DECISION MEETING OF APRIL 5, 1982

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP84B00049R000300460006-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 17, 2006
• Sequence Number: 6
• Publication Date: April 7, 1982
• Content Type: MEMO

Appr d. For ease 20~ (02/08: CIA-RDP84B00049R000300460006-8
United States I )Pnnrtment r,f ii- T,,tPi
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
Memorandum
To: James Buckley, Chairman, Senior Interagency Group on' the
Law of the Sea
From: Donald Paul Hodel
Under Secretary
Subject: Decision Meeting of April 5, 1982
In accord with NSDD 20, the Senior Interagency Group developed instructions
for the delegation; the Group was to oversee the course of the negotiations,
and thus, implicitly, agree to any change to be made to these instructions.
On this basis, the decision meeting of April 5 was called to review changes
in instructions recommended. by Ambassador Malone, chairman of the delegation.
We appreciate the sensitivity of this moment in the Law of the Sea negoti-
ations, but must advise you of our concerns regarding both the strategy
and substance proposed. by Ambassador Malone at the April .5 meeting.
While we understand a majority of the Senior Interdepartmental Group
preferred adopting a "flexible" approach to negotiations in an attempt to
prevent early dismissal of. the U.S. as a viable negotiating posture, we do
not believe- the assessment* package distributed prior to the meeting repre-
sents a position consonant' with the President's six objectives of NSDD 20.
The package may well bring some progress in negotiations, but marginal
improvements to an oppressive negotiating text provide little benefit to
the U.S. On-the one hand, participan;:s may be led to believe. we now prefer
a treaty, even at substantial cost to the U.S.,.having conceded. a- number of
significant earlier concerns. And on the other, our efforts via this package
might attract. those "on the fence" while remaining unacceptable to the Senate
and the mining industry as well as the President -- thus isolating ourselves
and perhaps creating the perception of disingenuousness when other partici-
pants find we will not or cannot move to ratify.
Each item listed in Ambassador Malone's assessment by itself is not sufficient
to cause our concern. Rather, it is the sum of these parts which, again,
may create a perception, quite in a political sense, that the President,
or his staff, is backing off firmly held objectives which started this
Administration's thrust toward a reasonable international framework for
deep seabed mining of strategic metals.
GDS 4/4/88
Derivative Dept. of State Memorandum
(L. Paul Bremer, III) dtd 4.Apr 82
applies.
Approved For Releas 7, ./Q GRE TD841300049R0003004kD06--dCC
 Approved For Release
PV41300049R000300460006-8
2.
It is the understanding of this Department that the decision agreed to at
the meeting Under your chairmanship on April 5, 1982, was limited to items:
(1) an agreement to relax the instruction regarding removal of the limita-
tion of production of seabed minerals (Item 3B(l), Attachment 3 of your
memorandum of April 4) and (2) a removal of the instruction regarding the
need for affirmative vote (item 31 of Attachment 3), and was not a blanket
endorsement of the package presented in Attachment 1 to that memorandum.
While not making, at this time, specific objection to the two changes noted
above, we would like to note that the limitation of production of seabed
minerals remains a point of philosophical concern to this Department, even
though projections indicate that the. potential direct impact on seabed
mining may be limited to the mechanism of allocation under the
production limitation procedures may well inhibit the orderly development
of seabed mining under free market conditions.
Further, the lack of affirmative voting potential has two adverse effects:
first, it makes difficult the modification of.the' rules, regulations, and
procedures of the Council,' as may well be needed as the industry develops,
and as other minerals'become important; second, it places added emphasis
upon the' necessity for significant voting strength'.in the Preparatory
Commission. The-question of composition and voting in this Preparatory
Commission has been only lightly addressed; we question whether.the United
States can expect a more significant role in the Preparatory Commission
than it can obtain in the Council proper.
It was our understanding that the above. constituted the whole of the
decision- which was being addressed. In spite of the description of. the.
substance of Attachment 1 as a "complete package," we find that the package
is too vague and subjective to allow for agreement as being adequate for. this
Administration and as meeting the President's objectives as stated on January 29,
1982.'.-While the continuation of negotiations. is a laudabl-e goal, we must
not allow these negotiations to erode the substance of the- firmly stated
objectives, and particularly considering the precedent-setting .nature of
many aspects of the proposed Convention as related to the New International
Economic Order theses of the developing countries..
-Particularly in light of-the President's Minerals - Policy statement of
April 5, it is" important 'that the United States maintains the option for
recovery of seabed minerals under our jurisdiction, both manganese nodules
and other potential mineral resources of the seabed, while allowing the
marketplace to determine the rate of development.
Mr. Chairman, we do not wish to appear obstructive of the fine and tireless
efforts of State's principals. Your personal efforts.to insure that
negotiating progress over the coming weeks remains attuned to the President's
objectives and, insofar as possible, the original or only slightly revised
instructions would greatly ease our concerns.
Approved For Release 2007/02 8 I 9R000300460006-8.
BEGR ET
 Approved For Release 2007/02/08 CIA-RDP84B 049R000300460006-8
3.
We would deeply appreciate your transmittal to this Department of any draft
memorandum summarizing the decision reached at the subject meeting. If the
stated decision markedly differs from the understanding noted above, this
Department would not concur, and would seek consideration by the President
in conformity with NSDD 20. In short, we do not concur that the existing
instructions, with the two changes noted, are adequate to cover all the
issues proposed in the Delegation Chairman's Assessment and its appendix
and that a convention meeting the vague "bottom line" presented would fall
far short of providing a ratifiable text.
cc: Senior Interagency Grou
on Law. of . the Sea
Approved For Release 2007/02/08 : CIA-RDP84B00049R000300460006-8