Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969–1976, Volume E–2, Documents on Arms Control and Nonproliferation, 1969–1972

135. Telegram 2548 From the Mission to the United Nations to the Department of State¹ ²

New York, October 19, 1970, 1418Z.

Subject:

• Consultations With Sov Del on Seabed Disarmament Treaty Res

1. Summary. US and Sov dels, after reviewing status of consultations with CCD dels, have determined that IO dels are now ready to co-sponsor seabeds res and that at least 3 or 4 more are expected to be able to do so in very near future. US and Sov dels have agreed recommend to their capitals that they receive authority make several changes in current draft prior to moving forward week of Oct. 19 with broader consultations with dels not in CCD. End summary

2. Reactions of other dels:

(A) Japan, Netherlands, UK, Morocco, Pakistan, UAR, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Mongolia have given definite replies that they are prepared to co-sponsor. (Italy replied affirmatively on Oct. 17)

(B) Ignatieff (Canada) has recommended to Ottawa that Can del be authorized cosponsor text as is but that it should propose elimination of preambular language on freedoms of high seas; on personal Ignatieff has already urged Sov del as well as US del to delete this phrase. De Rozas (Argentina) has strongly urged that reference to freedoms of seas be deleted and has recommended to GA that Argentine del cosponsor res if language is deleted. Zelleke (Ethiopia) has suggested that this reference be deleted to avoid unnecessary problems.

(C) Garcia Robles says Mexican co-sponsorship might be possible after substance and procedure for interpretive statements on Mexican problems re treaty have been worked out. He has suggested, however, that third preambular para beginning “recognizing the common interest etc.” be changed to read “recognizing the common interest of mankind in the reservation of the seabed and the ocean floor exclusively for peaceful purposes”, explaining that language he proposes was included in last year’s GA Res 2602, which both US and USSR voted for, and that he believes many members of GA, especially members of Seabeds Committee, will strongly prefer language from last year’s res.

(D) Sweden, Ethiopia, India, Nigeria, Burma and Yugoslavia are still awaiting guidance from capitals. According to Sov del, Bulgaria is expected to co-sponsor while Romania still uncertain.

(E) Brazilian del has referred text home but has not recommended co-sponsorship because it believes most constructive tactic for Brazilian del is to rest with existing GOB instructions on seabed treaty, which include affirmative vote for res but do not cover co-sponsorship.

(F) Italian del has received approval to vote for res but still awaiting approval for co-sponsorship. (Italian approval for co-sponsorship received Oct. 17)

3. Soviet del offs (Shustov and Krasulin) and US del offs (Neidle, Givan and Brandt), meeting October 16, exchanged notes on status of consultations, as in above para, and discussed tactics, including possible changes, to gain widest support for res recommending treaty. Shustov believed that every effort should be made to avoid unnecessary problems. He thought it was not necessary to repeat in res language or concepts which were already contained in satisfactory and balanced ForMin treaty. It would be best to change last preambular para so that it would merely read “convinced that this Treaty would further the purposes and principles of the Charter of the UN”. The language on freedoms of seas could be deleted, he explained, because subject was covered to our mutual satisfaction in treaty. Shustov also believed that this change should be made promptly, before text of draft is given wide circulation. Neidle said that Shustov’s comment were very similar to US del’s thinking, but question of changes in res would have to be referred to Washington. On tactical level, he observed that it would be important in next stage of consultations to enlist enthusiastic and effective support from Canadians and Argentines who were two of most influential dels on questions pertaining to treaty. Prompt deletion of reference to freedoms of high seas would remove possible obstacle to their full cooperation.

4. On question of change suggested by Garcia Robles (para 2C above), Shustov said that he thought Soviets would have no difficulty in voting for any appropriate preambular clause which they had voted for in a past resolution. Neidle said he thought USG would take similar view. Neidle and Shustov agreed, however, that since Mexico was not in fact offering co-sponsorship in exchange for this change and since no other dels had yet proposed it, it would be best for US and Sov dels to seek standing contingent authority to substitute clause from last year’s res if it appeared advantageous to do so to gain broader co-sponsorship during next round of consultations.

5. On general tactics US and Sov del offs believed it would be important to be in position to begin consulting non-CCD members early week of Oct 19. They agreed to recommend to their capitals, therefore, that they authorize changing final preambular para to read “convinced that this treaty will further the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations”. Objective then would be to nail down Argentine co-sponsorship and ensure active Argentine lobbying with other dels as soon as possible. Key dels outside of CCD will be approached as potential co-sponsors starting Oct 21 or 22.

6. Recommendations: We recommend that we be given authority to change last preambular para as indicated above. As Shustov, Ignatieff, De Rozas and Zelleke have all said to us, and we agree, treaty stands by itself and there is no need to repeat any particular excerpts from it in preamble to GA res. We think it would be best, therefore, to go forward at this time with totally unexceptionable clause merely involving UN Charter, which would avoid any possibility of causing arguments about freedoms of high seas in general and help assure early and enthusiastic cooperation from Argentina and Canada. We also recommend that we be authorized to make changes suggested by Garcia Robles if and when it may appear advantageous to do so during next round of consultations. We would appreciate receiving these authorizations Tuesday evening or Wednesday morning at latest.

Yost

1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1970–1973, POL 33–6. Confidential. It was repeated to USMission Geneva, USNATO, and Moscow.
2. The telegram reported on U.S.-Soviet consultations on plans for submitting a seabed disarmament resolution to the UN General Assembly and individually examined the response of the other delegates who supported the agreement.