Laserfiche WebLink
<br />w <br />(0 <br />co <br />(.iO <br /> <br />'~' <br /> <br />'-../ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />After the Committee was reconstituted, it was invited to <br /> <br />Ivashington to hear what the State Department had determined the <br /> <br />legal position of the United States to be. <br /> <br /> <br />It appeared that there were only four options open to the <br /> <br />United States: <br /> <br />The first one was to defend a suit brought by the Republic <br /> <br />of Mexico in the World Court. <br /> <br />The second was to submit the matter to arbitra~ion under <br /> <br />the Pan-American Convention. <br /> <br />A third possibility would be to "stonewall" the situation. <br /> <br />The fourth and final alternative was to negotiate a settle- <br /> <br />ment. <br /> <br />The State Department counsel pointed out that under inter- <br /> <br />national law, the position of Mexico that "any contamination of <br /> <br />international water by one of the riparian countries that causes <br /> <br />damage or loss to the other riparian party is in itself an act <br /> <br />clearly and specifically condemned by International Law" was <br /> <br />correct. <br /> <br />Under those circumstances, it appeared clear that options <br /> <br />one and two were not really available to the United States. <br /> <br />Neither was the option of "stonewalling" the situation <br /> <br />really avai~able, because that would only provoke action by the <br /> <br />Republic of Mexico, either before the Pan-American Tribunal or <br /> <br />the World Court. <br /> <br />Under those circumstances, and after listening to the <br /> <br />remarks of the State Department counsel, we all came home <br /> <br />,,~- <br />