189. Telegram From the Mission to the United Nations to the Department of State1
3846. Subject: LOS at UNGA; Wrap-Up.
(U) 1. The financial report cleared 5th Comm on Thursday, 2 Dec with a price tag of $4.3 million for 1983. The vote in the 5th Comm was 92 for, 3 against, 19 abstain.
(U) 2. The item came to the General Assembly on Friday afternoon, 3 Dec. LOS Chairman (Koh) introduced the draft resolution with a 25 min. statement which included the following points:
—The draft resolution was reasonable compromise to hold down costs.
—Blasted W. Safire and Wall Street Journal for “fabricated” $20M figure and improperly inflaming public and administration opinion.2
—Proper for UN to finance considering depressed state of economies of many states.
(U) 3. Following Koh’s remarks Argentina, Israel, U.S. and Turkey made statements. Argentina again expressed regret over LOS Resolution III and elected not to partake in the voting. Israel stated their criticism of the financing method; disatisfaction with LOS membership; and a general opinion that the demands of the draft resolutions were contrary to international law. U.S. made statement on introduction of U.S./Turkey Amendment.3 Turkey stated its total disatisfaction with financing and territorial provisions of draft resolution and treaty. U.S. then made explanation of vote on draft resolution.
(U) 4. Votes were taken as follows:
—A. U.S./Turkey Amendment—134 against; 3 in favor (U.S., Turkey, Israel); 7 abstain (Belgium, Ecuador, FRG, Italy, Lux, Spain, U.K.)
—B. Operative para. 2—same results as A. above
—C. Operative para 3—134 in favor; 5 against; 5 abstain (Spain and U.K. shifted from abstention to against)
[Page 535]—D. Operative para 9—same results as A. and B. above
—E. Draft resolution—134 in favor; 2 against; 8 abstain (Israel shifted to abstention)
(C) 5. The voting went as expected. The only observations worth noting are that Argentina, Bolivia and Venezuela did not participate in vote but were present; neither FRG or Belgium voted against operative para 3, despite U.K.’s position; and Ecuador’s consistant abstentions throughout voting. Peru’s votes (all with majority) seem out of step with its announcement that it would not sign in Montego. The most likely explanation is that the decision did not reach the U.N. delegation in time.
(C) 6. Comment: Except for Canada and France, there are mild indicators that many of the Western states are coming to the harsh realization that the Prep Comm will be fully controlled by the Third World. The sterility of WEOG in the financial negotiations was felt by all. The Third World horse has taken the bit between its teeth. The sole reason any concessions were made at all was Koh’s influence and ability to use the threat of losing the industrialized states, and particularly the Soviet bloc, at this final stage of the proceedings. Koh now fades from the scene. The pressures for consensus and Soviet bloc resistance will be far less in the Prep Comm. The inescapable fact that is finally surfacing is that Western industrial states will have little influence in Prep Comm decisions. End comment.
(U) 7. A documentation including vote tallies and statements are being pouched to OES/OLP.4
- Source: Reagan Library, Guhin, Michael A.: Files, LOS (Law of the Sea) UN (United Nations) (2). Confidential; Immediate. Sent Immediate to the White House and Immediate for information to Kingston to pass to U.S. Delegation Montego for Ambassador Clingan and Eskin. Printed from a copy that was received in the NSC Message Center.↩
- See William Safire, “Sea Law Seduction,” Wall Street Journal, November 9, 1982, p. 34.↩
- In telegram 3198 from New York, November 3, USUN transmitted the text of the proposed U.S. amendment. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D820568–0339)↩
- Not found.↩