Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, United Nations and General International Matters, Volume II

378. Memorandum of a Conversation, Department of State, Washington, August 25, 1959¹

Washington, August 25, 1959

SUBJECT

• Fishing Industry Views on Law of the Sea

PARTICIPANTS

• Under Secretary Dillon
• U/LS—Mr. Richards, Mr. Wright
• U/FW—Mr. Herrington, Mr. Blow
• L—Mr. Raymond, Mr. Yingling
• H—Mr. White
• Messrs. George Steele (National Canners Association), Charles Jackson (National Fisheries Institute), Harold Lokken (Fishing Vessel Owners Association), Charles Carry (California Fish Canners Association), W.M. Chapman (Tuna Research Foundation), William R. Neblett (National Shrimp Congress), Thomas Rice (Massachusetts Fisheries Association), and Roy Duggan (Southeastern Fisheries Association)

As spokesman for the industry group, Mr. Steele noted the great importance to the fishing industry of the law of the sea and of the forthcoming 1960 conference on this subject. He said the industry had always realized that security interests were necessarily paramount in the United States position and that at the 1958 Geneva Conference the industry had accepted the decision that it was necessary to give up all fisheries within 12 miles of the coasts of other countries. Reviewing the developments in the U.S. position at the 1958 conference, he remarked that when we conceded 12 mile fishery jurisdiction we had given away too much fish and when we changed to our final position we took too much back. He expressed the view that these results of that conference had shown that there was a maximum point beyond which we should not go in offering fishery concessions because of the danger of antagonizing other important fishing countries, and that there was also a minimum point below which we should not attempt to withhold such concessions because of the consequent danger of losing votes of coastal countries. He noted that the U.S. industry obviously does not want to see any sacrifice of its interests not essential to the broader interests of U.S. security. Mr. Steele then distributed copies of a memorandum incorporating a study made by his group and discussed the recommendations made in this paper (extract attached).

In response to Mr. Steele’s request for information on the status of planning for the 1960 conference, Mr. Dillon said that we would, of course, be glad to provide this and would be interested in studying the group’s memorandum in connection with consideration of the U.S. position for the coming conference. He noted that the industry group’s study apparently had not considered an aspect which we considered very important, that is, the likelihood, in event of conference failure, of the gradual acceptance of a 12-mile limit as the result of further unilateral actions.

Mr. Richards reviewed the consultations which had taken place, including the activities of the two teams which had visited some 30 countries. These consultations had been useful and the results had been encouraging to a certain extent. However, it was questionable as to what extent the position of other countries had actually been changed in our favor. With respect to prospects for the various major proposals, there seemed no reason to believe that either a 3-mile limit or a 12-mile limit could gain a two-thirds vote. Some dangers were seen from the proposal for an optional three- to twelve-mile limit, which had an attraction for many, and the Canadian proposal also held dangers because there are more non-fishing states than fishing states. Mr. Richards agreed with Mr. Steele that there was considerable difficulty in arriving at any proposal which could be expected to win a two-thirds majority. When asked if the Department’s position was that the only way to obtain agreement on a relatively narrow territorial sea was to make concessions on fishing, Mr. Richards pointed out that, considering all factors, no U.S. compromise on a territorial sea of more than 6 miles was possible, and that fisheries, therefore, seemed to present the only area of compromise.

The Under Secretary noted the timeliness of the group’s paper since the point had been reached where serious intra-governmental consideration must be given to a decision on the U.S. position. He assured the group that we had no desire to concede more fishery interests than absolutely necessary.

Mr. Steele said that his group would be available for further consultation at any time.² In closing he called attention to the forthcoming 11th Inter-American Conference at Quito, February, 1960 and the possible danger of some move being made by certain Latin American countries at this conference which would be adverse to the U.S. position on the law of the sea.

Attachment

August 25, 1959.

MEMORANDUM ON THE LAW OF THE SEA³

Recommendations

1. The United States enter the 1960 conference where it left off the last, with a firm three mile resolution for its position.

2. The United States correlate its military aid, foreign aid, and other international policy actions as closely as is feasible with the necessity of winning votes on this issue or winning votes against the 12 mile proposal at the 1960 Conference on Law of the Sea.

3. The United States coldly estimate during the preparatory phases of the conference and during the conference the possibility of the following position receiving a ⅔ majority vote at the conference:

“That there be a six mile territorial sea plus a six mile zone of special fishery jurisdiction. In the six mile fishery zone foreign countries be permitted the same volume (or percentage) of fish catch that they have enjoyed during a base period (say the preceding five years). Disputes arising as to the volume (or percentage) be referred to the compulsory arbitral proceedings provided for in ‘Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas.’”

We are very doubtful that this proposal is capable of winning a ⅔ majority. We believe that this position will, however, command the highest vote which any position involving a six mile territorial sea and a special fishery zone is capable of commanding. We are exceedingly skeptical that the six mile territorial sea position in this proposal has any greater vote getting ability than a three mile territorial sea provision plus a nine mile special fishery zone would have. We believe that as one retreats from this position toward the 1958 United States proposal one will lose Afro-Asian and Latin American non-fishing country votes, and that as one retreats from this position toward the Canadian proposal of 1958 one loses Western European fishing country votes. We believe that a proposal which phases out the historic rights granted in the above position will have little or no greater vote getting ability than the Canadian proposal.

Accordingly we recommend that, unless a cold analysis of the vote getting ability of the above cited proposition indicates by the latter stages of the 1960 conference that it has a reasonable chance of winning a ⅔ majority, the United States stand firmly by the position in the first recommendation above.

4. Envisioning the possible lack of a ⅔ majority for any solution to the breadth of the territorial sea at the 1960 conference, the United States begin energetic efforts to resolve disputes among its allies involving fishing rights on the high seas within the purview of the “Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas” adopted by the 1958 conference.

5. The United States prepare appropriate defensive action on this issue at the 11th Inter-American Conference to be convened in Quito, Ecuador, February, 1960.

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 399.731/9–2559. Official Use Only. Drafted by Blow, approved by Brewster on September 2, and cleared by Richards and Yingling.
2. The fishing industry representatives met with a similar group on September 16. After a briefing by Admiral Ward on the significance of the territorial sea to U.S. security and some discussion of the industry memorandum, the representatives discussed voting at the coming conference. A memorandum of the conversation is ibid., 399.731/9–1659.
3. Official Use Only. The source text is labeled “Extract”.