336. Memorandum of a Conversation With the President, Camp David, Maryland, October 10, 1959, 10:30 a.m.1
OTHERS PRESENT
- Mexico—President Lopez Mateos, Foreign Minister Manuel Tello, Ambassador Antonio Carrillo Flores, Ambassador Sanchez Gavito, Nabor Carrillo Flores, Dir. Gen., National University of Mexico, Brig. Gen. Jose Gomez Huerta, Chief of Military Household, Justo Sierra, Presidential Assistant
- U.S.—Secretary Herter, Ambassador Hill, Dr. Milton Eisenhower, Secretary Rubottom, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Hagerty, Lt. Col. Walters, Major Eisenhower
The meeting opened in a relaxed and cordial atmosphere. The first matter for discussion was that of a name for the upper dam on the Rio Grande River. The two Presidents agreed that the name of the dam should be “Amistad Dam,” which the Americans may call “Friendship Dam.”
The President then requested Mexican views on cotton exports. He cited his understanding that the matter had been relieved by increased markets and decreased production. President Lopez Mateos agreed, but pointed out that the increased sales were due in some cases to artificially lowered prices, occasionally lowered below the cost of production. Ambassador Carrillo Flores said that on the whole the situation looks better, due partly to the organization of producers which has studied the problem (Inter-American Cotton Federation). All they ask is a relatively stable price scale. It would be detrimental to Mexico’s interest if the price of cotton ran too high. The President said [Page 886] that he had, after the Acapulco visit, instructed our Department of Agriculture to administer the law as fairly as possible, keeping Mexico’s problems in mind.
The President then brought up the question of lead and zinc and pointed out that new lead production in Australia was creating additional competition to the detriment of prices in our own country. This is true of lead because lead and zinc are mined together as a unit in our country. Mr. Tello pointed out that the U.S. import restrictions had been a blow to the Mexican economy, but which was being absorbed. His concern now centers on new bills before the Congress designed to continue these restrictions and to add an import tax. He realized that the President faces problems in his dealings with Congress.
The President said he could put this question to the Tariff Commission and expressed confidence of being able to stop unfavorable legislation. Mr. Rubottom said there has been some improvement in the price per pound recently.
The President then outlined some of the tariff problems which he continually faces. He stated he had vetoed 75% of the recommendations to raise tariffs which had been sent to him in the last six years. In only 5% of the cases did he give all that the Tariff Commission had recommended. He cited almonds, dates, tung oil, spring clothespins and briar pipes to show that no industry is too small to demand protection.
Secretary Herter then suggested that the President brief the Mexican delegation on our problems with regard to balance of payments. This the President did, pointing out that although our exports exceed our imports at the rate of a billion dollars a year, our worldwide obligations (to include grants and loans and maintaining of military forces around the world) cause an imbalance of payments to our disfavor which will have to be rectified. He has mentioned this to Macmillan, Adenauer, and de Gaulle with a view to their picking up some of the burden. President Lopez Mateos agreed. He pointed out, however, that in the relations between Mexico and the U.S., the balance works to Mexico’s disfavor. Mexico buys $1 billion worth of produce from the U.S. and sells only $600 million worth. Their loans, including private loans, account for only 10% of what they buy. Dr. Eisenhower pointed out that the $400 million disparity in trade between the two countries is almost made up for by the $300 million that American tourists spend in Mexico. Ambassador Carrillo Flores agreed with this statement, but pointed out that most of the money spent by our tourists is spent very near the border for commodities which must be imported from the U.S. What the Mexicans would like to encourage is tourist trade deeper into the Mexican territory. He emphasized again that the Mexicans understand the U.S. problems and do not desire to [Page 887] exacerbate them. The President said he gives this briefing for background only and emphasized in a jocular vein that we are not requesting sympathy.
Mr. Tello said that the two pressure groups who create the major difficulties for the government are the producers of coffee and shrimp. With regard to coffee, the Mexicans had believed that they had made great progress with this commodity. With help from Mr. Rubottom and Mr. Mann, they had reached agreement with African producers on overall coffee production. They have now become highly concerned over research reportedly being done in the U.S. on production of synthetic coffee. He realized that the President cannot forbid such research but asked that it not be stimulated. Mr. Rubottom identified these reports as pertaining to an activity of the Army Quartermaster Corps, primarily in efforts to improve the aroma of coffee. He assured Mr. Tello that the Quartermaster Corps is not attempting to find a real substitute for coffee. The President pointed out the great value of decaffeinated coffee. Since an individual can drink great quantities of decaffeinated coffee, its use, if fostered, could do much toward increasing demand.
Mr. Tello then turned to the problem of shrimp. Shrimp prices have dropped recently through the world and the U.S. An American group, the National Shrimp Congress, is considering an import quota and a tariff to protect the U.S. industry. Of these, the Mexicans feel the least unpleasant is the quota. Mr. Tello pointed out that shrimp is the fourth largest export of Mexico. The President agreed that the quota system is preferable, partly because it actually affords better protection. He confessed that the shrimp problem had not been brought to his attention and observed that in the matters of import restrictions we often find a conflict between the producer and the processor. He asked if the present imports represent a legitimate basis for quotas. The Mexicans indicated that they did. He thinks we should catch this problem before it gets out of hand. Mr. Rubottom said that import quotas are normally based on the average of the past five years. Such a scheme would leave Mexican imports in a position of great preeminence.
Ambassador Hill’s reference to some American boats which have recently broken Mexican law while fishing for shrimp stimulated a discussion of the question of the Law of the Sea. The President expressed puzzlement to Secretary Herter over the apparent inconsistency in the U.S. outlook with regard to taking fish from the ocean and taking oil from the bottom of the ocean. Although the U.S. observes a three-mile limit with regard to fisheries, we maintain the right to exploit the ocean bottom to the limits of the Continental shelf. Mr. Herter admitted the inconsistency, but presented no solution.
[Page 888]Secretary Herter pointed out that there will be a conference in Geneva on the Law of the Sea this next year. The results of this conference are of great concern to the Navy which feels that restriction of the internationalization of waters will greatly impair their antisubmarine efforts. If the conference fails, we will be in a very bad situation, since there will be no international law on this subject.
Mr. Tello set forth the Mexican viewpoint on this subject. The Mexican Constitution stated that Mexico will recognize international waters up to a limit from her shores consistent with prevailing international law. (This is in contrast to the U.S. Constitution which specifies a limit of three miles.) Mexico, therefore, recognized a three-mile limit up to the year 1935. In that year a conference on the matter was held at The Hague. The fact that no agreement was reached at that conference meant that Mexico no longer had an applicable international law on which to base their own attitude. As a result, they set up a committee to study the question of international waters (Carrillo Flores was a member). As the result of this committee, Mexico signed bilateral treaties with many nations recognizing each other’s rights in some cases to limits up to twelve miles. The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo (later modified), which established the boundary between the U.S. and Mexico, recognized the boundary at a distance of three sea leagues (nine miles) from the mouth of the Rio Grande. This results in a position on the part of the Mexican Government that territorial waters extend nine miles from the shores. They realize that the U.S. Government does not concur in this position and there is yet no decision. At last year’s Geneva conference this particular matter could not be decided. The matter of territorial waters is still pending. The Mexican Government hopes there will be an agreement next year and will comply with that agreement, as required by their Constitution.
The President then outlined some of the problems of the U.S. in this regard, citing the case of Texas tidelands. In this instance ownership is recognized only up to three miles, but privileges of exploiting minerals on the ocean bottom was recognized to a nine-mile limit. (Some discussion as to the status of the action on this matter followed.) The President said he would like to see the problem of territorial vs. international waters solved first among the American nations. This would give us a 22-country bloc with which to go into the Geneva conference. Mr. Tello pointed out that some of the most positive advocates of wider bands of territorial waters are American countries. Chile, for example, claims territorial waters 200 miles from their shores. He pointed out that in time of war a security zone exists permitting warships of the American nations to enter each other’s territorial waters. An amendment to the Mexican Constitution was recently introduced allowing exploitation of the Continental Shelf. At [Page 889] this time some persons advocated extending the limits of Mexican territorial waters to that point. However, the Mexican Government considered it unwise.
The President pointed up the weakness of bilateral agreements in this respect. If the U.S. and Mexico should make a bilateral agreement of this type, then we would have to enforce it against other nations, or allow other nations fishing rights in waters we agree not to use. He reiterated his desire for an American agreement on the matter and urged that someone besides the U.S. take the leadership in securing this American agreement. He visualized the problem as breaking down into three parts: (1) fishing rights; (2) territorial waters; and (3) the Continental Shelf.
Mr. Tello said it is important that the Geneva conference be successful; if this is not the case, we must develop a Continental position. He said the question on the Continental shelf has been agreed on and is no longer a problem. President Lopez Mateos said the Mexicans regard the question of territorial waters and fishing rights as essentially one and the same. The President accepted this viewpoint.
The President then briefed President Lopez Mateos in some detail on the conversations held at this location two weeks previously with Mr. Khrushchev.
- Source: Eisenhower Library, Whitman File, DDE Diaries. Secret. Drafted by Major Eisenhower. Another record of the conversation was drafted by Osborne. (Ibid.)↩