EMERGENCY MARINE FISHERIES PROTECTION ACT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75B00380R000500410001-5
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 13
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 2, 2001
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: September 23, 1974
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Release 2001/09/07: CIA- P75B 038 00 0 001-5
alen ar No.
'93D CONGRESS
,Od Session
.SENATE j REPORT
1 No. 93-1166
V".
llr. FuI BnIGTTT, from the Committee on Foreign Relations,
submitted the following
REPORT
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany S. 19881
The Committee on Foreign Relations, to which was referred the bill
(S. 1988) to extend on an interim basis the jurisdiction of the United
States over certain ocean areas and fish in order to protect the domestic
fishing industry, and for other purposes, having considered the same,
reports unfavorably thereon without amendment and recommends
that the bill do not pass.
The primary purpose of this legislation is to extend unilaterally
U.S. fishery jurisdiction from 12 miles to 200 miles until a general
agreement is reached at the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference
establishing an effective international regulatory regime. It also ex-
tends U.S. control over anadromous (salmon) stocks wherever they
may range on the high seas.
In the past, as long as fishing methods were primitive and fleets
relatively small, most international fishing interests could be ade-
quately accommodated without threatening the actual supply of fish.
Ilowever, with the development of modern techniques and large fleets,
many nations have developed concerns about the survival of their
local fishing grounds. Although there are a number of international
conventions designed to conserve the living resources of the oceans,
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410001-5
2
most of these agreements have proven ineffective in controlling 7the
problems of over-exploitation. Consequently, more and more nations
are extending their jurisdictions to preserve, the fishery resources off
their coasts.
At the present time, the United States recognizes a 3-mile territorial
sea and by statute (Public Law 89--658) claims a 9-mile contiguous
zone of exclusive jurisdiction over fisheries. Out of 121 independent
coastal nations, 88 countries share this U.S. position with claims of less
than 12 miles. On the other hand, eleven developing nations (Argen-
tina, Brazil, Chile, Costa. Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua,
Panama, Peru, Sierra Leone and t ruguay) claim fishing rights or
territorial jurisdiction over 200 miles of their coastal seas.
The Third U.N. Law of the Sea Conference which recently com-
pleted a 10-week session in Caracas, hopes to resolve these jurisdic-
tional questions along with a wide range of other issues dealing with
the various uses of the oceans and their resources. Progress at this
Conference has been disappointingly slow. Consequently, there are
serious doubts whether these negotiations can be completed by 19175.
The current U.S. fisheries position at these negotiations endorses a
'200-mile coastal state "economic resource zone." This proposal would
grant the coastal state effective rvguiatory and economic control over
coastal species within a 200-mile zone, subject to international stand-
.rrds and review regarding Coll servatiion. Under the U.S. proposal, the
coastal state would be permitted to reserve to its own vessels that por-
tion of the allowable annual catch which, they can harvest. The coastal
state would also be expected to permit, for a reasonable fee, the taking
of the remainder by foreign fishermen who have traditionally fished
in that area. Any fishery regulations promulgated by coastal states for
their "(Tonomic zones" could be challenged by other nations and made
subject to compulsory dispute settlement or arbitration. Under the
U.S. proposal, anadromous stocks (salmon) would be managed by the
nation in whose streams and riversz they spawn. Highly migratory
species, such as tuna, would be regulated by appropriate interna-
tannal agencies.
In the past, the I i.S. fisheries posit for has been endorsed by a unified
lislrin, indutitrv. however. fishing interests along the Atlantic
('oast and the Pacific Northwest are now convinced that the Latin of
(ho Sea, Conference will not p:Lovide them with timely relief from for-
(.wll fish trig pressures. These :Lnteresils along with various sportsmen's
er!-Vanizat.ions and some conservation groups are. urging the passage
of S. 1988. Oil the other hand, the American tuna and shrimp indus-
tries which fish Olt the East and 1'l'est Coasts of Latin America ada-
nurntly oppose this legislation.
The sponsors of this legislation maintain that it is an interim meas-
nre and disclaim any intention of undermining the Law of the Sea
Conference. However, the Department of State, in the person of Ken-
neth Rush. testified against its passage before the Commerce
Commit- oil Ala -%' 1914. In his testimony. Acting S'ecretar of State Rush
st.ated that--
'hhe inrilateral extension of jurisdiction required by this
hill would have serious foreign policy implications which
could create political tensions internationally. Such exten-
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 :3CIA-RDP75B00380R000500410001-5
sion could seriously prejudice the achievement of satisfactory
resolution of the fisheries and other issues at the Law of the
Sea Conference; it would be harmful, on a long-term basis,
to all U.S. fishing interests; and it would be a violation of
international law.
The Department reiterated its opposition to S. 1988 in a letter to
Senator Fulbright on August 5, 1974. In this correspondence, Deputy
Secretary Robert S. Ingersoll wrote that-
The Executive Branch has consistently opposed any uni-
lateral extension of U.S. jurisdiction over fisheries on.an in-
terim or other basis. In our view, such unilateral action would
compromise the achievement of the full range of U.S. oceans
policy objectives, including our basic objectives at the Law
of the Sea Conference, would be a violation of international
law and would create problems of the most serious order in
our bilateral relations with many nations, including a number
of European allies, Japan and the Soviet Union.
On September 14, 1974, in another letter to Senator Fulbright, the
Department of Defense joined the State Department in its opposi-
tion to S. 1988. In this communication, Deputy Secretary William
P. Clements made the following points :
The United States is a signatory to the 1958 Convention
on the High Seas, which specifically identifies freedom of
navigation, freedom of overflight, and freedom of fishing as
among the constituent elements of the overall freedom of the
high seas. The proposed legislation would unilaterally abro-
gate, contrary in our view to U.S. obligations under that Con-
vention, the freedom of fishing in significant portions of the
.high seas. The response of other nations to this legislation is
not likely to be limited to comparable restrictions on fishing.
If the United States, by unilateral act, abrogates one identi-
fied freedom, we face the unhappy prospect that other nations
may claim the right unilaterally to abrogate other identified
freedoms, including the freedoms of navigation and over-
flight.
This threat to high seas freedoms is not, in our view, at all
fanciful. A logical and predictable outgrowth of expanded
fisheries jurisdiction is expanded jurisdiction over marine
pollution which arguably affects marine resources. Given the
misconceptions in many countries on the "pollution" aspects
of nuclear powered vessels and vessels carrying nuclear weap-
ons, we are genuinely concerned that such restrictive claims
may be advanced, either on their own merits or for unrelated
political. ends, as a direct consequence of enactment of this
legislation. This is in fact the history of most claims to ex-
panded territorial jurisdiction.
Our strategic deterrent is based upon a triad of nuclear
delivery systems, an essential portion of which is seaborne.
Our general purpose forces, designed to deter war below the
strategic nuclear war level, must, if the deterrent is to be
credible, be free to move by air and sea to those areas where
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000500410001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 :4 CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410001-5
our vital interests are threatcrre~~i. Military mobility on and
over the high seas is dependent to a significant degree on tine
mainteiiance of the freedom of the. seas. These freedoms sanc-
tion and protect the activities of our forces. Reduced interna-
tional waters and closed straits, therefore, threaten both Cie
survivability and utility of our deterrent. In this connection,
it S110111-1 be noted that over 40 percent of the world's oceans
lie within 200 miles of some nation's coast and that virtually
the entire operating areas of the United States' 6th and 7th
Reels lie- within such waters.
I f the 1 ?nited States now abandons its opposition to unilat-
era I claims in the ocean, we will inevitably be faced with an in-
creasing number of competing, retaliatory or unrelated claims
impacting adversely on national security interests. If, as we
expect, enactment of this legislation results in extended delay
in the Law of the Sea negotiations, we will have reverted to
the lnuertain and dangerous procedure of shaping a new
legal order for the world's oceans by the process of claim and
counterclaim, action and reaction, which hopefully eventually
wonlrl coalesce into customary international law. This is a
dangerous way to regulate even economic relations among
states. But when the claims begin to affect the mobility of
onr strategic and general purpose forces, the risk involved in
the process of challenge is much higher. To set the nation on
this path toward resolution of oceans policy issues is, in oar
view, both dangerous and extremely unwise.
-,1_ftem considering the communications and hearings on this sub-
ject, the Committee voted to report S. 1988 unfavorably to the Sent,te.
'l'lie Cornrnittee believes that unilateral action by the United States
with respect, to fisheries will encourage other countries to make broad
jurisdictional claims which could seriously damage overall U.S. oceans
interests including important security and energy needs. If the [Jnii,ed
States can eliminate one of the existing freedoms of the high seas-
freedoru of fislrinu'-from a 200-mile area adjacent to its coast, other
nations may feet the need to eliminate other freedoms, including free-
dom of navigation and freedom of overflight. As Deputy Secretary
Clements pointed out in his letter, over forty percent of the oceans
are, witiiirr 200 miles of sonic nation's coast. Should certain countries
close oil access to these waters, vital U.S. national security interests
could be threatened. Similarly, the movement of commercial shipping
to tine United States, particularly oil tankers, would be prejudiced.
The passage of S. 1988 could also disrupt existing relations wit;a a
number of distant water fishing nations which have traditionally fished
in waters adjacent to the U.S. coast. This could lead to serious con-
frontations. particularly with the U.S.S.R. and Japan, similar to the
recent dispute between Iceland. and the United Kingdom. In addition
to creating a possible conflict, the extension of U.S. fisheries jurisdic-
tion to 200 miles would add an area of 2,222,000 square miles which
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/09/075 CIA-RDP75B00380R000500410001-5
would be nearly impossible to police without international acceptance.
Unless the U.S. obtains an-international agreement, the cost of policing
such a zone would be more than any conceivable benefit to the U.S.
fisheries interests.
The Committee also believes that the passage of S. 1988 would be
inconsistent with U.S. international legal obligations, particularly
the 1958 Convention on the High Seas which specifically identifies
freedom of fishing as an essential element of the overall high seas
freedoms. Forty-six nations have signed this Convention and the
United States has consistently opposed all other unilateral claims on
the basis that they are violations of international law. A drastic
reversal of our position at this time would seriously undermine U.S.
credibility on all future ocean issues.
The Committee notes that the Executive Branch is taking concrete
steps to relieve the interim fisheries problem for U.S. fishermen by :
(1) Undertaking measures to strengthen bilateral and multi-
lateral agreements to protect U.S. fishery resources;
(2) Requesting the provisional application of the fisheries sec-
tions of the comprehensive law of the sea treaty now being nego-
tiated ; and
(3) Announcing new enforcement procedures to protect U.S.
fishery resources of the continental shelf.
The following letter from John Norton Moore, Chairman of the
National Security Council Interagency Task Force on the Law of. the
Sea and Deputy Special Representative of the President for the Law
of the Sea Conference, to Senator Warren G. Magnuson, indicates the
most recent action taken by the Administration to protect U.S. fishing
interests.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, D.C., September 5, 197.4.
Hon. WARr.EN G. MAGNUSON,
Senate Commerce Committee,
17.5. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR IAGNTTSON : In response to your recent inquiry e`on-
c.e.rning enforcement procedures in connection with continental shelf
fishery resources, I am pleased to advise you that foreign governments
whose vessels fish above the continental shelf of the United States are
being notified of the following new guidelines for the enforcement of
our rights to continental shelf fishery resources.
"1. The taking of continental shelf fishery resources from the
United States continental shelf will result in the arrest and seizure of
any vessel taking such resources, except as provided by the United
States in bilateral agreements. For the purpose of determining
whether such a taking has occurred, vessels may be boarded when en-
gaging in either of the following acts :
(a) Fishing above the continental shelf of the. United States
with gear -\N'hich is designed specifically to catch continental shelf
fishery resources; or
(b) Fishing above the continental shelf of the United States
with bottom gear which can be expected to result in the catch of
continental shelf fishery resources except where the procedures
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000500410001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410001-5
6
used av2 designed to reduce and control such incidental catch p ar-
snant to an agreement with the United States.
"3. In those instances where the taking of continental shelf fishery
resources does not result in a substantial. catch and such taking does
not appear to be deliberate or repeated, a warning will normally be
given. an any event, fishermen are expected to return to the sea im-
ii ediatcly a.uv continental shelf fishery resources which may be taken
irrcideutally in the course of directed fisheries for other species.
Fishermen who encounter concentrations of continental shelf fishery
resources in the course of their fishing, operations should take immedi-
ate steps to ovoid such concentrations in future tows.
To facilitate the transition in fishing procedures required by
tlhese procedures, U.S. enforcement officers will act with discretion
during a short period to allow fisherman operating in the region to
beconie familiar with these procedures.
`` I. The hoarding and where appropriate the arrest of any vessel
pursuant to these procedures shall be in strict conformity with para-
graplr 1 above.
"). The effective date of these new procedures will be December 5,
19741."
These. gu;delines sTiould substantially enhance our protection ef-
forts and help conserve our valuable resources. The practical effect
of Hie change in procedure cOntempated by paragraph 1(b) is to re-
quire the negotiation of bilateral agreements with all nations fishing
over our en itirrentid shelf with bottom (,-ear which can be expected
to result in the catch of continental shelf fishery resources. These
agreements would set forth appropriate procedures to ensure the
fnl lest protection of our resources.
I hope thst you will conclude, as it have, that this effort will ma-
terially assist in providing added protection to our continental shelf
fishery resin ices,.
Sincerely,
Jorrx No-row Moor,F.
C/rnri;,-miq', Nat;onal, Council Interagency Task Farce
r,n the Lau, of the Sea and Deputy Special Representative
of the: President for the Lard of the Sea Conference.
Tn conclusion, the. Committee believes that fishery problems are, in-
terrelatcd with other important U.S. ocean interests and should be
dealt with in a comprehensive multilateral agreement. The third U.N.
t "on L'erence on the 11aw of Sea is attempting to reach such an agree-
ment. The second substantive session of this Conference is scheduled
to meet next. March and April and hopes to complete its work on this
treaty. If the Conference successfully concludes this task, there is
bro:ul support for a 200-mile, economic zone, witicb will fully protect
I T.S. coastal fishery interests. Consequently, the Committee recom-
mends that the Senate not pass S. 1988 at this time. Tn this connection,
however. tire. Committee wishes to emphasize that if the Law of the
Sea Conference does not produce concrete results next year, then the
i `.S. position will obviously have to be reconsidered.
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410001-5
S. 1988 was introduced on June 13, 1973, by Senator Magnuson (for
himself, and Senators Cotton, Hollings, Jackson, Pastore and Stevens) .
It was referred to the Commerce Committee and fifteen days of hear-
ings were conducted by that Committee in the States of Alaska, Wash-
ington, California, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and the District of
Columbia. On June 21, 1974, in view of the foreign policy considera-
tions contained in this bill, Senator Fulbright requested a consecutive
referral.
On August 8, 1974, the Commerce Committee favorably reported S.
1988. At that time, the Foreign Relations Committee was granted 21
days days (counting only those days when the Senate was in session)
to consider this legislation.
On September 5, 1974, the Foreign Relations Committee conducted
a hearing on S. 1988. At that time the following witnesses were heard :
Senator Warren G. Magnuson from Washington; Senators Ted
Stevens and Mike Gravel from Alaska ; Carlyle E. Maw, Under Secre-
tary of State for Coordinating Security Assistance Programs ; John
R. Stevenson, Special Representative of the President for the Law of
the Sea Conference; John Norton Moore, Chairman, NSC Interagency
Task Force on the Law of the Sea, who was accompanied by Howard
Pollack, Deputy Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration, Department of Commerce; and William
Sullivan, Acting Coordinator of Ocean Affairs, Department of State.
The Committee considered S. 1988 in executive session on Septem-
ber 17, 1974. A motion to report the bill favorably was defeated by a
vote of 8 yeas to 9 nays. Those voting in favor of the bill were Senators
Sparkman, Church, Symington, Pell, Muskie, McGovern, Humphrey
and Pearson. Those opposed were Senators Mansfield, McGee, Aiken,
Case, Javits, Scott of Pennsylvania, Percy, Griffin and the Chairman,
Senator Fulbright. Under the order of the Senate of August 8, there-
fore, the bill is reported unfavorably.
AGENCY COMMENTS
Set forth below is a letter from Secretary Kissinger expressing the
Department of State's general opposition to S. 1988, along with a letter
from Deputy Secretary William Clements setting forth the Defense
Department's objections. A more detailed explanation of the State
Department's position can be found in the statements of John Norton
Moore and Ambassador John R. Stevenson, which are incorporated
in the hearing (printed) held before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee on September 5,1974.
TIIE SECRETARY or STATE,
Washington, D.C., September 22,197.?.
IIon. J. WILLIAM FUI,RRIGIIT,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations,
U.S. Senate.
DEAR Mu. CHAIRMAN: The Foreign Relations Committee recently
held hearings on S. 1988, a bill to extend unilaterally the fisheries
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : ~IA-RDP75B00380R000500410001-5
jurisdiction of the United States from the present 12-mile limit to
200 miles. I wanted you to be aware of my view that passage of this
bill would -3e seriously harmful to our foreign relations and I was
pleased to learn that. the Committee reported (,)ut S. 1988 with an un-
favorable recommendation.
I sympathize with the concern for our coastal fishermen which has
motivated this legislation. However, the best protection for them and
the best solution for our fisheries problems is a timely ocean law
treaty. The United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea has
made substnnntial progress in formulating such a treaty and will be
nieel;ing again next spring with a view towards concluding in agree-
ment in 1975. Passage of S. 1988 or similar legislation unilaterally
extending our jurisdiction at this time would be especially damaging
to the chances of concluding a treaty.
Passage of S. 1988 would hurt our relations with Japan and the
Soviet Union as well as with other nations fishing off our coasts. In
addition, any effort to enforce a unilaterally established 200-mile fish-
eries zone against non, consenting nations would be likely to lead to
confrontations. Adverse reactions by foreign nations would be under-
standable for the United States itself has consistently protested uni-
lateral extensions of fishery jurisdiction beyond 12 miles. A unilateral
extension by the United States now could encourage a wave of claims
by others which would be detrimental to our overall oceans interests,
including our interests in naval mobility and the movement of energy
supplies.
I very much appreciate that a majority of the Foreign Relations
Committee opposed passage of S. 1983. I hope that other members of
the Senate will also carefully evaluate the foreign affairs consequences
from passage of this legislation in the middle of the law of the sea
negotiations.
Warm regards,
Fer. I)r:pt!TY SE mt,:T,ary or' IWrr?:rsr.
TV hinr~ ton, D.C., September 14,1974.
Ilon. J. I
~rILnInar FITLBRIGTIT,
Clurhrman. Committee on, l{'orei~ n Relr;;tioni,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
D];AR. Mr.. CHAIR-r t : It is rrcv understanding that the Senate, For-
eign Relations Committee will shortly take up consideration of S. 1988,
the Emergency Marine Fisheries Protection Act of 1974. Accordingly,
I am taking this opportunity to convey to you the views of the De-
1mariment of Defense, that enactment of this legislation would have a
serious adverse impact on the national security interests of the United
States.
The bill would extend the contiguous fisheries zone of the T'nited
States to a distance of 200 miles from the baseline from which the
U.S. territorial sea is measured. Within this expanded zone the T"nited
Mates would exercise exclusive fishery management responsibility and
aitthorit;y, w.th the exception of certain highly migratory species. In
addition. the bill would extend the fisheries management responsibility
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410001-5
and authority with respect to U.S. anadromous species, beyond 200
miles, to the full extent of the migratory range of such species on the
high seas. The bill asserts on behalf of the United States preferential
rights to all fish within the new U.S. contiguous zone and to U.S.
anadromous species, and provides for a method whereby foreign na-
tions which have traditionally fished within the new zone or for U.S.
anadromous species may, for a fee, be permitted such portions of any
stock which cannot be fully harvested by U.S. citizens.
The United States is a signatory to the 1958 Convention on the High
Seas, which specifically identifies freedom of navigation, freedom of
overflight, and freedom of fishing as among the constituent elements
of the overall freedom of the high seas. The proposed legislation would
unilaterally abrogate, contrary in our view to U.S. obligations under
that Convention, the freedom of fishing in significant portions of the
high seas. The response of other nations to this legislation is not likely
to be limited to comparable restrictions on fishing. If the United
States, by unilateral act, abrogates one identified freedom, we face
the unhappy prospect that other nations may claim the right unilat-
erally to abrogate other identified f reedoms, including the freedoms
of navigation and overflight.
This threat to high seas freedoms is not, in our view, at all fanciful.
A logical and predictable outgrowth of expanded fisheries jurisdic-
tion is expanded jurisdiction over marine pollution which arguably
affects marine resources. Given the misconceptions in many countries
on the "pollution" aspects of nuclear powered vessels and vessels car-
rying nuclear weapons, we are genuinely concerned that such restric-
tive claims may be advanced, either on their own merits or for un-
related political ends, as a direct consequence of enactment of this
legislation: This is in fact the history of most claims to expanded
territorial jurisdiction.
Our strategic deterrent is based upon a triad of nuclear delivery
systems, an essential portion of which is seaborne. Our general purpose
forces, designed to deter war below the strategic nuclear war level.,
must, if the deterrent is to be credible, be free to move by air and sea
to those areas where our vital interests are threatened. Military mobil-
ity on and over the high seas is dependent to a significant degree on
the maintenance of the freedom of the seas. These freedoms sanction
and protect the activities of our forces. Reduced international waters
and closed straits, therefore, threaten both the survivability and utility
of our deterrent. In this connection, it should be noted that over 40
percent of the world's oceans lie within 200 miles of some nation's
coast and that virtually the entire operating areas of the United States'
6th and 7th fleets lie within such waters.
Whether the proposed legislation contains sufficient distinguishing
features to remove it from the ambit of the recent International Court
of Justice decision that Iceland's unilateral declaration of 50 mile
exclusive fisheries zone was under the relevant circumstances illegal
is not for this Department to decide. However, we do perceive that the
United States would not be in a strong position to oppose by legal
means, unilateral claims by foreign states restricting our naval or air
mobility near their coasts.
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 :191A-RDP75B00380R000500410001-5
Our experience in attempting to obtain overflight clearances in
Europe during the most recent Arab-Israeli conflict leads us to con-
elude. that bilateral negotiations cannot be depended upon to ensure
the military mobility necessary to achieve US foreign policy objec-
tives. What this bill invites then, is a situation wherein the United
States must either acquiesce in serious erosion of its rights to use the
world's oceans, or must be prepared to forcefully assert those rights.
Thus Tar I have focused on what I consider the short term corse-
queuces to flow from enactment of this legislation. The long term ad-
verse consequences to our national security interests are of equal, if
not greater., concern. We recognize the worldwide trend toward ex-
panded jurisdiction by coastal states over fisheries and other economic
resources off their coasts. One of the fundamental objectives of the
Department of Defense in the Law of the Sea negotiations undertaken
with the ex'eress consent of the Senate extending over the last several
years, has been to ensure that such expansion takes place in a multi-
lateral context resulting in a treaty which clearly identifies the limits
beyond which such expansion. may not go. As the negotiation has
progressed, we have developed a degree of confidence that we will be
able to influence and control the limits of any expanded jurisdiction
so as to protect and exclude from foreign control, those activities,
facilities and operations essential to our national security.
In our judgment, enactment of the proposed legislation would seri-
ously erode the prospect for a broadly based multilateral treaty putting
to rest the. broad range of increasingly contentious ocean issues.
We base this judgment on a number of factors. Our appreciation. of
the criticality of the multilateral solution has led us over the years to
protest vigorously virtually all unilateral extensions of coastal state
jurisdiction, whatever their avowed. functional purpose. Enactment
of the proposed legislation would be a dramatic and highly visible re-
versal of past L'S policy. For the US to adopt unilateralism as a viable
approach to oceans policy problems at this juncture, would seriously
undercut. the credibility of TTS negotiators not only on the fisheries
issue, but also on our basic commitment to international agreement.
This unilateral action could result in an erosion of the world's per-
ception of our other essential objectives such as unimpeded transit
through and over straits, which we have identified as both corner-
stones of our policy and essential elements of an acceptable solutioor...
From a substantive interest standpoint, the legislation lends sup-
port and gives added international respectability to the positions and
policies of precisely those states who have been most hostile to our
defense. ohj actives, and it would at the same time offend and impose
economic losses on the very states who have most consistently sup-
ported at the, Law of the Sea Conference position we deem essential for
the protection of our national security interests.
l+'inally. we believe enactment of the proposed legislation would give
5ubstantial aid and comfort to the hard line proponents of delay in the
Conference. It would lend credence avid support to their argument that
the long term trend in ocean law is toward a 200 mile territorial sea,
evolved through a conscious parallelism of unilateral claims. In short,
the prophesy of extended delays in law of the sea negotiations, which
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000500410001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/09/0711 CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410001-5
some argue requires the proposed legislation, will, in our view, become
self-fulfilling prophesy if it is enacted.
If the United States now abandons its opposition to unilateral claims
in the ocean, we will inevitably be faced with an increasing number
of competing, retaliatory or unrelated claims impacting adversly on
national security interests. If, as we expect, enactment of this legisla-
tion results in extended delay in the Law of the Sea negotiations, we
will have reverted to the uncertain and dangerous procedure of shap-
ing a new legal order for the world's oceans by the process of claim
and counterclaim, action and reaction, which hopefully eventually
would coalesce into customary international law. This is a dangerous
way to regulate even economic relations among states. But when the
claims begin to affect the mobility of our strategic and general purpose
forces, the risk involved in the process of challenge is much higher. To
set the nation on this path toward resolution of oceans policy issues is,
in our view, both dangerous and extremely unwise.
I very much appreciate this opportunity to set forth the views of
the Department of Defense with respect to S. 1988, and appreciate
the consideration I am sure they will receive from you and your
Committee. T
W. P. CLEMENTS, eJ r.
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410001-5
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
As part of the rather substantial minority within the Foreign Rela-
tions Committee that voted for a favorable report on S. 1988, we as
New England Coastal State Senators believe it particularly necessary
to prepare these additional views strongly supporting the passage
of this legislation.
Together we have closely followed and participated in the develop-
ment of the U.S. position and the preparations aimed at establishing
an international legal regime governing the uses of the oceans. Both
of us have been named as Senate.Advisors to the U.S. Delegation to
the Third UN Law of the Sea Conference and have actively dis-
cussed the aims and progress of this Conference with both the United
States and foreign delegations.
From a philosophical and idealistic point of view, we both believe
that a comprehensive multilateral treaty is necessary to solve the
numerous problems associated with ocean space. However, with re-
spect to fisheries, it is our belief that the delays in negotiations and
the time needed to conclude an agreement of this magnitude will not
realistically serve our country's best interests. At the present time,
there are 149 nations participating in the UN Law of the Sea. Confer-
ence, many of which have not determined their own national policies
or interests. These countries hope to deal with approximately 81 items,
each having various degrees of importance to certain groups of coun-
tries. Four years of preparatory meetings have done little to reconcile
the wide disparities between these nations and their ocean interests.
Consequently, we believe that it will be very difficult for the Confer-
ence to complete its task by 1975, and that interim action is essential
to prevent the further depletion of our own U.S. coastal fish species.
In New England, the problem is particularly acute. Since the early
1960's foreign fishing has severely reduced the number of our coastal
stocks. The National Marine Fisheries Service indicates that Atlantic
haddock, herring, menhaden, yellowtail flounder and halibut have been
severely depleted, some to a point where, they may never recover. Al-
though the United States is party to a large number of international
fishery conservation conventions, most of these agreements fail to con-
tain realistic or effective enforcement provisions. Consequently, these
arrangements have miserably failed in their efforts to stop over-
exploitation.
We have been told by both foreign delegates and by the Adminis-
tration that it takes time to negotiate solutions to these very impor-
tant international problems. We have been urged to use restrain and
to await the outcome of the Law of the Sea Conference. However, we
fail to discern similar restraint being exercised by foreign trawlers off
our New England coasts, nor do we see any bilateral agreements being
concluded to the same effect. We firmly believe that a generally ac-
(13)
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410001-5
 Approved For Release 2001/09/07 :1 CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410001-5
ceptable treaty on fisheries will not be negotiated and implen)ented
before the late 1910's. and that there is a. serious danger of a further
depletion of our coastal species. Therefore, we feel that it is in our best
national interests and in the interests of conservation to adopt the
emergency interim measures contained in S. 1988 designed to regulate,
control and protect the fishery stocks within 200 miles of our coasts.
It should be noted and emphasized that the testimony received by
the Foreign Relations Committee i adicates that the provisions of
S. 1988 are totally consistent with the current fishery goals of the
United States at the Law of the Sea Conference and are meant to be
interim only. Sections of this bill specifically state that if the Law of
the Sea negotiations produce an acceptable agreement which is ratified
by the Senate, this legislation will be preempted. Consequently, we
strongly urge our fellow Senators to vote for the passage of S. 1988.
CLAIRouNE PELL.
IillmIITT I) S. 1\1U;FIE.
Approved For Release 2001/09/07 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000500410001-5