500. Telegram From the Embassy in Canada to the Department of State1

757. For Under Secretary Ball from Ambassador. Greatly appreciate your attention to question US reply to long-standing Canadian request on Law of Sea.

Following are my comments seriatim on questions raised your 744.2

(A)
Outright refusal on our part participate proposed canvass interested nations would, I assume, greatly lessen interest UK and others. If it thus became apparent to Canadians no point in pursuing multilateral possibilities, then I believe Canadians might well feel obliged take unilateral action.
(B)
Issue is active in Canada today though without burning intensity which surrounds number other domestic political issues. Government has thus far avoided action by publicly implying international negotiations in progress. Liberal opposition has publicly said it stands for cooperation with other interested nations but would if necessary take unilateral action. CCF (Socialist) member Parliament has presented bill which would provide unilateral extension fishing rights to twelve miles. This bill however unlikely come to vote so long as government can indicate alternative solution being pursued. We are in heavy pre-election atmosphere and government is growing increasingly restive on this question. By coincidence ExtAff at personal request Foreign Minister Green made oral approach to us again today urging early US reply.
(C)
CCF bill referred to above speaks of “12-mile fishing zone” and presumably is not concerned with other territorial rights. In its approach today ExtAff emphasized to us GOC speaking of Six plus Six formula with 10-year phase-out of historic fishing rights.
(D)
I believe that by affirmative response to request participate in canvass or even response which falls short of this but indicates willingness sit down and talk (my telegram 234, September 1, 1961).3 We would have good chance forestalling unilateral Canadian action during [Page 1121] present session Parliament and probably until after elections. For sake our bilateral relations with Canada I would of course hope we could participate in canvass. I cannot judge other factors involved but in this connection Canadians made clear to us again today their understanding our participation would imply no substantive commitment whatsoever.

In any event, as indicated my A–2914 there is some reason believe Canadians are becoming concerned over state US-Canada relations and particularly over manner in which they have dealt with us in certain current bilateral issues. If we can now be moderately forthcoming on this question (and, as I believe, at same time further our interests on Law of Sea question) I think we would further encourage their remorse and would contribute to their sense of need to husband more carefully their store of goodwill in US. This would be most welcome development.

Merchant
  1. Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1960–63, 399.731/2–962. Confidential; Limit Distribution.
  2. Document 499.
  3. In telegram 234, Ambassador Merchant urged the Department to indicate readiness to discuss the Law of the Sea Convention with Canada even if it were not possible to hold a meeting before the Canadian Parliament reconvened on September 7. (National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1960–63, 399.731/9–161)
  4. Not printed.