61 



that issue. The old fish-and-chips policy that was around on JV's 

 and so forth, did not produce the shoreside commitments that the 

 Dutch and some of the other EC nations promised at that time. 

 And so I think that adds to why we believe that the whole issue 

 is really an irrelevant one to us from a fisheries management 

 prespective. 



I will not go any further than that. I think we came here today — 

 we welcome the opportunity to make it clear to you where we were 

 coming from on this issue because, as I indicated in my testimony, 

 this is not new. We have been talking with the State Department 

 since 1987, consistently, on whether or not we should join NAFO. 

 And, again, I think if we accede to the straddling — to the flagging 

 convention 



Senator Kerry. Well, does it make it hard for the United States 

 to press for these other agreements if we are unwilling to be part 

 of another regional agreement? 



Mr. Kaelin. I do not believe so, because I think we argue, then, 

 that we are a party to international agreements where we have an 

 interest, and I do not believe that there has been 



Senator Kerry. Well, why should not any other nation, then, say 

 to us, we are not going to be a party to any of these agreements 

 because you are not willing to be a party to that, and you seek a 

 double standard. I mean, do you want us to give up our fishing— — 



Mr. Kaelin. No, I think the key — and you certainly have a lot 

 more background in international affairs than I do, but I think the 

 key is whether or not those nations have an interest in being part 

 of that organization. 



Senator Kerry. Well, we all understand that no nation has an 

 interest in giving up its fishing rights unless every other nation is 

 also going to live by the same standard. 



Mr. Kaelin. Well, to me the key is whether th-^re is a domestic 

 interest in the organization. I do not see NAP membership, in 

 terms of fisheries management, as making prog ess in managing 

 the resources that are important to us in New England. And, focus- 

 ing on the straddling stocks of concern to us in the Northeast, 

 which are not within the NAFO jurisdiction, I think we say to 

 those countries around the world, we are not in N^AFO because we 

 do not have a U.S. fisheries interest in NAFO. In fact, we have ac- 

 ceded to the flagging agreement, and our boats are not able to fish 

 there, period. I think that is a resolution of the issue, in my mind. 



Senator Kerry. Ms. Speer, how would you characterize the dis- 

 cussions at the U.N. at this point with respect to overcapitaliza- 

 tion? 



Ms. Speer. Minimal to nonexistent. There is a paragraph in the 

 draft agreement that is exceedingly weak. It requires states to take 

 measures to deal with overharvest and overcapacity and to ensure 

 a level of fishing effort commensurate with the sustainable utiliza- 

 tion of fisheries resources. All of us could agree with that state- 

 ment. The problem is that there are no specifics to it. And it is the 

 specifics that are going to be where the leadership is going to be 

 required. 



Senator KERRY. What is the environmental community suggest- 

 ing ought to be done? 



