U.S. OCEANS POLICY AND LAW OF THE SEA

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP83M00914R001000100002-2
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 21, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 31, 2009
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: September 30, 1982
• Content Type: MEMO

Approved For Release 2009/03/31 : CIA-RDP83M00914RO01000100002-2
Sept3mber 30, 1982
CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT
THE SECRETARY OF STATE
-THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE .
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
THE SECRETARY OF LABOR
THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION
THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY
COUNSELLOR TO THE PRESIDENT-
THE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT
AGENCY
AND'BUDGET
THE DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE TO THE
UNITED NATIONS
CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE PRESIDENT
DEPUTY-CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE PRESIDENT
CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISORS
CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
SUBJECT: U.S. Oceans Policy and Law cf the Sea
- (NSDD-58) (C)
The President has approved the attached National. Security
and Law
Polic
y
Decision Directive on United States Oceans
the Sea. (C)
F i Approved For Release 2009/03/31 : CIA-RDP83M00914RO01000100002-2
SYSTEM II
90765
 Approved For Release 2009/03/31 : CIA-RDP83M00914R001000100002-2
July 23, 1982
The Editor + ^'~`" J
1%ashington Post
1150 15th St., N . h .
Washinaton, D. C. 20071
ZX-ica1V negsic}`~ ? J~Jr I
Letter to the Editor: 04
C.tlI
The article by Mary McGrory on the Law of the Sea
treaty (July 22) contains several inaccuracies. I would
like to comment on these statements which are misleading
and should be corrected.
First, President Reagan did not desregard the facts
concerning the Law of the Sea treaty, nor did he ignore
advice of his senior people. On the contrary, the
President went to exceptional lengths to get the facts
on the treaty and to reach an agreement on the treaty.
Very early in his administration, he saw that many of
the provisions of the treaty were not in conformity with
our national interests and economic and political prin-
ciples. Accordingly, he directed that an exhaustive
Administration-wide review be made of the treaty. This
thorough analysis clearly revealed for the first time
the many major deficiencies of the treaty text. Follow-
ing a detaided discussion of the results of the review,
President Reagan stipulated six objectives which needed
to be met in the Law of the Sea negotiations. A maximum
effort was then made by the U.S. Delegation to the UNCLOS
Conference to achieve those goals. However, the nego-
tiating effort failed. The final treaty text which
emerged from the Conference did not accommodate even
one of the President's stated objectives. All of our
key national interests with respect to ocean mineral re-
sources were totally rejected by the Third World and
Soviet bloc deleations. Under these circumstances,
President Reagan could hardly have been expected to
abandon economic and political principles that sustain
our society for the sake of a fundamentally flawed
treaty.
Second, ocean mining simply will not be commer-
cially viable under the Law of the Sea treaty. It
actually deters efficient mining of the seabeds, and
it fails to provide our American miners with assured
access to ocean minerals. This result would deprive
the United States of a supply of certain strategic
and critical minerals needed for our industry and de-
fense. The American companies now comprising the deep-
sea minig industry have made it clear that they could
not and would not invest money under the treaty. More-
over, commercial banks will not lend money for mining
operations under the treaty. Fortunately, there is a
reasonable opportunity of achieving an alternative sea-
bed mining regime now being pursued by the Reagan Ad-
.Q?6; t4 PQ Aow-i _--,.
Approved For Release 2009/03/31 : CIA-RDP83M00914R001000100002-2
 - z -
Approved For Release 2009/03/31 : CIA-RDP83M00914RO01000100002-2
Third, as _.;.=nen. lecal scholars have poi-. -d out,
the treaty's navication rovisions not provide
the United States with lint-:bicuouS free transit of straits
for our military and commercial ships and planes. Nor
would they provide assurances that f reedos of navigation
and communication would be preserved against i n=r i nge_^ents
of the treaty's 200-mile wide economic zones by foreign
coastal nations. Since the advantages of the treaty's
navigation provisions are not readily apparent, we should
not be hasty in abonaoning customary international law
that provices the United Sates with navigation rights
that are centuries-old in their use and inte roretation
and are `very bit as good as those of the treaty.
Fourth, nary i'cGory in interviewing Elliot Richardson
and Leigh Ratiner avoided the fundamental cuest^n of
boL+ many of our basic economic and political /r-nclples
must be Sacrificed for such a treaty. For example, the
treaty's production limitations on seabed mining run
directly counter to our strong belief in the free market
yai: . .'-.~-te =u_e S a ,
S S t e r1Ccn ; nii:C c0. ,: +.c.i:; .would be compelled to
Lunn over their proorietary seabed mining and processing
technology on an^ uncertain compensation basis to the UN-
o ned mining company, the Enterprise, as a condition to
their mining ocean minerals. V=eover, the treaty pro-
vides for funding of terrorist croups such as the + PLO.
The treaty's interpretation of the "Common rierltace of
an^_ind" is contrary to our interpretation tha-~- 7rooeIty
c'.:ne_ shi p o_ seabed resources devolves upon t'---se -.-ho
take the risks to identify the resources and develop
them. in this conte.xt, ho-v; .,any American princi tiles
would be too l or ._ssrs. Racrardson and Ratiner to
sacrifice for the sake of the treaty? Obviously, four
principles would be too few to scrap for these archi-
tects of so much that is .wrong with the Law of the Sea
treaty.
The world is not ready for a United Nations "one-
nation, one-vote" global management scheme that at
enormous cost to the U.S. t?~.:_~a~'er would control the
development and exoloi.taiton ofl deep seabed resources
covering t::o-thirds of the earth's submerged land-s.
Such global management of the earth's resources rep-
resents the substitution of UN administrative organs
and bureaucracy for the free play of basic economic
forces i n to market place. It gives the Third .world
the pc-.. er to decide what we firmly believe free enter-
prise should decide-
10,@ L B. reatir_g
-:per, U_S_ Delegation
to the Third U.N_ Conference
on the Law of the Sea
Approved For Release 2009/03/31 : CIA-RDP83M00914RO01000100002-2
 - - Approved For Release 2009/03/31 : CIA-RDP83M00914R001000100002-2
ouse ct
ho t ute Ltght& 0 B 4
The president's penchant for not confus- The U.N. view the sere as the tom
ing himself with the facts is well know;?n. I of
n' mon heritage of mankind" was dangerous a . .
the case of the Law of the Sea treaty, ht I nonsense to i granted navigational safeguards under i
R -ag;an. The notion that we ternational law-"R'e cannot pick ar
seems to have gone to eacept;onal lengths would coin, cue with uppity Third World : choose among rights and obligations."
Washington Post Staff Writer Lou Can- ?. countries for rights to mine the seabeds Under
def
non has passed on what President Reagan was an affront. Pe`'~ -?felt that pro1 line broke. Pm'an'entagon the idPeollogues ogues held th
G - '
said at the National Security Council meet-, ' establishment of an International Seabed strategic minerals under the seabed const
ing at which h
Authority was the m t b1
o
d
id
e
ec
ed not ti t
o sgn areat
y that covers two-thirds of the world's sur.
ace and took 14 years to negotiate:
"We're policed and patrolled on land,
and there is so much r ovulation that I kind
of thought that when you go out on the
high seas you can do what you want," he
said, proud apparently that no data clogged
his mind.
To pre*~erve his ignorance, Reagan never