ページの画像
PDF
ePub

Mr. Chairman, you and your committee have been most patient, fair and considerate with respect to the administration, the industry and most of all the high-jinks of the U.N. Law of the Sea Conferences. We the industry have not always agreed with you, or appreciated your patience, but we have appreciated the fairness in which you have handled this most important subject. I am here today to again urge you, your committee and Congress to enact domestic legislation which will provide for the orderly development of ocean mining, the protection of the ocean environment and also provide our Law of the Sea Delegation with a strong position from which to continue their negotiations at future Law of the Sea Conferences.

Passage of S. 2053 and the enactment into law of the Deep Seabed Mineral Resources Act will demonstrate to the rest of the world that the United States is ready to move forward with or without them, and that if they want to share in the benefits of the resources which they declared as “common heritage of mankind”, they will have to abandon their ideological disputes and "join the United States' and others in search for reasonable and practical solutions to our problems.

Mr. Chairman, the APGS appreciates this opportunity to present testimony on your Deep Seabed Mineral Resources.

Thank you.

SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY OF T S ARY, OCTOBER 4, 1977 We of the United States industry are concerned and are considering the total amount of the world reserves of nickel, colbalt and manganese which is available. We are looking for a secure, U.S. captive source of these materials. Both my colleagues from INCO and Ambassador Richardson conveniently overlooked or failed to recognize the problems related to the U.S. balance of payments involved in buying commodities abroad and stockpiling them for strategic material used.

As the INCO representative state, the producing countries are friends of the United States, but all you have to do is check the stories coming out of Ottawa and see how anti-U.S., some of the attitudes are with respect to the U.S. foreign investment in Canada. My colleague from Canada is doing exactly what he should, and that is to look after Canada's interests. Therefore, I question if the self-serving intent of his testimony is really in the best interest of the United States. The Canadians are looking first to satisfy their home requirements and then will look to their friends for exports.

As a former ferro-alloy producer, I disagree with the statements made by my colleague from Canada concerning the minor nature and importance of manganese, colbalt and copper contained in the nodules. I think all you have to do is to talk with Phil Hawkins of U.S. Steel to see how important U.S. Steel feels manganese and colbalt are, and visit with our friends from Kennecott relative to their opinion of colbalt and copper. I feel our friends from the north are submitting a lot of “fluff" and are looking out after the self-interest of their parent companies' investments in Canada and around the world. I feel they have taken a devil-may-care attitude toward the United States and the U.S. balance of payments position.

Senator MATSUNAGA. Mr. Lock.

STATEMENT OF REINIER LOCK, CHAIRMAN, SPECIAL COMMIT

TEE ON LAW OF THE SEA, BAR ASSOCIATION OF SAN FRANCISCO

Mr. LOCK. It is an honor for me to appear before the Senate committees in a hearing organized by Senator Metcalf, who has done so much to make the issue of deep-seabed mining part of the public debate, and now especially under the chairmanship of a chairman from an ocean-interest State like Hawaii.

I am Reinier Lock. I am chairman of the Law of the Seas Committee of the San Francisco Bar Association. This special committee has consistently opposed any Government encouragement of unilateral action by U.S. entities in international waters while the Law of the Sea Conference is proceeding.

We feel particularly in the deep-sea-mining area in which the Conference is so deeply divided along the lines Mr. Ary has mentioned, and has raised so many economic issues, we feel in this area particularly unilateral action presents unjustified risks to the Conference that might jeopardize the best prospects we have for rapid achievement of a satisfactory, comprehensive treaty on all of the major issues at the Conference. We believe such a treaty is patently in the best interests of the United States.

I am going to summarize my testimony, Mr. Chairman. I understand my prepared statement will become part of the record. May I also ask a short policy statement attached to my testimony be in the record. This was sent to various congressional committees earlier. It does state basically our policy.

While we note the interim nature of the bill, its welcome environmental provisions, and the careful effort that has been put into trying to conform it to "common heritage” principles and to present realities at the law of the sea negotiations, we nevertheless feel it would amount to a present encouragement by this Government of unilateral activity in the deep-seabed area by our private sector. As such, it would almost certainly be interpreted by some nations as violative of the General Assembly resolution placing a moratorium upon such deep-seabed activities. Even if not binding upon us, this resolution does at least express the strong sentiment of the majority of the nations with whom we are still striving to reach a settlement on this very issue at the Conference. This sentiment is at least one reasonable and logical application of the "common heritage" principle to which our Government has subscribed on many occasions.

I have at this point to disagree with Mr. Ary. The question of deep-seabed mining: It is the position of the State Department, not the position of other nations of the world.

Accordingly, we cannot see how these bills can have anything but a deleterious effect on the present Committee One negotiations which are already seriously deadlocked and so perhaps undermine the entire Conference. We are not convinced that this legislation might, as some have suggested, provide the big stick to pressure the Group of 77 into a more reasonable negotiating posture on Committee One. The risks that it will do just the reverse are simply too great to place reliance on this unsubstantiated theory.

Failure of the Conference could, we feel, provoke a rash of conflicting unilateral claims that might lead to anarchy in ocean space. That is a risk too high to accentuate in any way whatsoever.

The need for orderly international regulation of ocean space is overwhelming. Even a principle so revered as freedom of navigation on the high seas, woven by maritime nations over the centuries into a delicate fabric of customary international law, could otherwise be undermined. If unilaterally proclaimed 200-mile economic or pollution zones become a pretext for undue harassment of or economic burdens on international shipping, the consequences could be devastating. Precious few of our major shipping lanes would remain unaffected; and something like 95 percent of our own international trade, alone valued, I am told, at some $200 billion annually, could be seriously affected.

If we allow the principle of freedom of the high seas to be jeopardized, the long-term consequences of the world economy could be disastrous. Only a treaty insuring international standards, or a series of costly and probably counterproductive Mayaguez incidents would serve to keep our shipping lanes open.

This interest alone far outweighs even the alleged gains promised by proponents if we encourage deep-sea mining at this point.

I need hardly add our other crucial interests that might also be jeopardized: unimpeded passage through international straits; a satisfactory status for the proposed 200-mile economic zones, allowing an appropriate balance between coastal state rights and international concerns; protection of the marine environment; freedom of scientific research; and many others.

On almost every issue on which we have major interests, we have achieved basic agreement and draft treaty provisions that are at least, by and large, acceptable to our delegation, even if not totally satisfactory to all interest groups in this country.

True, our marine scientists are not happy with some provisions, but even there, advances were made at the last Conference session. Otherwise, outside the deep-seabed exploitation area, compromises satisfactory to the United States have been struck. This is a remarkable achievement in the time frame of this Conference, given the large number of complex issues on which most of the 150-odd nations have different priorities.

Yet, we are asked to risk all this for an alleged immediate national interest in proceeding with deep-sea mining-this in the midst of negotiation that increasingly focuses upon a deadlock on that very issue.

That immediate national interest has simply not been demonstrated. While we are cognizant of recent studies suggesting severe mineral shortages in the long term, we note that the majority of experts testifying as to the minerals contained in these manganese nodules do not feel there is a serious danger of either substantial shortages, or of producer cartelization sufficient to cause damaging price increases in the foreseeable future.

And, how much longer are we to be fed the myth that we cannot ultimately survive unless we are substantially self-sufficient in all our basic primary products.

Even a clear showing of an immediate price increase that is so severe as to threaten our economic and security capabilities would have to be weighed against our other crucial interests, some of which I have listed. But such showing has simply not been made. Better we await the outcome of the law of the sea negotiations, which may not be too much longer, than take so massive a risk on such a flimsy pretext.

We should never make the mistake of confusing with our national interest the financial well-being of the companies concerned, or potentially concerned, with seabed mining. Their pioneering efforts in this area of technology are certainly admirable; their entrepreneurship certainly follows one of our finest traditions.

But it has not been our tradition to insure our private sector against political risks that conflict with our national interest in the international arena. It clearly should not be our policy now. If the claim of some mining companies concerned that their technology may become blunted by the delay is substantiated, we might consider some means of preserving it; but that would be a far more modest proposition than this bill proposes.

In conclusion, our major concern is that our Government, Congress, or the administration not lose sight of our long-term interests at a time when so much of the focus, both in Congress and at the Law of the Sea Conference, is upon the narrow, relatively less crucial but surely vexatious issue of deep-seabed exploitation.

Further, we are concerned that the frustrations of dealing with this issue does not make us too readily assume that a comprehensive treaty is expendable.

I detect a growing sentiment in this town that as we have reached satisfactory compromises on most issues at the Conference, we might hope to establish customary international law along these lines by unilateral action, as indeed we did with the Truman Proclamation on the Continental Shelf.

I am skeptical that we could expect the same result in the present international context. If this Government were to act too hastily on a misplaced assumption along these lines, it might destroy the tremendous achievements of our negotiators and much of the sophisticated work done in the area by our legislators and by the executive-most recently by one of the finest administrators this country has known. If all that were jeopardized, this Government would have much explaining to do to generations of Americans to come.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for the present shortage of copies of my testimony, however, I am afraid the printer was not quite as speedy as I thought he would be. I have arranged to have copies dropped off in room 3106 behind us, so if anyone in the audience wishes to pick them up, they may do so.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lock and a policy statement of the Bar Association of San Francisco follows: STATEMENT OF REINIER LOCK, CHAIRMAN, SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE LAW OF

THE SEA, BAR ASSOCIATION OF SAN FRANCISCO Senators, it is an honor for me to appear before these Senate Committees in hearings organized by Senator Metcalf, who has done so much to make the issue of deep seabed mining part of the public debate.

The Bar Association of San Francisco, on whose behalf I appear today, long ago recognized the crucial importance of the Law of the Sea Conference to the interests of the United States, both short- and long-term. It established a Special Committee to keep abreast of developments at the Law of the Sea negotiations and to monitor the activities of our government in relation to these negotiations. Its contributions to the public interest were recognized by an Award of Merit for Overall Excellence at the last convention of the American Bar Association.

Of major concern to the Special Committee has been the disruptive potential on the negotiations of unilateral action in the oceans by our own, or any other, government by the private sector.

The Special Committee has consistently opposed any government encouragement of unilateral action by U.S. entities in international waters while the staus of ocean space is being negotiated at the Law of the Sea Conference. Particularly in the deepsea mining area, on which the Conference is deeply divided along ideologicallycharged lines that raise many of the so-called “North-South” issues, we feel that unilateral action presents unjustified risks.

Such actions might undermine our own negotiating positions and leverage. Worse, it might jeopardize the best prospects for rapid achievement of a satisfactory, comprehensive treaty on all the major issues at the Conference.

For this reason, we have opposed earlier deepsea mining bills, as far back as 1973, and we made our views known in writing to Congress. In July of this year, we reexamined this position and concluded that our earlier position remained valid-a view we expressed by letter to those Congressional committees we felt might be concerned with the issue. May I please ask that a copy of our letter to Senator Sparkman, which is identical in form to the others, be included in the record as part of our tesimony.

We also supported, in a 22-page policy letter to Secretary Kissinger in 1975, the Administration's refusal to protect the "claim" of Deepsea Ventures, Inc. to mine a large portion of the Pacific floor. We questioned, however, the advisability of the State Department's view that such activities might proceed as a “reasonable use” of the high seas and urged positive discouragement of such activity.

The economic risks to the companies concerned of proceeding with operations in the face of negotiations that might produce a treaty limiting their operations has apparently provided that discouragement. Now we are asked, in S. 2053, to provide conditions which will remove that discouragement and, in 1980 (or earlier if the Administration so deems), to provide positive financial encouragement of such activities.

While we note the "interim” nature of the bill, its welcome environmental provisions, and the careful effort that has been put into trying to conform it to “common heritage” principle and to present realities at the Law of the Sea negotiations, we nevertheless feel it would amount to a present encouragement by this government of unilateral activity in the deep seabed area by our private sector. As such, it would almost certainly be interpreted by some nations as violative of the General Assembly resolution placing a moratorium upon such deep sea bed activities. Even -if not binding upon us, this resolution does at least express the strong sentiment of the majority of the nations with whom we are sill striving to reach a settlement on this very issue at the Conference. This sentiment is at least one reasonable and logical application of the "common heritage” principle, to which our government has subscribed on many occasions.

Accordingly, we cannot see how this bill can have anything but a deleterious effect on the present Committee I negotiations, already seriously deadlocked, and so perhaps undermine the entire Conference. We are not convinced that this legislation might, as some have suggested, provide the “big stick" to pressure the Group of 77 into a more reasonable negotiating posture on Committee I. The risks that it will do just the reverse are simply too great to place reliance on this unsubstantiated theory.

Failure of the Conference could, we feel, provoke a rash of conflicting unilateral claims that might lead to anarchy in ocean space. That is a risk too high to accentuate in any way whatsoever.

The need for orderly international regulation of ocean space is overwhelming. Even a principle so revered as freedom of navigation on the high seas, woven by maritime nations over the centuries into a delicate fabric of customary international law, could otherwise be undermined. If unilaterally proclaimed 200-mile economic or pollution zones become a pretext for undue harassment of or economic burdens on international shipping, the consequences could be devastating. Precious few of our major shipping lanes would remain unaffected; and something like 95% of our own international trade, alone valued, I am told, at some $200 billion annually, could be seriously affected. If we allow the principle of freedom of the high seas to be jeopardized, the long-term consequences on the world economy could be disastrous. Only a treaty ensuring international standards, or a series of costly and probably counterproductive Mayaguez incidents would serve to keep our shipping

This interest alone far outweighs even the alleged gains promised by proponents if we encourage deep sea mining of this point.

I need hardly add our other crucial interests that might also be jeopardized:

Unimpeded passage through international straits; a satisiactory status for the proposed 200-mile economic zones, allowing an appropriate balance between coastal state rights and international concerns; protection of the marine environment; freedom of scientific research; and many others.

On almost every issue on which we have major interests, we have achieved basic agreement and draft treaty provisions that are at least by and large acceptable to our delegation, if not totally satisfactory to all interest groups in this country. True, our marine scientists are not happy with some provisions, but even there, advances were made at the last Conference session. Otherwise, outside the deep seabed exploitation area, compromises satisfactory to the United States have been struck. This is a remarkable achievement in the time frame of this Conference, given the large number of complex issues on which most of the 150-odd nations have different priorities.

Yet, we are asked to risk all this for an alleged immediate national interest in proceeding with deepsea mining—this in the midst of a negotiation that increasingly focuses upon a deadlock on that very issue.

lanes open.

« 前へ次へ »