Foreign Relations of the United States, 1981–1988, Volume XLI, Global Issues II

119. Briefing Memorandum From the Special Representative of the President for the Law of the Sea Conference (Malone) to Secretary of State Haig¹

Washington, March 12, 1981

SUBJECT

• Status of the Law of the Sea Negotiations

A Senior Interagency Group on the Law of the Sea decided on March 2² that the United States should undertake to insure that the Law of the Sea negotiations were not concluded at the session now underway in New York, and that a thorough review be carried out of all the provisions of the draft convention, particularly the deep seabed mining provisions. This review would enable the Administration to determine its posture with respect to U.S. participation in the negotiations. The SIG also decided that the U.S. delegation should make clear to other delegations that the U.S. had not decided for or against the Convention but that there was no question “about our continuing good faith in the negotiations as we seek further improvements in the seabed text in this session.”

Over the past weekend, consultations were held among Deputy Secretary Clark, Under Secretary Kennedy, Assistant Secretary Abrams and myself with respect to the leadership of the delegation. Consultations were held with the White House as well,³ and on Saturday, the President appointed me as his Special Representative⁴ for the Law of the Sea Conference and as head of the delegation to the current negotiating session. At the same time, the President accepted the resignation of George Aldrich⁵ who had been acting as the Special Representative. As soon as the decision regarding my appointment had been taken, we took immediate steps to advise relevant Congressmen, NATO embassies, and key LOS delegations in New York.⁶

During the course of the weekend, the makeup of the delegation was changed. Eight individuals were removed (including former Chairman Aldrich) and three new people were added. Before the delegation list was finalized, the New York Times obtained an advance copy and published the story highlighting the fact that Aldrich and a number of his associates had been fired.⁷ Some of these people mentioned in the Times story were, in fact, kept on the delegation, although two, who had been closely associated with the former chairman, were removed.⁸Elliot Richardson remains on the delegation as an expert (he is chairman of the LOS Public Advisory Committee).

I met with the delegation on Monday, March 9 and advised them of our position that we were undertaking a thorough review of the convention and would not take a position for or against the draft treaty pending the outcome of the review.⁹ I further pointed out that we were prepared to pursue an appropriate program of work during the Conference session but would not be able to agree to conclude anything.

I attended the opening plenary (devoted to eulogies for the late President of the Conference), and conferred with Secretary General Waldheim and our allies.¹⁰

I also talked with a number of the key Representatives at the conference to advise them of U.S. intentions. On an interim basis, I have directed that Bernard Oxman act as Chairman of the Delegation, when I am not in New York.

Yesterday I chaired a Law of the Sea IG which included representatives from all the concerned agencies primarily devoted to the position the United States should take with respect to the selection of a new Conference President.¹¹ There are three candidates for this position, only two of which appear to be realistic possibilities. One is Tommy Koh, the representative from Singapore who has had a long connection with the treaty, and, in that respect, maintains views not necessarily consistent with U.S. interest. On the other hand, as you know, we are closely aligned with Singapore and have strong relations with that Government which could be useful in dealing with Koh as Chairman of the Conference. The other candidate is Christopher Pinto from Sri Lanka. Pinto has a reputation of being an absolutely fair and impartial individual and in this regard would treat US views in an unbiased fashion; however, philosophically, he is unequivocably marxist. Rather than supporting either of the candidates, the United States could stay out of the decision-making. After a thorough evaluation of the various options, there was a consensus, without any real dissent, that the United States should support Tommy Koh by advising the other members of the Western coordinating group (FRG, France, UK and Japan) that we would have no objection to their already-announced support of Tommy Koh. We would also advise Koh privately of our decision and the Singapore Embassy as well.

Today, the Interagency Group will consider the work program which has been proposed by the delegation in New York and distributed at the IG yesterday.¹² I have also asked for views as to how our fundamental review of the treaty can be best carried out. I intend to see that this activity is pursued immediately and vigorously to permit the United States to determine the best overall posture regarding the draft convention at the earliest possible time.

1. Source: Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, P810073–0126. Confidential. Drafted by Marshall. Copies were sent to Buckley, Clark, and Abrams. A stamped notation on the memorandum indicates Haig saw it.
2. See Document 118.
3. No record has been found.
4. March 8.
5. A March 13 set of talking points entitled “Sudden Decision on Aldrich” reads: “Aldrich was a participant in the interagency review leading to this decision and it was our original thinking that he might work out. During the ensuing week it became clear that we should have our own man in as the head of the delegation; that Aldrich might not be amenable to carrying out instructions; and that we should move to make the change immediately rather than after this session had gotten underway. On Saturday, (March 7) the matter was brought to my attention. I decided to have Judge Clark ask Aldrich for his resignation immediately. This action was announced by the White House (by Ed Meese for the President) the same morning.” (Department of State, Director’s Correspondence File—Policy Planning Director, 1981–1988, Lot 89D149, PW Mar. 11–20, 1981)
6. In telegram 59011 to New York, March 7, the Department transmitted to USUN a list of the new delegation members. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D810109–0150)
7. See Bernard Gwertzman, “President Replaces Top U.S. Diplomats at Law of Sea Talks,” New York Times, March 9, 1981.
8. Reference is to George Taft and Alan James.
9. No record of this meeting has been found.
10. In telegram 742 from New York, USUN reported on the opening of the conference and stated that debate had been postponed until a new conference president could be elected. The previous president, Amerasinghe, died on December 4, 1980. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D810113–1029)
11. An undated memorandum for the record that contains a summary of the March 11 meeting is in the National Archives, RG 218, Jones Papers, Box 32, 546—Law of the Sea 18 Mar 81–11 May 82.
12. A March 12 memorandum from Marshall to Lopez described the IG meeting as “devoted to deciding on a program of work for the conference which would not result in developments prejudicial to our treaty review.” (Department of State, Law of the Sea, 1981–1991, Lot 94D4, LOS—Interagency Meeting March 1981)