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

121. Telegram From the Department of State to All Diplomatic Posts¹

Washington, March 23, 1981, 2004Z

73189. USUN for LOS Del. Subject: U.S. Position on Law of the Sea (LOS).

1. (U) Summary. The Department is aware of recent expressions of concern from various foreign governments² as well as overseas press and public opinion regarding U.S. intentions toward continued participation in the U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea currently in session in New York. In order to reassure foreign governments and deal with public opinion, the Secretary has requested that the following background material on the U.S. decision be provided. End summary.

2. (C) On March 2, a Senior Interagency Group on the Law of the Sea took the following decisions: (A) a thorough review of all aspects of the LOS draft Convention, particularly the deep seabed mining provisions, should be undertaken; (B) pending the completion of the review, the United States delegation to the LOS Convention should undertake to ensure that negotiations not be concluded during the 9 March–17 April session of the conference; and (C) the delegation should make clear to other delegations that the review will cover all matters of concern to the administration, that no issue is necessarily excluded from it, and that there can be no question about our continuing good faith in the negotiations.

3. (C) Following an interagency group meeting on March 12, the US Delegation was authorized to go forward with a work program in Committees 2 and 3³ on an ad hoc, informal basis and in the drafting committee strictly within the mandate of that committee.

4. (LOU) The administration’s decision to review the draft convention was based on concerns of industry, Congress, and the administration itself.

(A) On the industry side, concerns had been raised regarding the protection of mining investments made prior to the coming into force of the treaty;⁴ assured access to strategic seabed minerals, and; the obligatory transfer of mining technology.

(B) In Congress, there was substantial widespread opposition.⁵ The Department was convinced that if the draft convention were submitted to the Senate in its present form, it would not gain ratification. Moreover it was unlikely that the House of Representatives would pass enabling legislation necessary to implement the treaty.

5. (U) Should occasion arise, US Missions should actively seek to emphasize the administration’s determination to conduct a full and impartial review. The administration has not prejudged the outcome of its interagency review. Our view is that it is only reasonable for a new administration to need some time to understand the complex LOS issues and relate them to its own objectives. It is important that the new administration have a full grasp of the LOS issues as well as absolute confidence in the LOS delegation in order to preserve international confidence in our intentions, to prevent the unravelling of the draft convention effort, and to maintain our credibility with Congress. In this regard, it is also important that a new administration place its own people in key management positions. Consequently, a decision was reached on March 7 to replace the then Acting Special Representative of the President with President Reagan’s own choice for his special representative.⁶ On March 7, the President appointed James L. Malone as his special representative to the Law of the Sea Conference and as Chairman of the US Delegation to the current negotiation session.

6. (C) US Mission sensitivity to local concerns on LOS issues could help in minimizing pressures on Department and adverse press opinion while the administration’s review is underway.⁷

Haig

1. Source: Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D810136–0860. Confidential; Immediate. Sent Immediate for information to USUN New York. Drafted by Douglas; cleared by Marshall, Abrams, Bremer, Wolfowitz, and Taylor; and approved by Haig.
2. In a March 11 memorandum to multiple recipients, Wilkinson forwarded the summary of a conversation between Malone and CG–5 representatives at which critical views of the U.S. review were presented. (Department of State, Law of the Sea—Third UN Conference, 1970–1983, Lot 87D452, LOS Output)
3. See footnote 11, Document 119.
4. In a February 27 letter to Weinberger, Ely described industry concerns about the treaty. (Washington National Records Center, OSD Files: FRC 330–83–0103, Box 47, 801.2 [January-May 81] 1981)
5. See Don Oberdorfer, “Sea Law Treaty Being Blocked At White House,” Washington Post, March 4, 1981, p. A1.
6. See Document 119.
7. In telegram 3139 from Caracas, March 26, the Embassy reported on Venezuela’s concerns with the U.S. review. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D810143–0941)