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

433. Letter From the Acting Secretary of State to the Secretary of the Interior (Seaton)¹

Washington, June 16, 1960.

Dear Fred: The Secretary has asked me to reply to your letter of May 31, 1960² regarding the problems confronting the United States fishing industry following the Second United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea.

We are certainly agreed on the dangers to our national interests arising from the failure of the 1960 Geneva Conference. We are also aware of the difficulties caused by the efforts of others to turn to their advantage the fishery proposals supported by the United States at that Conference. We are considering ways in which these problems can be minimized.

As you mention, we have been approached by other Governments regarding the possibilities of United States support for multilateral conventions which would include the fishery provisions of the United States-Canadian proposal at Geneva. Our response has been that our support at Geneva for these provisions was given only in connection with their relationships to international agreement on a narrow territorial sea and that we would not consider participating in conventions which would include these provisions in dealing solely with fisheries matters.

Beyond this, however, it would be difficult to justify our urging other nations to refrain from mutual agreements incorporating such provisions when they consider such agreements would further their own interests—unless, of course, we can suggest and perhaps actively promote another course of action which would be more effective from their point of view and from ours as well. As you know, our Government has a significant political and security interest in encouraging the settlement, on any terms not measurably injurious to United States interests, of certain fisheries disputes that have plagued the NATO alliance.

In the specific case of Mexico, I should like to point out that the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the Tidelands Oil Case May 31, 1960 raises especially difficult problems. This decision may be interpreted by Mexico as a confirmation of its position on the Guadalupe–Hidalgo Treaty, which it cites in support of its claim to a nine-mile territorial sea vis-à-vis the United States.

With respect to the seizure by foreign states of United States fishing vessels in high seas areas off the coasts of other countries, we are undertaking a thorough-going study of this problem with a view to the possible development of more effective means for the protection of United States interests. Such a study will take into consideration the entire range of measures which may be available, including the possibility of bilateral arrangements. We will, of course, have to weigh carefully in the study, and in any position arrived at as a result thereof, the whole range of our international political and economic relations both on a world-wide basis and with individual countries.

I appreciate the frank expression of your views. As our consideration of these problems continues, we shall certainly hope to have the advice of members of your Department.

With best wishes,

Sincerely,

Douglas Dillon³

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 399.731/5–3160. Drafted by Blow and Herrington on June 14 and cleared with Arneson, Yingling, Rubottom, and Kohler.
2. Not printed. (Ibid.)
3. Printed from a copy that bears this typed signature.