434. Memorandum From the Deputy Special Assistant for Law of the Sea Matters (Arneson) to the Acting Secretary of State1
SUBJECT
- Law of the Sea: Multilateral Convention and Alternative Possibilities
As promised by Admiral Burke in his meeting with you on June 16, 1960 (Tab A2), the Navy has considered again the possibilities of a multilateral convention from the security point of view. The results of this re-examination are embodied in a letter from Admiral Lee to you dated June 30, 1960 (Tab B). Navy estimates that no more than 32 countries would be interested in signing such a convention; 14 are considered doubtful, and 41 of those present at Geneva would not be expected to sign (see Tab C for a comparison of the Navy’s estimate, the estimate of U/LS, and that of Mr. Arthur Dean). Accordingly, Navy does not favor the project.
U/LS’s estimate is of the same general order as Navy’s; however, we do boost the total from 32 to 36 of those likely to sign initially with several more likely to sign at a later date. Mr. Dean is considerably more optimistic than either Navy or U/LS. His total of early signers plus those who might sign later comes to 62. (See Tab D for Mr. Dean’s commentary on the Navy estimate with reasons why he thinks certain countries would sign. See also Tab E on the same subject.) I believe this estimate to be unrealistically high, based somewhat, I fear, but understandably, on a carry-over of Conference psychology developed at Geneva.
Meanwhile, both the British and the Canadians continue to press us to support a multilateral convention, at least in principle, and to join them in making a canvass of possible interest. In order to relieve the pressure from these quarters but more particularly to help satisfy ourselves that the project would not gain the necessary support, it is suggested that discreet high-level soundings be taken with France. Such approach should be completely frank, indicating our doubts as to the desirability of the convention, the interest shown by the UK and Canada, and our desire for a frank expression of view from the French Government, as well as an objective appraisal from them as to the number of countries which might be interested. The approach should stress that the United States is not committed to support of the idea but that the French view would weigh heavily in our calculations. [Page 825] Without prejudging the outcome of such an approach, it might be observed that the UK has already had some preliminary indications that France would not, in fact, be interested in supporting a multilateral convention (Tab F).
While Admiral Burke expressed some concern at the meeting on June 16 that taking soundings with even the French might be disadvantageous, I have now been informed that Navy would not object to such an approach provided it were done circumspectly, preferably with Couve de Murville himself. It is interesting to note in this connection that the Navy list of 32 prospective signers includes both France and Belgium. I believe Navy is mistaken in both cases. In any event, the way to find out is to approach the French in the first instance, leaving aside for the present whether any further soundings should be taken until the French reaction is known. If, contrary to expectations, the French indicate support for the idea, we might consider whether further soundings should then be taken within NATO.
Recommendations:3
1) That, after informing the UK and Canada of our intention to do so, you authorize Ambassador Houghton to discuss frankly with Couve de Murville the idea of a multilateral convention and determine whether France would be willing to support it, as well as the French estimate of the number of countries likely to be interested; and
2) That, with the tacit support already given by the Navy to the above approach, no further clearance be sought at this time on the ground that the sounding is without commitment and does not involve policy considerations.
For Your Information Only:
One further item: Navy is seriously examining other territorial sea formulas that might be of net advantage to the national security. [1 sentence (4 lines of source text) not declassified] A preliminary estimate of the Navy staff is that this sort of formula would be to the net security advantage of the United States and the free world and would be supported by at least 60 countries. Thus far, no consideration has been given to the fisheries provisions (if any) of such a proposal, but presumably one might consider a ten-year phase-out period for fishery rights on the lines of the Canadian-US proposal at Geneva. While it is premature to say what fate this formula or any other may have as it is staffed out, I thought you would be interested in knowing how thinking is going at the moment in the Navy.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 399.731/7–860. Secret. Drafted and initialed by Arneson and cleared by Hager and EUR.↩
- See Document 432. Tabs B–F are not printed.↩
- Dillon initialed his approval of both recommendations on July 9.↩