coastal State does not otherwise possess, because 

 then every coastal State would claim a quota just 

 to be able to sell it. Until the coastal State itself 

 establishes a fisheries operation, it has no invest- 

 ment to give it an equitable basis for the right to 

 sell its quota. 



It is impossible to predict whether these assur- 

 ances to the South American States will suffice to 

 induce them not to seize United States fishing 

 vessels outside the 12 mile limit. But it is also 

 difficult to see what else the United States can 

 reasonably be expected to offer. 



G. The Territorial Sea 



If the suggested means of preferring the coastal 

 State proves to be acceptable, it may remove the 

 impetus to '.he extension of the territorial sea that 

 derives from concern over access to fishery re- 

 sources. It mav then become possible to secure 

 agreement on a nairow territorial sea consistent 

 with the totahty of American interests in the 

 oceans and assurance of right to pass through and 

 fly over international straits. 



H. Amendment of the Fisherman's Protective Act 



Until the existing disagreements with the coastal 

 States of Latin America are resolved-either by 

 adoption of the panel's proposals or in some other 



way— the panel recommends that the policy of 

 indemnification embodied in the Fisherman's Pro- 

 tective Act of 1967 should be continued. Only by 

 permitting its fishing fleet to continue to operate 

 within the 200 mile zone to which these countries 

 claim exclusive access can the United States 

 effectively oppose these extravagant claims. But 

 then the United States must stand behind its 

 nationals who are the instruments of its policy. 



The Act's requirement that the amount of aid a 

 country is scheduled to receive from the United 

 States must be cut by the total of unpaid United 

 States claims against it for seizing United States 

 fishing vessels is preferable to the requirement in 

 the Senate-passed version of the bill that all 

 assistance to a seizing country be suspended until 

 it satisfies such claims. Nevertheless, the panel 

 concludes that this provision of the 1967 Act 

 should be repealed because it restricts the flexi- 

 bility the President must have in exercising his 

 foreign policy responsibilities. It subordinates all 

 foreign poUcy objectives of the United States to 

 the one objective of resisting unwarranted claims 

 to exclusive access to certain fishery resources. 

 The total amounts paid under the Act will not be 

 great and may even be less than the losses United 

 States interests will sustain if other retaUatory 

 measures or diplomatic ruptures result from over- 

 zealous collection efforts. 



VIII-69 



