Raw content

UNCLASSIFIED BUENOS AIRES 2481 Original Telegram was Confidential but has since been de-classified --------------------------------------------- ---- Copy from the National Archives RG 59: General Records of the Department of state 1964-66 Central Foreign Policy File File: POL 33-4 ARG --------------------------------------------- ---- E.O. 12958: DECL: DECLASSIFIED BY NARA 09/02/2009 TAGS: EFIS, PBTS, AR SUBJECT: EXTENDED NATIONAL JURISDICTIONS OVER HIGH SEAS REF: STATE 106206 CIRCULAR; STATE CA-3400 NOV 2, 1966 1. PRESS REPORTS AND VARIETY EMBASSY SOURCES CONFIRM NEW ARGENTINE LEGISLATION UNILATERALLY CHANGING SEAS JURIS- DICTION NOW UNDER ADVANCED REVIEW. REPORTEDLY LAW WOULD ESTABLISH SIX MILE TERRITORIAL SEA, PLUS ANOTHER SIX MILES OF EXCLUSIVE FISHING JURISDICTION, PLUS ANOTHER EXTENDED ZONE OF "PREFERENTIAL JURISDICTION" FOR FISHING PURPOSES. DRAFT- LAW UNDER CONSIDERATION IN ARGENTINE SENATE BEFORE JUNE 28 COUP WOULD HAVE DEFINED ZONE OF PREFERENTIAL JURISDICTION AS "EPICONTINENTAL SEA OUT TO 200 METER ISOBAR". IN SOUTHERN ARGENTINA THIS ZONE SEVERAL HUNDRED MILES WIDE AND BLANKETS FALKLAND ISLANDS. 2. NAVATT STATES ARGENTINE NAVY THINKING OF PREFERENTIAL JURISDICTION OUT TO 200 MILES (AS IN PERU, ECUADOR, CHILE) RATHER THAN EPICONTINENTAL SEA. 200 MILE LIMIT DOES NOT RPT NOT REACH FALKLANDS. ARGENTINE NAVY OFF TOLD NAVATT "200 MILE LIMIT SOON WILL BE STANDARD THROUGH HEMISPHERE". 3. FONOFF OFFICIALS REFERRING TO RECENT BRAZILIAN AND US LEGISLATION HAVE INFORMALLY INDICATED DECISION ALREADY FINAL RE SIX MILE TERRITORIAL SEA PLUS SIX MILE EXCLUSIVE FISHING JURISDICTION, BUT THAT "PREFERENTIAL JURISDICTION" STILL UNDER STUDY. TWO FONOFF MEN VOLUNTARILY AND INFORMALLY SOUGHT EMBASSY REACTION TO POSSIBLE EXTENDED PREFERENTIAL JURISDICTION BY SUGGESTING THAT US IN FACT HAS ACCEPTED UNILATERALLY CREATED ECUADORIAN, PERUVIAN AND CHILEAN 200 MILE LIMITS. EMBOFF REJECTED IDEA US ACCEPTS THESE LIMITS IN ANY WAY AND POINTED OUT 1965 AMENDMENTS TO AID LEGISLATION AIMED AT FURTHER PROTECTING US FISHING RIGHTS. 4. FONOFF LEGAL ADVISOR CONCEDES DISTINCTION BETWEEN "EXCLUSIVE" AND "PREFERENTIAL" FISHING JURISDICTION A SEMANTIC NICETY. HE UNDERSTANDS THAT IN ZONE OF "PREFERENTIAL" JURIS- DICTION ARGENTINA WOULD CLAIM RIGHT TO TAX, LICENSE AND OTHER- WISE CONTROL ALL ACTIVITIES RELATED TO EXPLOITATION OF RESOURCES OF SEA. 5. DRAFT LEGISLATION ON SEAS JURISDICTION LAY DORMANT UNTIL SUDDEN AND SUBSTANTIAL IN FISHIN ARGENTINE EPICONTINENTAL SEAS BY CUBAN AND EAST EUROPEAN (ESPECIALLY SOVIET) VESSELS PAST SIX MONTHS ALARMED ARGENTINE ARMED FORCES. (SEE NAVATT IR 5-804-0-140-66 OF NOV 18) NOT RPT NOT ALL SOVIET VESSELS WERE FISHING OR FACTORY TYPES. FONOFF SOURCES INFORMALLY STATE ARMED FORCES PRESSURE MAKES EMISSION NEW LAW IMPERATIVE, QUITE POSSIBLY APPEARING WITHIN NEXT FEW WEEKS. WHEN ASKED BY FONOFF MEN ABOUT "SECURITY PROBLEMS CREATED BY SOVIET TRAWLERS OFF US COAST", EMBASSY OFF REPLIED US DID NOT RPT NOT SEE THAT UNILATERAL ATTEMPT TO EXTEND SEAS JURISDICTION OFFERED ANY REALISTIC SOLUTION FOR POSSIBLE SECURITY PROBLEMS, WHILE SUCH ACTION COULD CREATE NEW SOURCES POSSIBLE MISUNDERSTANDING AND CONFLICT. 6. RE PAR 3 STATE 106206 BELIEVE OUTLINED PROPOSAL MIGHT FORESTALL UNILATERAL ARGENTINE ATTEMPT TO SUBSTANTIALLY EXTEND "PREFERENTIAL" FISHING JURISDICTION ONLY IF EMBASSY CAN BE AUTHORIZED DISCUSS IDEA WITH ARGENTINES IMMEDIATELY. EVEN THEN CHANCES SUCCESS LIMITED BY (A) ADVANCED STAGE PROPOSED ARGENTINE LAW AND (B) PRIMACY SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS ARGENTINE THINKING. WE WOULD BENEFIT SOME FROM FONOFF LEGAL ADVISORS' QUALMS ABOUT UNILATERAL ACTION, AND FROM RESTRAINT OF RECENT BRAZILIAN LEGISLATION WHICH DID NOT RPT NOT GO BEYOND 12-MILE LIMIT. 7. FOR DISCUSSION WITH ARGENTINES WOULD MODIFY TEXT IN STATE 10942 CIRCULAR TO: (A) MAKE ALL REFERENCES TO ARGENTINA, VICE CANADA; (B) REFER TO PROPOSED ARGENTINE CLAIMS OF PREFERENTIAL JURISDICTION OVER WATERS WE REGARD AS HIGH SEAS; (C) ELIMINATE REFERENCES TO "TRADITIONAL DISTANT WATER FISHERIES", SINCE ARGENTINE COAST NOT RPT NOT TRADITIONAL FISHING ZONE (WHEREAS NO. 3); (D) ADD NOTATION THERE NO TRADITIONAL FISHING AND CONFINE OPERATIVE AGREEMENT TO PROVISIONS FOR NON-TRADITIONAL FISHING; (E) ELIMINATE LAST THREE PARS OF AIDE-MEMOIRE HANDED TO CANADIAN AMB. 8. IF AUTHORIZED, ENVISAGE TWO-STEP APPROACH TO FONOFF. FIRST, INFORMAL AND ORAL, STRESSING OUR INTEREST IN FREEDOM OF HIGH SEAS, NOTING EARLIER FONOFF CONFIRMATION NEW LAW UNDER STUDY, OUTLINING OUR PROPOSAL IN GENERAL TERMS. ON BASIS FONOFF REACTION, WE WOULD THEN COUCH AIDE-MEMOIRE IN TERMS WHICH WOULD APPEAR MOST LIKELY TO SUCCEED. GP-3 SACCIO