LOS: (Sanitized)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP82S00697R000400160019-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: T
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 23, 2002
• Sequence Number: 19
• Publication Date: November 13, 1976
• Content Type: CABLE

Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400160019-9
Next 3 Page(s) In Document Exempt
25X1 D
Approved For Release 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP82SO0697R000400160019-9
 4i ~~ car 1, 1 97
Land the ea
Approved For ReIEp,e2 Mj0g1 2SO0697R000400160019
Your Sept. 22 editorial "The U.N. at
Sea," regarding the lack of progress
at the Law of the Sea Conference, was
very timely and, I feel, correct. in its
conclusions. Having visited the L.O.S.
Conference as a Congressional dele-
gate, and meeting with our negotiating
team as well as with representatives-
of. the Group of 77 representing the
third world, I strongly feel that $
completed and approved L.O.S. treaty
is not possible without dramatic,
changes in the current U.S. policy.
The attitudes exhibited by the Group
of 77 indicate to me that since they
do not have the technology necessary
to mine the deep seabed, and since no
one else with the technology is now
mining, they have nothing to lose by
stalling the negotiations until they
receive an even better deal than the
last one offered. The U.S., now almost-
completely dependent on foreign im-
ports for our supply of hard minerals,
cannot run the risk of an OPEC-type
cartel being formed by refusing to take
the necessary actions to protect our
own economic interests.
At the present time nations which
oppose meaningful progress at the
L.O.S. feel that the U.S. will not do
anything on a unilateral basis, and
therefore they have no reason to com-
promise any of their positions. They
have termed our negotiating team's
efforts at reminding the conference
that the U.S. will be forced to take
unilateral, action if a treaty cannot be
negotiated as merely "crying wolf."
We can no longer accept the continued
refusals to negotiate in good faith
without doing grave harm to our own
economic interests.
It is therefore my intention, in
cooperation with the other members
of the committee, to move forward
with legislation at the beginning of the
next Congress authorizing deep-seabed
mining. It is essential that our nation
first protect our own economic sta-
bility and security. Only when we do
this can we be in the position to do
what is necessary and proper in recog-
nizing our duty to the world corn-
munlty. JOHN B. BREAUX
Approved For Relea_4e esq 00697R000400160019
asg oh, ept. ,
The writer is chairman of the House
Subcommittee on Oceanography.
 A .5. erna ivies t6'.- lea", w Treaty
Apovcrcl~tor, Release 2002/06/14; tf~i.9~~1~~0019
Prof. Jahn Norton, Moore appears to but also protect the nation's vital eco-
be afflicted with a terminal case of nomic and security interests in the
treaty4itis [letter Oct. 21]. In his sea.. Such alternatives should include:
analysis of United States oceans policy, (1) Adoption of legislation author-
he makes two fundamental errors: izing and encouraging U.S. companies
e He seems to believe, in the face , to engage in deep seabed mining; (2)
of overwhelming evidence 'to the con- initiation -of negotiations with other
teary, that international law can developed countries possessing seabed-
actually temper the dangerous. am- mining technology in order to establish
bitions o? governments and effectively arrangements to avoid claim conflicts;
limit their foreign-policy actions. (3) strict enforcement of the 200-mile
+1 He apparently believes that writ- fishing zone law; (4) initiation of
ten treaties somehow offer a potential bilateral and multilateral negotiations
for enduring world order in the ocean. with archipelagic and straits states to
Given these beliefs, it is not sur- insure continued rights of military and
pprising to find Professor Moore lament- commercial navigation through straits
ing the lack of progress at the Third and archipelagoes; (5) amendment of
United Nations conference on the Law the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
of the Sea and at the, same time to establish the extent of U.S. con-
denigrating the effect on' ocean order tinental shelf jurisdiction at the edge
of ' actions such as the Mayaguez of the continental margin or 200 miles,
reprisal and enactment of the United whichever is farther seaward, and (6)
States 200-mile exclusive fishery man- taking action, including the insertion
agement zone. ? of naval forces, to preserve existing
World order,. particularly order in ocean rights and freedoms such as?
the ocean, is essentially a product of innocent passage, free navigation in
power. Abdication of the responsibility extended economic zones and the
of power by the United States to a; conduct: of oceanographic research in
paper majority of underdeveloped na- `ocean areas beyond the twelve-mile
tions in the United' Nations will only maximum limit of territorial waters.
create ' a vacuum which -chaos and H. GARY KNIGHT
anarchy will surely fill. Baton Rouge, La., Oct. 26, 1976
It is my view that the United States The writer, Campanile Professor of
A {~Q~31}}~~ ,~a 1b#21 ( 4 ME A~ 82~'& G6 7R0004OO4 0019
'tn ea con ence angin to State nU iversity, is a member of the
pursue alternatives to a Law of the U.S. Advisory Committee on the Law
Sea treaty' which will not only con- of the Sea.