VZCZCXYZ0009
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #1168/01 3471403
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 121403Z DEC 08
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 5515
INFO RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA PRIORITY 2141
RUEHGP/AMEMBASSY SINGAPORE PRIORITY 1971

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 001168 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: UNGA SENV EWWT PHSA PREL
SUBJECT: UNGA: GENERAL ASSEMBLY DEBATE ON OCEANS AND THE 
LAW OF THE SEA 
 
¶1.  (U) Summary: The 63rd UN General Assembly held its debate 
on agenda item 70, "Oceans and the Law of the Sea," on 
December 4. The General Assembly considered two resolutions 
relating to this agenda item, both of which were co-sponsored 
by the United States.  The resolution on Oceans and the Law 
of the Sea (A/63/L.42) was adopted by vote, and the 
sustainable fisheries resolution was adopted by consensus. As 
the sustainable fisheries resolution had been coordinated by 
Holly Koelher (OES) of the Department, the United States 
introduced that resolution.  Paragraph 19 lists the countries 
that gave statements.  End Summary. 
 
Straits Issue 
------------- 
 
¶2.  (U) Singapore made sharply worded remarks on straits used 
for international navigation. Referring to the Law of the Sea 
Convention (the Convention), Singapore asserted that the 
"balance enshrined in Article 42 is coming under assault" and 
noted that "Singapore, like several other countries, takes 
issue with the unilateral implementation of the mandatory 
pilotage scheme in the Torres Strait."  Singapore said that 
it was "convinced that such steps are contraventions of 
international law," and asserted that "the precedent set in 
the Torres Strait can be replicated anywhere, including in 
some of the busiest waterways in the world." 
 
¶3.  (U) Australia said that there was a great risk of a major 
incident in the Torres Strait, a unique and sensitive 
ecosystem.  Australia asserted that the system of pilotage 
that it and Papua New Guinea put in place is a necessity and 
"entirely consistent with international law, including the 
Convention."  Australia said that it disagreed with the 
assertion that the Torres Strait scheme sets a precedent that 
can be replicated anywhere, in that it was based on an 
International Maritime Organization designation. 
 
¶4.  (U) Singapore, exercising its right of reply, stated that 
Australia's compulsory pilotage scheme "goes beyond what is 
permitted by Article 42 of the Convention."  Singapore 
asserted that Australia's compulsory pilotage system in the 
Torres Strait does not have IMO approval. Many States, 
including the United States, emphasized the importance of 
freedom of navigation and the rights of transit passage, in 
addition to the rights and responsibilities of States 
bordering straits used for international navigation. 
 
Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
 
¶5.  (U) Several States made remarks about the Commission on 
the Limits of the Continental shelf.  China welcomed the 
resolution adopted by the 18th Meeting of States Parties to 
the Law of the Sea Convention (SPLOS) regarding the time 
period for submissions to the Commission, saying that the 
resolution had accommodated the concerns of developing 
countries while appropriately reducing the burden and 
pressure on the Commission. Norway stated that "all states 
concerned should be able to comply with the 2009 deadline" 
for submissions to the Commission, and noted that it is 
funding the UNEP shelf program, which is coordinated by 
GRID-Arendal, with a view to promoting capacity-building and 
making relevant data available to States. Many delegations 
called for increased funding for the Division for Ocean 
Affairs and the Law of the Sea as the volume of the 
Commission's work continues to increase. 
 
¶6.  (U) Kenya spoke at great length about a "dilemma" it 
faces regarding the proper interpretation and application of 
some aspects of the Convention relating to continental shelf, 
and in particular to application of the formulae contained in 
the Convention.  Kenya suggested that the "Statement of 
Understanding," which many had interpreted to apply only to 
the Bay of Bengal, should also apply to other geographic 
areas. 
 
Open-Ended Informal Consultative Process  (ICP) 
--------------------------------------------- -- 
 
¶7.  (U) Some delegations praised the ICP process, but 
expressed regret that the ICP mandate had only been renewed 
for two years, conveying disappointment that next year's 
consultations would be limited to a review of the ICP process 
itself.  (Comment.  The G-77 and China during the informal 
consultations successfully pushed hard for this result. End 
comment.) Iceland regretted that "certain member States were 
unwilling to renew the mandate" of the ICP for three years 
and to agree on a substantive topic for next year, going so 
far as to say that "the informal consultations on the two 
resolutions this year were not held in the same spirit of 
cooperation that has characterized work on oceans and the law 
 
 
of the sea here at the United Nations, including the Third 
Law of the Sea Conference." 
 
¶8.  (U) Other delegations criticized the ICP process. 
Argentina claimed that the evolution of the ICP into a forum 
with a "double nature" (information and negotiation) results 
in its being inadequate at either, suggesting that in the 
future text should not be negotiated there. China supported a 
stronger focus on sustainable development. 
 
Piracy and Armed Robbery at Sea 
------------------------------- 
 
¶9.  (U) Several States expressed deep concern about recent 
incidents of piracy and armed robbery at sea off the coast of 
Somalia, and welcomed the recent Security Council resolutions 
addressing this issue. Some States, such as Indonesia and 
India, took pains to point out that Security Council 
resolutions 1816, 1836 and 1846 did not affect the rights, 
obligations or responsibilities of Member States under 
international law, including any rights or obligations under 
the Law of the Sea Convention, and in particular that they do 
not establish customary international law. 
 
Sustainable Fisheries Resolution 
--------------------------------- 
 
¶10.  (U) Several countries expressed concern about continuing 
over-fishing, illegal fishing and destructive fishing 
practices. Some countries, such as Australia, were encouraged 
by the progress in agreeing to set out precautionary 
reference points to sustain fish stocks. 
 
¶11.  (U) Many speakers emphasized the need for more countries 
to ratify the UN Fish Stocks Agreement.  Other States, such 
as Cuba, while accepting major conservation and management 
provisions of the Fish Stocks Agreement, expressed concern 
about the mechanism of visits and inspection on board fishing 
vessels, as established by articles 21 and 22.  Several 
delegations welcomed the opportunity to exchange views in the 
informal dialogue on the Fish Stocks Agreement scheduled for 
¶2009. 
 
¶12.  (U) Several States, such as Canada and Australia, 
recalled the commitment made in Resolution 61/105 to regulate 
bottom fishing and to manage the impact of fishing on 
vulnerable marine ecosystems, welcomed measures that have 
been taken so far and urged States and Regional Fisheries 
Management Organizations to expedite efforts for further 
implementation. 
 
¶13.  (U) Several States noted the importance of port States 
preventing illegal, unregulated or unreported catch from 
entering ports or reaching the market, and praised efforts at 
the Food and Agriculture Organization to negotiate a binding 
port State instrument. 
 
¶14.  (U) Argentina pointed out that the sedentary resources 
of the continental shelf are subject to the sovereignty 
rights of coastal States over the entirety of the continental 
shelf, and to reaffirm this point it had proposed operative 
paragraph 104 of the sustainable fisheries resolution. 
 
¶15.  (U) Many delegations praised by name the State 
Department's Holly Koelher (OES) for her deft coordination of 
the sustainable fisheries resolution. 
 
Action on the Resolutions 
--------------------------- 
 
¶16.  (U) As in the past, the oceans resolution was adopted by 
vote. The vote was 155-1(Turkey)-4(Venezuela, El Salvador, 
Colombia and Libya). After voting concluded, Bolivia 
intervened to say that it had intended to vote "yes" but the 
voting button malfunctioned.  The sustainable fisheries 
resolution was adopted by consensus. 
 
¶17.  (U) Venezuela, in its explanation of vote, noted that it 
is not a party to the Law of the Sea Convention and thus is 
not bound by its terms.  Argentina, in its explanation, noted 
that it is not a party to the Fish Stocks Agreement and thus 
is not bound by its terms.  Turkey, in its explanation, 
observed that the Law of the Sea Convention does not make 
provisions for special geographic circumstances.  Turkey also 
objected to the resolution's call for States to become party 
to the Convention and to harmonize their legislation with the 
Convention's provisions.  Turkey disassociated itself from 
the sustainable fisheries resolution, as it is not a party to 
the Fish Stocks Agreement. 
 
¶18.  (U) In statements read before each of the two 
E 
 
 
resolutions were adopted, the Secretariat reported that no 
financial implications would arise under the program budget 
for the biennium 2008-2009. 
 
¶19.  (U) The following countries made interventions: Brazil 
(to introduce resolution A/63/L.42), the United States (to 
introduce resolution A/63/L.43), France (on behalf of the 
European Union), Jamaica (on behalf of the Caribbean 
Community), Palau (on behalf of the Pacific Islands Forum), 
Argentina, Canada, China, Cuba, Egypt, Fiji, Guatemala, 
Iceland, India, Indonesia, Korea, Japan, Kenya, Kuwait, 
Marshall Islands, Mexico, Monaco, Norway, Peru, Russia, 
Singapore, Sri Lanka, Ukraine, Tanzania, Tunisia, Venezuela, 
and Vietnam.  The following observers also gave statements: 
International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea, International 
Seabed Authority. 
Khalilzad