488. Memorandum From the Director of the Office of International Relations, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior (Terry) to the Assistant Legal Adviser for Special Functional Problems (Yingling)1
Washington,
May 23,
1961.
SUBJECT
- Canadian request for United States participation in Law of the Sea canvass
Reference is made to the Canadian Aide-Memoire of May 15, 1961, and to the meeting in your office on May 22.2
The Department of the Interior’s position on the desirability of United States participation in a canvass to determine the attitude of various governments toward a multilateral convention incorporating the [Page 1102] essence of the United States-Canadian proposal at the Second Geneva Conference remains as it was in May of 1960 when the question first arose. The basic elements of this position are as follows:
- 1.
- The Department has been prepared to agree to certain concessions of fishery jurisdiction in a 12-mile contiguous zone in order to achieve the objectives of the United States at the Geneva Conference, i.e., agreement in the interest of United States security on a six-mile territorial sea in the context of codification or progressive development of international law. It considers that the adoption of a multilateral convention incorporating the provisions of the United States-Canadian proposal is quite another thing. It is convinced that relatively few of the governments which supported the United States at Second Geneva would become signatory to a multilateral convention. It doubts that the advantages to be obtained from a convention with the number of signatories which might be expected are the equivalent of those which might have been obtained at Geneva, and is not convinced that such advantages, whatever they may be worth, justify the same concessions. In the light of the clearly expressed doubts of the Department of Defense as to the value for security purposes of a multilateral convention, the Department of the Interior would at this time oppose a renewed offer of fishery concessions.
- 2.
- This Department has consistently opposed the offering of concessions in regard to preferential fishing rights beyond 12 miles. At the time of the Second Geneva Conference it was of the view that such concessions were neither warranted nor necessary to achievement of the objectives sought at the Conference. You will recall that the decision to offer such concessions was made over the objections of Interior’s representatives on the United States Delegation. This Department continues of this view, and is firmly opposed to making such concessions for any less substantial advantages than might have been obtained at the Second Geneva Conference. Such concessions would undoubtedly be necessary in order to obtain a substantial number of Latin American signatures without which the proposed multilateral convention would be of virtually no value.
- 3.
- The Department of the Interior strongly doubts that a canvass of additional governments will prove of real value. The problem is, after all, not a new one. It and the attitudes of governments toward it have been studied and re-studied in this Government over a long period of years. These attitudes and the factors which control them are well-enough understood to permit this Government to predict with a high degree of accuracy the manner in which these governments will react to a canvass. The United Kingdom-Canadian canvass to date, for example, has revealed little if anything which could not have been predicted a [Page 1103] year ago. On the other hand, it is our view that participation by the United States will perhaps be counter-productive in that it will tend to produce commitments with our friends and encourage counter-moves by those whose interests run counter to ours.
- 4.
- In view of these considerations, the Department of the Interior opposes, as it did when the question arose a year ago, United States participation in a canvass, as suggested by Canada. Indeed, the Department believes that the United States should discourage further efforts by Canada and the United Kingdom in this regard.
William M.
Terry