387. Memorandum by the Special Assistant for Law of the Sea Matters (Richards)1
SUBJECT
- Position on Law of the Sea
Following a meeting with Mr. Hager, Mr. Dean gave instructions along the following lines:
1) As a matter of principle, the US must get a formula which will keep the territorial sea limit at a maximum of 6 miles and get two-thirds vote for that formula at the Conference.
2) From the standpoint of the US overall interests it is more important to prevent Conference going to 12-mile territorial sea or flexible 3–12 mile formula than it is to worry about getting ratification for the above expressed formula later. The US Government cannot be intimidated in the discharge of its duties by the comments on this position by a private group.
[Page 742]3) Defense interests are paramount. Last year we tried as hard as we could to protect fishing interests before departing from 3 in order to go to our 6 and 6 plus historical rights. Later the same fishing interests which criticized us for making this move said that the formula was too little and too late and that we could have done better if we had moved to it earlier.
4) We must not be deterred in getting what we want for national defense by allowing private interests, however important, to dictate the terms on which they will allow the Department to negotiate or to dictate the precedents of presenting alternatives.
5) The Department will have to determine the formula after giving the maximum consideration to the fishing interests’ rights. If we are successful in getting a two-thirds vote for our formula, the fishing interests will acquiesce. If we are unsuccessful and other nations unilaterally go to 12 miles so that we lost on fishing rights as well as security, they will be the first to criticize and blame the Department for listening to them.
6) We recommend that we take the following action: On the trip Mr. Pool and Mr. Herrington should sound out the Latin American nations on the modified UK proposal that is, “Alternative A”, while at the same time sounding them out on “Alternative B” as a possible fallback so that they can get flexible instructions for the Conference. We recommend against trying to sell “Alternative A” alone now without also trying to get their vote for “Alternate B” if necessary. We do not wish to be put in the position of trying to sell “Alternate A” in such a way as to be deemed anti-Icelandic or to be spokesman for the fishing interest of the Western European nations or to have anyone understand that we promised to introduce and fight for “Alternate A” first and will only use “Alternate B” as a last resort. If someone else introduces “Alternate A” first, we do not wish to have to vote for it, or to continue to support it, in such a way as will damage our prestige for Conference purposes or our negotiating ability. We should say that we are for a formula which will achieve a 6-mile maximum width of the territorial sea for the protection of the Free World and that we are for any formula that will preserve that, and at the same time preserve the maximum interests of the fishing industry. We definitely should not promise not to present “Alternate B” first, if we come to the conclusion that that is the best formula to present.
7) We should definitely try to discourage (a) 12-mile territorial sea or (b) Canadian formula of 6 plus 6 without any fishing rights, (c) the Mexican formula for a flexible 3–12, or a 3 plus 9, or 3 plus 12.
8) We should tell the fishing group that we do not think that they should be arguing with other nations against their going to “Alternate B” if we come to the conclusion that that is the formula we must fight for.
[Page 743]Note: Mr. Dean said that the foregoing should be restricted to internal use within the Government; it should not be made known to persons outside the Government.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 399.731/12–1159. Confidential. The source text is a memorandum of a telephone conversation, December 11, which has Dean, Hager, and Richards as participants.↩