The discussions which are beginning here today are of great importance to each of the Governments represented. Fishermen of each of the three countries carry on important fisheries in the North Pacific Ocean and they form a major part of local or national economies. Also a substantial number of people in each country are dependent for their livelihoods upon these fisheries.
As a consequence each of the Governments is deeply concerned with the problem of insuring the continued prosperity of these fisheries. Each is concern that the fishery resources which support these fisheries continue to be productive. Each is concerned that the legitimate interest and aspiration of its fishermen be advanced These alone are important considerations.
But, these discussions are also important in the context of broader considerations. The nature of the relationships—bilateral and trilateral—among the three Governments is of critical importance to each of the three Governments. Each seeks with the others a pattern of relationships characterized by harmony, sympathetic understanding of each other’s problems and a minimum of friction. Each recognizes the value of institutions which aid the solution of common problems.
The Convention which you will review in the coming discussion is just such an institution for the solution of common problems. It seems to me that in a review of its effectiveness, the extent to which the convention has contributed to a pattern of harmonious relations between Governments out to be considered, as well as the efficiency with which the convention has moved toward solution of the fishery problems with which it was deigned to deal. In both respects the Convention is important to the three governments, and a review its ten years of operation is a task of some moment.
It is our view in the United States that the Convention has served well as a mechanism for the solution of common fishery problems and in so doing has contributed substantially to a pattern of harmonious relations among the three Governments. It is not to say that there has been no friction. We do think however that with almost any alternate agreement which we can imagine there would likely have been greater friction, less harmony. This point can hardly be over emphasized. Regardless of the direct benefits which may have or may not have accrued to national fisheries, our countries have benefited from a period of relative harmony in relationships connected with fishery matters as a result of the existence of this Convention.
As for the extent to which this Convention has been effective as a means for dealing with fishery problems, the United States has on many occasions made clear its view that the Convention has proved to be a most useful means for dealing with many of the critical fishing problems of common interest in the North Pacific Ocean. The President and various other officials, including me, have indicated the United States view that the underlying principal of the Convention—the abstention principle—is peculiarly applicable and is essential in connection with certain of the fishery problems in the area. The circumstances in the North Pacific Ocean off the coast of North America are unique in terms of long-standing Canadian and American fisheries, and unparalleled investments by the two Governments of time, money and talent in the conservation of the resources. Such unique circumstances must be given adequate recognition. As a practical matter, any pattern of international agreement regarding utilization of those resources which fails to take due account of the special contribution to the productivity of the resources such investments represent will not endure.
The abstention principle does take due account of the special contribution which in this case has been made by the United States and Canada. It thus serves as a valuable procedure for encouraging governments to undertake the burdensome tasks connected with the conservation of marine fishery resources.
In addition if the principle or something akin to it is not available for dealing with this kind of problem as it occurs more frequently, the alternative courses of action which governments are likely to take to protect their fisheries will run contrary to the interests of the tree Governments represented here and in the long run, contrary to the interests of mankind.
In short, we are convinced of the fundamental value of the principle of abstention for the solution of what are today unique fishery problems, but problems which may in the future be all too common.
We are strengthened in our conviction by the manner in which this Convention has served the three Governments during the past ten years. None of the Governments has found in the functioning of the Convention all that it might have hoped for. Japanese fishermen find defects in the Convention, and so do Canadian and American Fishermen. But, within its framework it has been possible for the three national fishing industries to prosper.
I do not wish to give you the impression that we in the United States consider the Convention to have worked perfectly. Indeed, that is not our view as all who are familiar with the proceedings of the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission can testify. However, the defects which we perceive are not fundamental. They do not go to the heart of the Convention. They are not defects in principal. They are perhaps weaknesses in the use of the instrument more than weaknesses in instrument itself.
These defects can and should be corrected; and no doubt the United States Delegation will have specific proposals to this end. Thus, we welcome this review of the convention. I would be less than candid, however, if I did not emphasize the fact that in essence the Convention is satisfactory to the United States. Such proposals as the United States Delegation may make for correcting weaknesses will not deal with fundamentals of the Convention. These, in our judgment, are best left intact. It seems to us better to seek to improve upon the instrument with which we are familiar and which has, in fact, served well, than to discard it and seek to create a new instrument. The United Sates Delegation will, of course, be most interested in hearing the views of the Canadian and Japanese Governments and will give the most careful and sympathetic consideration to proposals which they put forward.
It is our earnest desire that these discussions result in arrangements for the solution of common fishery problems in the North Pacific Ocean which all of the Governments represented here will consider both well suited to the advancement of common conservation interests and equitable.
I extend my warmest personal wishes for success in your work.
