Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969–1976, Volume E–10, Documents on American Republics, 1969–1972

622. Telegram 23385 From the Department of State to the Embassy in Peru¹ ²

Washington, February 11, 1971, 0312Z

Subject:

• Tunaboats

Ref:

• Lima 621

1. Department fully aware of limitations sanctions as a means achieving solution fishing boat problem through negotiations. Decision to apply FMS suspension sanction in the Ecuador case was unavoidable after it was clear that GOE had embarked on a course of seizures and had no intention of applying restraint. Under these circumstances Department was obliged to apply FMS suspension provision, which you will recall has been recently strengthened by Congress (Deptel 6501).

2. In the case of Peru we fully share your view that we should concentrate on getting negotiations started again and that sanctions should be avoided if at all possible. However, you should recognize and should emphasize in discussions with GOP that our capacity to show restraint in the matter of sanctions depends on GOP’s restraint in making seizures. If the GOP should feel called upon to emulate Ecuador’s policy, it would be impossible because of terms of law and because of lack of basis for distinction between Peruvian and Ecuadorean seizures to avoid application of sanctions.

1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1970–73, POL 33–4 PERU–US. Confidential. Drafted on February 10 by Weber; cleared in draft by VanCampen and Hamwell; and approved by Crimmins, Smith, and Feldman. Repeated to Mexico City, Quito, and Santiago.
2. The Department of State instructed Ambassador Belcher to inform the Peruvian Government that the United States would show restraint in applying sanctions if Peru did not seize U.S. fishing boats.