120. Telegram 3307 From the Mission in Geneva to the Department of State1 2
Geneva, September 15, 1969,
1855Z.
Subject
- CCD:
- September 15 Co-Chairmen Meeting on Draft Seabed Treaty
Reference
- (A) State 154164;
- (B) State 154165
- 1.
- At Co-Chairmen meeting afternoon Sept 15, Leonard gave Roshchin copy of new US draft treaty on seabed (reftel A) and drew on points outlined for nato presentation (reftel B) to explain changes from Sov draft of Aug 19.
- 2.
-
Roshchin Asked following
questions:
- (A)
- By inserting word “specifically” after words “other facilities” in para 1, Art 1, does the US intend to leave open the possibility of using seabed installations to store or test nuclear weapons if the installation could also be used for something else? Leonard said that addition of word “specifically” would, for example, exclude from treaty’s coverage research facility which large enough to store a nuclear weapon but which clearly not designed for this purpose.
- (B)
- What is the meaning of the word “submersibles” used in US explanation of its willingness to delete word “fixed” from previous draft Art 1? Leonard confirmed that main [Page 2] problem is submarines and added that contingency explanation contained in para 5 of reftel B that submersibles excluded vehicles which can navigate only when in contact with the seabed.
- (C)
- What does US mean by making interpretations part of negotiating history? Leonard stated that we wish to have these points clearly understood in first instance with Sov Co-Chairman and that we would also want them in public record, but we had not decided on exact procedure.
- 3.
- Roshchin said he would, of course, send US draft treaty and explanation to Moscow. His preliminary comment was that difference between two sides was not great except on question of baselines. He noted that the US draft was not based on all provisions of the 1958 Geneva Convention since it excludes para 6 of Art VII, recognizing possibility of historic bays. He said provisions of this para are important to the security of the USSR and therefore it was unlikely Moscow could accept US draft which made incomplete use of Geneva Convention. He reiterated that very substantial difficulties would be created if US insisted on this approach of interpreting Geneva Convention to eliminate one of its stipulations. Leonard stated that the Sov draft did not insure balanced obligations and was therefore unacceptable to the US. he stressed that the US draft was intended to insure that the obligations under this treaty would be balanced.
Tubby