COMMENT: We are, of course, still at an early and fluid state in these
negotiations.
Tab A
Memorandum From Secretary of State Rogers to President
Nixon
Washington, September 15, 1971
[Page 2]
Subject:
- 1973 Law of the Sea Conference
On May 23, 1970, you announced new proposals aimed at ensuring that
the oceans are used for the benefit of mankind and not become an
arena for unrestrained exploitation and conflicting claims. These
were designed to accommodate specific U.S. security and resource
interests, particularly U.S. mobility at sea.
The UN subsequently decided to convene
a 1973 Law of the Sea Conference with preparations in an 86 member
Committee. However, unilateral claims over ocean space continue. The
Organization of African Unity recently called on Africans to extend
their jurisdiction over fisheries.
Your 1970 proposals call for 12-mile territorial seas, free transit
through international straits, mixed coastal State and international
authority over fisheries and sea-bed resources in a fairly broad
coastal area (“trusteeship zone” in our seabeds proposal), and
international regulation of seabed resource development seaward of
that zone. The coastal State would retain exclusive sovereign rights
over seabed resources to a depth of 200 meters.
At the just completed Geneva session of the UN Preparatory Committee, State Department Legal
Adviser, John R. Stevenson,
introduced draft Articles on territorial seas, straits, and
fisheries. He stressed the connection between solutions on
territorial seas and straits and U.S. accommodation of coastal State
interests in fisheries. He indicated flexibility on the outer
boundary of the seabed trusteeship zone.
A 12-mile territorial sea is widely supported, but frequently linked
to satisfying coastal State interests beyond 12-miles in fisheries,
seabed resources and pollution. We link a 12-mile territorial sea
with free transit through straits. Spain is engaged in a diplomatic
offensive against our straits proposal, and other States bordering
straits have difficulties with it. There may be room for compromise,
[Page 3]
and we plan to
continue private talks with important straits States in an attempt
to solve their particular problems.
Some Latin American countries, such as Brazil and Peru, are seeking
to stimulate other countries to make extensive unilateral claims and
to delay the 1973 Conference since they fear rejection there of
their unilateral approach.
The Geneva talks made clear that if we are to lead countries away
from a unilateral approach it will be necessary to find some way
within a multilateral context to give adequate satisfaction to
coastal States with respect to adjacent resources in the water
(fish) and under the sea (oil, gas, and hard minerals). Although
Brazil, Peru and Ecuador appear to be the only States actively
supporting a 200-mile territorial sea, many coastal States express
support for a 200-mile zone in which they would have exclusive
control over all resources. We must find a way to balance coastal,
international and maritime (military and shipping) interests in
coastal areas. Our proposals seek to accomplish this through the
international community delegating specific authority over resources
to coastal States, subject to international standards and
review.
The Soviet delegation, with which we have good working relations,
strongly supported us on territorial seas and straits, but felt our
fisheries proposal too coastal State oriented at this time. We will
continue private conversations with them, at which they may stress
the Arab problems with free transit in the Strait of Tiran. The
Soviets presented a skeletal seabeds treaty, but remain interested
in our trusteeship proposal.
Many developing countries favor making the Conference and treaty
universal, to include the PRC among
others. Hard-line Latins could use this issue to delay the
Conference.
We have a good chance of achieving a 12-mile territorial sea, but
will have a more difficult time achieving our other security-related
objectives: free transit through straits and mixed
coastal/international controls over offshore resources. Between now
and the Spring Committee meeting, we will review our approach while
pursuing the high-level diplomatic campaign you authorized in
support of our policy.
