a sense of discouragement at the inability of the free world’s leaders to come to grips with problems both domestic and foreign so people will complain about the burden of taxation and armaments.
Bailey (Australia) is convinced impossible to work out legal agreements at UN conference and strongly urges signing convention among Commonwealth countries, Scandinavian countries, USA, Latin America, Western European and such Asian and African countries as wish to join. Drew (Canada) agrees. [2 sentences (4 lines of source text) not declassified]
Would like to compliment entire staff for loyal, devoted unflagging work day and night and for a wonderful spirit of cooperation. Consulate and Moore and Owsley most helpful and considerate. All liaison officers did splendid job. Please thank Admiral Burke for work of Admiral Colclough and Captains Hearn and Hardy and Commander Hoag and for service of Consulate Marines. Please thank Seaton and Interior for splendid cooperation and work of Suomela, Terry and Taylor and Fishery advisers. They with Herrington attended all meetings, were freely and constantly consulted and gave unstintingly of their time. They were fully consulted in working out Brazil-Cuba-Uruguay proposal and though they did not approve, they thoroughly understood my reasons and strategy. In conference of 88 countries with things moving and breaking fast and where instantaneous decisions must be made, it is not always possible to keep everyone advised throughout every hour of the day and of necessity much of work has to be done in cooperation Western Europe, Afro-Asians, and Latin American groups who will only talk to head of delegation. They all assure me of their complete satisfaction with consultation and with spirit of cooperation. Herrington, as usual, turned in an indefatigable, fine performance and naturally must fight hard and long for fishing rights. Richards made splendid vice chairman. Wainhouse, Yingling, Wright and Kerley were most helpful. This is a technical difficult and exceptionally complicated subject requiring the constant conjuring up of new solutions, careful drafting and constant examination of implications of other proposals both legally, economically and politically on [Page 813] all countries together with constant study of conference rules and possible parliamentary maneuvering, which may be of more immediate importance than substance. Recommend careful course in this for all liaison officers as well as careful exposé voting technique, such as obtaining adoption of proposals by wide abstentions as in the case of Iceland’s first proposal in committee. Much impressed by liaison work of Clough, King, Owsley, Roberts and Witman. Doctor Pearcy and Miss Lucas very helpful.
Regret necessity of voting against Iceland’s proposal on special fishing rights and amendment taking away historical rights from our proposal and were it not for necessity obtaining Dr. Garcia Amador’s “yes” vote on committee proposal and his joint sponsorship of Brazil-Cuba-Uruguay proposal as amendment to committee report would have moved to consider committee report last, in which event in case adoption Brazil, Cuba, Uruguay proposal there would have been no necessity voting on Icelandic special rights proposal.
Peru withdrew its proposal L.5 and I urged Dr. Garcia Amador to withdraw L.6, to which he agreed but after failure committee report as amended by Brazil-Cuba-Uruguay amendment he insisted on having L.6 voted on and we led in having it defeated for which Tunkin (USSR) taunted him.
[Paragraph (5 lines of source text) not declassified]
Constantly pressed UK for Icelandic solution and if this had occurred before conference would have had Icelandic vote and would have avoided conference sympathy for small nation’s problems. Icelandic Delegation hurt but they voted throughout with USSR despite NATO commitments. Andersen, Icelandic Ambassador, believed UK proposal good but officials would not accept and run risk home displeasure.
Support of fishery interests for new proposals in all countries is slow, sullen, grudging and generally too late for effective conference action and this hampered UK, Japan, France, Belgium and Norway as well as ourselves.
Correa (Ecuador) conferred his country’s highest medal on Garcia Robles (Mexico) while here. Latter skilled, tricky and smart parliamentarian with thorough knowledge of all conference’s rules, loopholes and devices.
Wiener of USIS very helpful throughout.
[Paragraph (6 lines of source text) not declassified]