Mr. G.R. Clark, Deputy Minister of Fisheries, telephoned me today. He discussed the developments at the fur seals conference in Washington since January 10. (Previous developments were covered in my memorandum of January 10?).

2. The Canadian compromise proposal²¹³ was formally made to the conference on January 16 (copies of Mr. Clark's statement? to the conference will be circulated within the next few days). The statement was discussed by the members of the drafting committee of the conference on January 23 and on following days. The Japanese delegation accepted the proposal in principle, while indicating that they would like a number of changes made in it. This was a considerable concession for Japan to make. Early in January the Japanese delegation had proposed that Japanese fishermen be authorized to kill 30,000 seals per year off the Japanese coast. In private conversation, the delegation had reduced the proposed number of seals to be killed each year to 6,000. By accepting the Canadian proposal in principle, they would not be able to kill any seals at sea for several years, except those killed for scientific purposes. Generally speaking, the Japanese delegation had been very reasonable and forthcoming in private discussions in recent weeks. This applied particularly to Mr. Shima, the Minister of the Japanese Embassy in Washington and the active leader of the delegation.

3. The United States delegation expressed their general agreement with the Canadian proposal, but did not seem to support it very strongly. Although it appears that the United States delegation is anxious to reach an agreement at the conference, they have neither supported our efforts to reach a solution wholeheartedly, nor have they made any compromise proposals of their own. The continuance of the conference beyond the period originally envisaged is, of course, causing considerable administrative embarrassments to the State Department, and it may be that this is a factor in the attitude of the delegation.

4. The head of the USSR delegation, Mr. Striganov, has maintained firmly an attitude of opposition to pelagic sealing on any basis. He alleged that the conference was called by the United States to work out a convention prohibiting pelagic sealing and he has implied that the United States, by agreeing to the Canadian proposal with the implication that pelagic sealing may be possible sooner or later, is guilty of bad faith. The Soviet delegation has also been strongly opposed to the exchange of technical personnel which it is proposed would take place under the new fur seals organization. They have strongly objected to the conference discussing any arrangements for future programmes. Mr. Clark has had one or two private talks with Mr. Striganov in an attempt to secure a modification of the Soviet position. On the exchange of technical personnel particularly, he has pointed out that during his visit to the Soviet Union last year, Mr. Sinclair found the Soviet authorities quite keen on this idea. Nevertheless, the Soviet delegation have shown very little indication of willingness to compromise.

5. The prospects for reaching an agreement are thus not very good, and it remains for consideration whether there is anything further which the Canadian delegation could do to that end. As matters stand, the Soviet Union is isolated in its opposition to a reasonable compromise proposal and one which the Japanese have accepted even though it means a considerable departure from their original attitude. This is not, however, too satisfactory, because if the conference breaks up without reaching an agreement, the Soviet Union would be able, by virtue of their control of some of the seal herds, to bargain on a bilateral basis with Japan.

6. Mr. Clark said that he had briefed the Ambassador in Washington and Mr. Glazebrook fully on the proceedings of the conference on January 24.

T. LEM. CARTER