198. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassies in West Germany, Belgium, Japan, the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands and France1
40354. Subject: Deep Seabed Mining Agreement.
1. (Confidential—Entire text.)
2. The like-minded Group of Eight countries US, UK, FRG, France, Japan, Netherlands, Belgium and Italy, have agreed on the text of an agreement on seabed mining: Provisional Understanding Regarding Seabed Matters. In a series of extremely difficult and, at times heated negotiations Jan. 30–Feb one in The Hague, the issue between the FRG and Japan regarding the listing of the German AMR mine site was resolved.2 Once that problem was disposed of, the remaining technical questions in the text were quickly settled. During the negotiations certain changes were made to the core provisions of the draft agreement. Therefore, as a formal matter, all parties will review revised text to determine whether it is acceptable. We do not expect any problems and, for practical purposes, the final text of provisional understanding is completed and there will be no further negotiations. Following negotiations a Japanese Rep raised several minor drafting points with US Rep; these are the subject of a separate message.3
3. Next step will be completion of preparation of text in the other official languages French, German, Italian, Japanese and Dutch. It was agreed in The Hague that revised texts in these languages, reflecting final text changes adopted February one, would be exchanged over next two weeks. US agreed to coordinate language comparison. It has been left open whether it will be necessary to convene a meeting to conform various language texts.
4. France, FRG and Japan expressed strong view that, because of the need to complete review of six language texts, agreement could [Page 566] not be ready for signature before early March and that would be too close to the UN LOS Preparatory Commission meeting mid-March to mid-April. Japanese strongly urged that date of signature be postponed until after Diet has recessed in late May. On a tentative basis, it was agreed that seabed mining agreement should be opened for signature in May or early June, 1984 in Geneva.4 US Representative said US would make its mission in Geneva available as site for signature.
5. Next major step will be political level review of agreement in capitals. At The Hague meeting, UK, US, Italy and Belgian Representatives indicated they expected their governments to sign. French and Japanese Representatives indicated that they expected that agreement would be submitted to their cabinet with recommendation to sign. Dutch and German Representatives were noncommital. We expect political decision on signature to be made after PrepCom, in late April–early May.
6. US and Italian experts reviewed Italian draft seabed mining law and regulations. Some further communication will be necessary but we expect to be in the position to designate Italy as a reciprocating state on passage of Italian legislation and Italian signature of seabed mining agreement.
7. US held talks with Italian and Belgian Reps regarding side letter. Italians and Belgians seemed essentially satisfied with latest US draft. Italians suggested several changes which are acceptable. Belgians raised some questions which will require further coordination. We expect in next few weeks to propose revised draft of US letter based on these exchanges.5
8. Department hopes to minimize any publicity connected to the Seabed Mining Agreement. Members of the like-minded are sensitive to attacks from the Soviet bloc or G–77, particularly during the Prep [Page 567] Com. If asked about this agreement by public, press or other governments, posts should refer all questions to Department of State.
- Source: Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D840090–0549. Confidential. Sent for information to the U.S. Mission in Geneva and USUN New York. Drafted by Eskin; cleared in EB/MPM, L/OES, EAP/J, EUR/RPE, and NOAA; and approved by Eskin.↩
- In telegram 358701 to Tokyo and London, December 19, 1983, the Department outlined the dispute regarding the German mine site. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D830749–0153)↩
- In telegram 38279 to Tokyo, February 8, the Department forwarded the drafting queries to the Embassy. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D840085–0702) In telegram 2598 from Tokyo, February 9, the Embassy reported that most of the changes were acceptable to the Japanese. (National Archives, RG 69, Central Foreign Policy File, D840086–0831)↩
- In telegram 20232 from Paris, May 22, the Embassy reported that French officials wished to postpone the signing of the agreement until September because they believed the other seven parties were not yet prepared for a June signing. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D840332–0342) In a July 12 memorandum to Burt, Marshall reported that the French had decided to sign the agreement on August 3 but that the West Germans had not yet come to a decision. (Department of State, Chronological Files, 1984–1985, Lot 86D362, July 1984 #1 Completed Items) In telegram 206759 to Bonn, July 14, the Department transmitted a letter from Reagan to Kohl, stating: “We are concerned that any delay beyond August 3 may make it difficult for some nations to sign the agreement, and thereby jeopardize important efforts of the last two years to reach agreement.” (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D840451–0218) In a July 25 information memorandum to Shultz, Malone reported that the West Germans had decided to sign the agreement on August 3. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, P850025–0421)↩
- In telegram 52577 to Rome, February 23, the Department reported on talks with the Italians wherein the side letter was mentioned. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D840117–0356)↩