“U.S. *LOSING* ROLE IN ‘TUNA WAR’ CITED – American citizens have been shot and wounded on the high seas, they have been arrested and their boats seized in international waters since the ‘tuna wars’ began off Latin America in 1951. In a gradually escalating dispute between American fishermen and a handful of Latin American countries over fishing rights, there have been almost 100 recorded incidents. Former U.S. Navy vessels and Air Force planes, turned over to those countries on military assistance programs, have been used to harass the fleet which is the United States’ most significant fish producer. American tuna last year was retailed at more than $250,000,000 (equivalent to $2,246,811,500 today – Yes, over 2¼ BILLION dollar$, or $6,155,648 daily, – ed.). There have been 81 American fishing vessels seized and hauled into Latin ports since the first shot was fired across a tunaboats bow back in 1951.
200-MILE LIMIT
The dispute centers around a difference of opinion between the United States and 7 Latin American countries over territorial rights. PERU, ECUADOR, CHILE, COSTA RICA, EL SALVADOR, HONDURAS, and NICARAGUA all now claim 200 miles out to sea. COLUMBIA, GUATEMALA, and PANAMA claim 9 miles out to sea, while MEXICO claims 12 miles. The United States, on the other hand, still officially accepts the 1960 GENEVA CONVENTION which specifies 3 MILES as the territorial limit. The United States is somewhat embarrassed, however, by the fact that our U.S. Congress just last week approved a measure to extend U.S. fishing rights to 12 MILES. This stems from the alarm with which fishermen in the Pacific Northwest have regarded the influx of Russian trawlers sweeping the ocean bottom up to the 3-mile U.S. limit.
FRONT DOORS
If tuna fishermen consider some of the outrage of their brothers in the Northwest, they may be more sympathetic with the Latin countries which object to Americans depleting the tuna stock which they consider at their front doors. With the most recent seizure of 3 San Diego vessels by PERU last week, the total fines levied against American fishermen during this dispute have risen to $264,922 (equivalent to $2,380,919 today – ed.). The tuna fishing fleet, almost entirely based in San Diego, has paid an estimated $2,000,000 in licenses (equivalent to $17,9744,492 today – ed.) during this period for the privilege of fishing on the high seas off these countries in water the world community recognize as international. These were some of the facts and figures released last week by Mr. August Felando, Manager of the AMERICAN TUNABOAT ASSOCIATION (A.T.A.) in the wake of the most recent flare-up.
IN *NOT ONE SINGLE EPISODE* HAS THE U.S. GOVERNMENT ORDERED MILLITARY PROTECTION OR INTERVENTION
Instead, the federal government has been reimbursing the fines resulting from what its agents term ‘illegal seizures’. It is ironic that the U.S. Government has to stand back while gunboats and patrol craft which formerly flew the American flag; fire at, shoot, and seize U.S. fishing vessels, Felando said. At the same time that the United States is paying these illegal fines, it is appropriating millions of dollars in foreign aid and loans to the countries harassing American tunaboats which refuse to purchase licenses. More than $800,000,000 (equivalent to $7,189,796,800 today – ed.) in grants and loans has gone to Peru alone since 1946, he said (i.e. averaged of those 20 years = $359,489,840 annually and/or $984,903 [nearly a Million!?] daily. – ed.).
SHRIMP FLEET AID
The U.S. State Department defends its ‘kid gloves’ attitude toward the Latin American countries involved as ‘necessary’ to prevent the spread of communism in Central America. Diplomats point out that if America exerts force to protect the tuna fleet, the results would very likely topple governments now in the non-communist camp. The United States, however, is quietly protecting, by force, the rights of another of its great fleets. This is the SHRIMP FLEET fishing in the Gulf of Mexico, Felando said. Until the U.S. government ordered U.S. Coast Guard vessels to accompany the shrimp fleet fishing adjacent to Mexican waters, dozens of American boats were seized by Mexican patrol boats. The ‘Shrimp Patrol’, as the U.S. Coast Guard calls it, has put an end to these seizures, he added.
BOMB THREAT
Several months ago France ordered a destroyer to the waters off Brazil after her fishing fleet was harassed by the South American country. There have been no more Brazilian incidents. Yet American tunaboat seizures have been occurring at the rate of about one per month, with most of the recent incidents involving Peru. The San Diego vessels ‘SUN EUROPA’, ‘RONNIE S.’ and ‘EASTERN PACIFIC’ were seized between 24 and 28 miles off the coast of northern Peru last Sunday and Monday by officials claiming that Peruvian fishing rights extend 200 miles out to sea. The ‘Eastern Pacific’ and the ‘Ronnie S.’ paid approximately $17,000 (equivalent to $152,783 today – ed.) in fines before they were released. Although a Peruvian port captain threatened to order the bombing of any American fishing vessel found fishing without licenses in Peru’s claimed 200-mile limit, there was no bloodshed in the most recent encounter. This was not the case last December when the Captain and navigator of the ‘MAYFLOWER’, also of San Diego, were shot and wounded by a Peruvian official who stopped their vessel 70 miles out at sea. The Peruvian boat (a former U.S. tug boat once stationed at San Diego) left finally, without imposing a fine. The Peruvians, however, made away with a $2,000 (equivalent to $19,111 today – ed.) speedboat belonging to the ‘Mayflower’. ‘The FISHERMAN’S PROTECTIVE ACT doesn’t cover injuries suffered by our fishermen or loss of property, such as the speedboat,’ Felando said. ‘Fortunately, the wounds of the two crewmen were not serious. They were lucky. Much luckier than the fellow who was gunned down a few years ago by an Ecuadorian. That victim will be paralyzed from the waist down for the rest of his life. He didn’t receive 1¢ for the gunshot wound which crippled him for life.’
ECUADOR LEADS
Numerically, Ecuador leads in total seizures with 43, followed by Peru with 25, Columbia with 5, Panama with 3, and El Salvador and Chile with 1 each. Fishermen are willing to pay for licenses even though the U.S. Government doesn’t recognize the claimed territorial waters of these countries, Feland said. ‘But the $12-per-ton, per trip, rate these countries seek is just too much!’ said Felando. ‘If the entire fleet purchased licenses from Peru on a single trip, it would cost more than $250,000 (equivalent to $2,246,812 today – ed.)
CANNON RANGE
Latin American arguments advanced to support their 200-mile claim are that the 3-mile limit is outdated, having been set up in the day when it represented the distance a cannon ball could be fired to protect a nation’s shoreline*. Other reasons have been given, including protection of their mineral and fish resources, and national security. The fact that our U.S. Congress has voted to extend our fishing rights to 12 miles too lends support to the Latin argument. ‘That’s alright with us,’ said Felando. ‘We don’t mind staying 12 miles offshore, but when you are seized 70 miles at sea, we think it is nothing short of piracy and our government should protect us.”
(*Source: San Diego Union & DAILY BEE – Sunday, October 9, 1966 – Pgs. 103 & 111)
*Editorial Note: The 3-mile territorial limit was determined upon at the 1960 Geneva Convention because the major maritime and naval powers (including the United States and the Soviet Union) clung to that distance at sea primarily because a 12-mile limit would effectively limit, close off, and place under national sovereignty more than 100 straits used for international navigation.
At the start of the conference, only 25 states maintained the traditional claims to a 3-mile territorial sea, while 66 countries had claimed a 12-mile teritorial sea limit. But by the late 1960s, a trend to a 12-mile territorial sea had gradually emerged throughout the world. However, the more powerful maritime and naval powers still insisted on the older 3-mile limit on territorial seas. Originally, that 3-mile limit as a rule of international law, was based upon the customs and practices of the more powerful maritime nations, and was first proposed in 1703 by the Dutch legal writer, Cornelius van Bynkershoeck (1673-1743). It was asserted that the extent of a nation’s dominion over the sea was measured by that nation’s ability to control the sea from land, and that the test of this ability was the range of cannon shot, which was then about 3 nautical miles. (Source: perplexity.ai)