and become a party to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which also recognizes the right to exercise control over its two hundred nautical mile exclusive economic zone. Of course within this framework the Compact preserves the ability of both our Governments to maintain our respective views on such issues as jurisdiction over highly migratory species of fish. Thus, the United States, in its relations with Palau, will adhere to its policy, consistent with international law, of not recognizing any state's claim to exercise or enforce jurisdiction over highly migratory species of fish beyond twelve nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. We anticipate that the Compact will enable our Governments to work together on this issue while pursuing a regional approach to fisheries management. It is the United States view that through international agreements we will be able to resolve any differences with respect to jurisdiction over highly migratory species of fish. With respect to Section 124 (b) of the Compact, it is noted that the United States claims a territorial sea of three nautical miles. However, consistent with Article 3 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and customary international law, the United States recognizes the right of coastal states to claim a territorial sea of up to twelve nautical miles so long as the rights of the United States under international law are recognized by such coastal states. Of course, United States activities both within and beyond twelve nautical miles will be consistent with applicable international law and conventions, including the Compact itself. Sincerely, Fred M. Zeder, II THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE The Honorable Lazarus Salii November 27, 1985 President Republic of Palau Dear Mr. President: In connection with our signing of the Compact of Free Association and reaffirming its related agreements, several questions have arisen with respect to the United States Congressional legislation approving and implementing the Compact. I would like to clarify those matters in this letter. First, as you are aware, the United States Congress, in considering the Compact of Free Association for the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands, has added to the legislation several additional sections clarifying U.S. policy, setting forth procedures and requirements for the U.S. Executive Branch, and interpreting and construing Compact provisions. Some of these provisions deal specifically with the relationship between the United States and one or another of the freely associated states while others, and the majority, relate to the Compact and the free association relationship generally. As you know it is the intention of the United States Congress that these additional sections of general applicability extend as well to Palau, once the Palau Compact is approved and enters into force. Second, the Compact legislation, H.J.Res. 187, as amended by the Senate contains a provision on Palau. This provision expresses the approval of the Congress with respect to the Palau Compact and contemplates a certification from the President of the United States that upon their entry into force, the defense and security provisions of the Compact can be satisfactorily carried out. This certification will be subject to approval by a joint resolution of Congress which will also enact the precise text of the Compact. A similar provision was included in an early version of H.J.Res 187 in the House and we now expect the House to concur in the Senate amendment on Palau. Third, the version of H.J. Res. 187 originally enacted by the House of Representatives on July 25, 1985, contained an amendment initially offered by Representatives Leach of the Foreign Affairs Committee requiring that the United States Executive Branch report to Congress on any exercise of its authority under Compact Section 313 to make determination on the compatability of actions of the freely associated states with United States authority and responsibility for defense and security matters. When Mr. Leach first offered this amendment at the May 2, 1985, Asia and Pacific Subcommittee mark-up of H.J. Res 187, the Administration witness present testified that the Administration had no objection to the amendment and would comply with it, if enacted. Once these reports are given to Congress, they are, except for any classified portions, public documents. Therefore, the Administration would be pleased to undertake to supply your government with the public portion of any reports filed under this amendment at such time as the reports are made available to the Congress. Sincerely, Fred M. Zeder, II THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE The Honorable Lazarus Salii November 28, 1985 President Republic of Palau Dear Mr. President: I have the honor of referring to the agreement we executed in Koror, Palau on November 28, 1985. Please be advised that it is the view of the United States that incorporation of paragraph 3 of such treaty into an appropriate place in Title Three of the Compact of Free Association would not be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Compact and the November 28 treaty referred to above. Sincerely, Fred M. Zeder, ΙΙ THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE The Honorable Lazarus Salii November 27, 1985 President Republic of Palau Dear Mr. President: In connection with our signing of the Compact of Free Association and our reaffirmation of its related agreements, I want to provide your government with the understanding and interpretation of the Government of the United States as respects the requirements for review of and concurrence in the Palau National Development Plan by the Government of the United States. Compact Section 231 (a) contemplates that the United States government will concur in the Palau National Development Plan and that such concurrence shall be for the period of grant assistance provided by the Compact. For example, were Palau to promulgate three successive five year plans to cover the initial fifteen year funding period, United States concurrence in each plan would be required. any The Palau National Development Plan may be amended at time by the Government of Palau. While explicit concurrence by the United States government to any such amendment is not required, the amended plan must remain consistent with the quirements of the Compact and its related agreements and specifically with Compact Section 461 (j). re Language included in the Congressional implementing legislation for the Compact will have no effect on the procedure or requirement specified in Compact Section 231 (a) or this letter. Rather, it addresses a procedure internal to the United States government with respect to reporting requirements imposed |