Foreign Relations of the United States, 1977–1980, Volume XXVII, Western Europe

83. Telegram From Secretary of State Muskie’s Delegation to the Department of State¹

Secto 3022.

Vienna, May 15, 1980, 2131Z

SUBJECT

• (C) Muskie–MacGuigan Bilateral.

1. (C—Entire text)

2. Summary: The main subject of discussion between Secretary Muskie and Canadian Foreign Minister MacGuigan in their May 14 bilateral was the fisheries treaty. MacGuigan said Canadians were not prepared to accept many changes to the treaty. Secretary pointed out that treaty could not be ratified in its present form because of strong opposition in the Senate. This was a political fact. There were three proposed reservations to the treaty, and both Canada and the U.S. needed to use their collective ingenuity to find accommodation. A supporter in the Senate also needed to be found. He promised to get back to MacGuigan on this. Other subjects discussed briefly were wheat; the Quebec referendum, and the Olympics. End summary.

3. Secretary Muskie met with Canadian Foreign Minister MacGuigan at the U.S. Mission to NATO on May 14.² Present on the Canadian side were Sullivan, Senior Departmental Assistant to Secretary of State for External Affairs and Ambassador Hardy, Canadian PermRep. Present on the U.S. side were Assistant Secretary Vest, Ambassador Bennett, NSC staff member Blackwill and USNATO notetaker. After opening pleasantries and praise from both men for former Secretary Vance, MacGuigan said that Secretary Muskie will find Canadian policy supportive. Our aim is generally to keep it that way. MacGuigan cited as an example the Canadian decision to boycott the Olympics.³

4. Secretary Muskie asked if there were any problems and cited the fisheries treaty. MacGuigan said that was indeed the main problem and asked what could be done in the Senate. Secretary replied that support is needed from the Senators from the affected states. He noted that while in the Senate he had supported the treaty. He had attempted to try to represent the views of his state’s fisheries, and on the whole they could live with it. But the affected fishermen from southern New England had a different view. Secretary did not see support for the treaty at this point. Senator Kennedy⁴ had tabled three reservations and Senator Pell,⁵ a strong opponent, wanted the reservations adopted. The United States needs to get back to Canada on this matter, but if the Canadians want the treaty exactly in its present form it will be a different road.

5. MacGuigan said that Canadians were not prepared to make many changes, although some small alterations might be acceptable. The problem is that if there is no treaty it is bad primarily for the fishing situation. The U.S. is now overfishing and if there is no treaty Canadian fishermen will begin to do so as well. Secretary responded that views at the moment in the Senate were set in concrete. MacGuigan asked if we were contemplating getting support from other Senators from other states. Muskie said that U.S. Senators are generally inclined to follow their colleagues from the affected states. The East Coast is affected just about as far south as the Carolinas. The West Coast Senators won’t go against their East Coast brethren, unless there are compelling reasons to do so. The Senators want good relations with Canada but this is not sufficient to get them to accept the current treaty. The opponents say they want a treaty, but not this one. They say what they want in the treaty, but they are not prepared to say what they will give up. Much the same kind of debate occurred during the SALT discussions. The Secretary said he understood what MacGuigan was saying and will use the points that he had made. He wanted to give MacGuigan, however, the hard nut political facts as he saw it. It was hard enough to get hearings on the treaty.⁶ While in the Senate he had insisted over the objections of Senators Pell and Kennedy who didn’t want hearings. He personally thought the treaty was reasonable.

6. MacGuigan commented that Canadian fishermen are the same as American. The difference seems to be the Canadian Government does not pay as much attention to their complaints as the U.S. does. Secretary responded that he wasn’t sure this was the case since the Canadian Government provided subsidies to their fishermen. The attention paid was a different kind.

7. MacGuigan then asked what initiatives were being contemplated in this area. The Secretary replied that there had been two days of Senate hearings. He did not think that more hearings would be productive. There was no spokesman in the Senate now for the treaty. Senator Sarbanes⁷ was a possibility, the Secretary thought. MacGuigan said that he might approach Sarbanes. The Secretary repeated that he did not see the parochial interests involved being influenced by broad appeals to the need for good relations with Canada. MacGuigan asked what could be done. Muskie said it was a fact that the treaty can’t be ratified in its present form. What modifications could the Canadians accept? MacGuigan responded that Secretary Vance had told him while in Ottawa that the administration would fight for the treaty as it is and try to bring it to a vote. There might be the need for some small changes. MacGuigan said he had told Vance that if the changes were small, the Canadians would take a look at them.

8. Secretary said there were three issues involved with the Kennedy reservations to the treaty. The first dealt with the nature of the treaty. The opponents did not want to be locked in to a permanent treaty and thus wanted to have the provision included for another look at it in three years. The Secretary said he thought this was better than no treaty at all. The second reservation regarded the Canadian request for a change in boundary claims affecting the external area for scallop fishing. Treaty opponents see this as without justification and we will have to deal with this issue. The third issue was the question of Canadian management rights over U.S. fishing grounds. This also was seen by the opponents as not justified.

9. MacGuigan asked which of the three was the worst. The Secretary responded that Pell had told him that the three reservations represented minimum demands. He urged Canadians to use their imagination in examining these questions. Assistant Secretary Vest said that Washington officials as well are turning over ideas on these problems. The Secretary said that we need to work together and use our collective ingenuity. If we back off from this treaty, it will be a long time before there is another one. Now the lines are frozen. In retrospect maybe we should have had hearings earlier. The Secretary said that all he could promise was that the U.S. will do its best to explore possibilities for accommodation, if Canadians do the same. MacGuigan asked if this could be done before the conventions.⁸ If not, he thought it was not likely this year. The Secretary said that depending upon the economy, there could be a post-election session of the Senate, but that he did not favor waiting. MacGuigan agreed. The Secretary said he thought a good two-sided presentation could be made. Now is the time to float ideas. He would be in touch with MacGuigan. We have to look at the committee list to see who can carry the ball, though it will be pretty hard. The treaty needs a constituency.

10. Assistant Secretary Vest asked about wheat, to be sure that there was no misunderstanding. MacGuigan said that subject had been discussed last week and there was no more problem this year.⁹

11. The Secretary asked how the new Canadian Government was faring. MacGuigan thought that prospects were looking good. However, this would depend to an extent upon the general referendum next Tuesday.¹⁰ The referendum issue, although it is high profile in Quebec, is not that high profile in the rest of Canada. However, Canadians expected the situation to improve under Trudeau and thus an adverse vote could hurt the government. Nonetheless, this is a long-range problem. The referendum is just a step. We hope that this step is resolved happily but in their case it will not be decisive.

12. The Secretary apologized for the delay in meeting with MacGuigan. He had received two phone calls from the President about the Olympics.¹¹ MacGuigan referred to the French Olympic Committee decision to send a team to the Olympics, and said that he had understood that the French would follow the lead of the FRG.¹² Canadian PermRep Hardy said it was his understanding that the FRG had received a promise from the French. MacGuigan said that the French decision was most unfortunate. The Secretary said that he had been very impressed with the DPC meeting that morning,¹³ and it was a shame that the French Olympic decision would detract from that meeting.

Muskie

1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D800417–1108 and D800241–0001. Confidential; Immediate; Exdis. Sent for information to Ottawa. Muskie was in Vienna to attend ceremonies for the 25th anniversary of the Austrian State Treaty.
2. Muskie and MacGuigan were in Brussels to attend a special session of NATO’s Defense Policy Committee on May 13–14 in which foreign and defense ministers participated.
3. See footnote 6, Document 82.
4. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, D-Massachusetts.
5. Senator Claiborne Pell, D-Rhode Island.
6. On April 15, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee began hearings on the fishing and maritime boundaries treaties. (“U.S. Fishing Pacts with Canada Are Attacked at Senate Hearing,” New York Times, April 16, 1980, p. A4)
7. Senator Paul Sarbanes, D-Maryland.
8. Reference is to the national conventions of the Republican and Democratic Parties, scheduled for July and August 1980.
9. On May 8, Carter and Trudeau talked by telephone about a number of topics, including the U.S. embargo of grain sales to the USSR in the wake of the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. According to Carter’s handwritten memorandum of conversation, he said: “It’s important for you to back us in grain embargo & not replace grain to SU which we did not sell.” In response, Trudeau said: “We will keep our word to you.” (Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Brzezinski Materials, Subject Files, Box 38, Memcons: President: 5/80) In a May 9 memorandum to Carter, Muskie reported: “We checked today to remove any ambiguity in Trudeau’s pledge that Canada would ‘keep its word.’ We were told that Canada had decided to hold shipments to 3.8 million tons for this crop year, the level set in February. No commitments were made for the crop year beginning August 1.” (Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Subject File, Box 23, Evening Reports (State): 5/80)
10. In a referendum held on May 20, Quebec’s voters defeated by 59 to 41 a proposal to open negotiations over Quebec’s sovereignty and the terms of its association with the rest of Canada. (Henry Giniger, “Quebecers Defeat Sovereignty Move By Decisive Margin,” New York Times, May 21, 1980)
11. No memoranda of conversation for these telephone calls has been found.
12. On May 13, the French National Olympic Committee announced that it would send a team to the Moscow Olympics. (Paul Lewis, “France’s Olympic Group Approves Sending Team to Games in Moscow,” New York Times, May 14, 1980, pp. A1, A5)
13. At the May 13–14 DPC meeting, the United States and its allies stated that the Soviet Union’s intervention in Afghanistan “jeopardizes world peace,” agreed on greater West European contributions to NATO defense in case the United States needed to respond to threats in Southwest Asia, and issued a declaration calling on Iran to release the U.S. hostages immediately. (“Final Communique” and “Declaration,” both dated May 14; Department of State Bulletin, July 1980, pp. 13–15)