But, if as I have suggested earlier, the international operating enterprise will ultimately be discarded in these negotiations in favor of some other system more like that one proposed by the United States for a licensing and regulatory system, then I think it would be much easier at that point in the negotiation to return to this article and arrive at what I think would be an acceptable. compromise for the United States.

Senator METCALF. Now, the whole point of this series of questions, and I am going to take some of the others all together, is to lead up to the last two questions I have.

For instance, text 15 contains alternative texts pertaining to the rights of coastal States; text 16 is heavily bracked and pertains to the status of waters superjacent to the area; text 17, heavily bracketed, pertains to the multiple uses of the marine environment; text 18 is also bracketed and reflects disagreement over the issue of liability for damages arising out of activities conducted in the area; text 19, bracketed, deals with and illustrates disagreement over access by landlocked States to and from the area; text 20 pertains to archeological and historical objects found in the area.

Now, this is my question. This is the first of the last two questions I am going to propound. I am told that some delegates feel that reaching agreement on the identification of the issues-merely on the identification of issues on which they disagree represents a substantial achievement. Others state that there is much more agreement than seems evident by the assorted collection of bracketed and alternative texts.

They say that they are insisting on bracketed language and alternative texts on issues on which they already fully agree just to preserve "bargaining chips" for the 1973 Law of the Sea Conference. Others state that they insist on bracketed language and alternative texts to preserve and maximize their options in dealing with texts pertaining to machinery and texts to be prepared by the other two subcommittees as draft treaty articles on other law of the sea issues. Still others more soberly conclude that it will be impossible to conduct a successful Law of the Sea Conference in 1974 because of a gross lack of agreement on fundamental issues and a woeful lack of adequate preparatory work.

With so much disagreement over 19 out of the 21 articles we discussed, can you honestly say that the more pessimistic view is not the most accurate?

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I believe that it is important to neither overestimate nor underestimate the degree of progress which we have. achieved to date in the preparatory work for the Law of the Sea Conference.

I think there are a number of factors which suggest very strongly that it is possible to achieve agreement on the range of issues in the conference, not just the issues that are in the draft articles on the international regime, but also all of the other issues that are at stake in these negotiations as well.

So, I do not share the pessimism that the kinds of bracketed text that we have here suggest that it would not be possible to achieve a timely and successful conference.

97-898 O-73-20

As we indicated, the rule of consensus means that it is easy to overestimate the disagreements simply by looking at the brackets. In addition, I think a really important point is that there are really a number of these issues that are the more important political issues. Much of the bracketed disagreement reflects points that may not go to the central heart of the political issues in the negotiations, so that I am optimistic that in fact it will be possible to achieve a timely and successful conference.

On the other hand, I think it is very important that the nations of the world participating in these negotiations go to the Seabed Committee session this summer in the spirit of proceeding with our preparatory work, in the spirit of negotiating with other nations and recognizing what their fundamental interests may be, and that we not be satisfied by any means with the kind of preparatory work that has gone on.

I think we also should keep in mind that the extent of the draft articles we have here on the principles concerning the international seabed authority represent a significant portion of the number of articles that are likely to be in the final convention. In some other areas, when a substantial portion of the work that remains to be done is completed, we can reach agreement on the articles, I am happy to say, with far fewer articles than are involved here in the Principles paper and in the Machinery paper.

Senator METCALF. The staff has informed me that I have omitted an important question. I would like to ask this question and have it just ahead of the response to the last question.

Text 9 containing four alternative formulations, deals with "Who May Exploit the Area." Formulation A limits exploration and exploitation to contracting parties or groups of contracting parties or persons under their authority or sponsorship.

Formulation B provides that scientific research, exploration and exploitation of the area shall be conducted by the authority directly or through service contracts with persons natural or judicial.

Formulation C provides that exploration and exploitation shall be conducted by the authority either directly or in such other manner as it may determine including the granting of licenses to contracting parties or groups of contracting parties, or through them to persons natural or judicial under their authority or sponsorship. Formulation D, which is similar to formulation A, additionally provides that "The authority may decide, within the limits of its financial and technological resources, to conduct such activities." Achieving a mutually satisfactory resolution of the who may exploit, issue would seem to be one of the sine qua nons for a succesful Law of the Sea Conference.

How do you think that you are going to resolve that issue? Mr. RATINER. Mr. Chairman, I could not in open session tell you how I think we are going to resolve the issue, but what I can say is that you are quite right in identifving article 9 as the sine qua non of a successful progress of our negotiations.

I think when article 9 is agreed your most of the brackets that we have talked about and the language inside of those brackets will probably disappear.

Article 9 presents the issue of, is there going to be an international operating enterprise. Now, for the sake of progress in the negotiations I think what is going to happen during this summer session as we come to the issue, the whole summer session really revolves around the question of article 9.

What we will be doing is drafting alternative articles for a new international organization and those alternative articles will basically reflect what is in formulation A and in formulation C. And at some point closer to the end of the negotiations a choice will be made, a major political decision will be made between those alternatives. As soon as that occurs one set of the alternative articles will become the logical ones to work from. They will be polished. The compromises will then be possible and a completed treaty will be very much possible for us to negotiate in a relatively short period of time.

If, on the other hand, we try to resolve article 9 right now, in principle we would never get about the business of drafting the necessary implementing articles, that is, how is the international organization going to be established, how will it function, what will be its powers, and so forth.

So that I think that article 9 simply records the fact that there are basically four-really three major positions. One is only states and their licensees will exploit the area; the other is that the international authority will exploit the area through service contracts with private enterprise, presumably .The third possibility is the one shown in formulation D, which is that states and their licensees would exploit the area and that the authority might get into that business much later or when it has technological and financial resources as a competitor with all of the other enterprises then functioning in the seabed.

Those are the three choices and I think that when the necessary political compromises are reached on this point that the rest of this treaty will fall very neatly into place.

So, what I am predicting is that this summer's meeting will produce a set of treaty articles on an organization which will basically be two sets of formulas. One to correspond to formulation A, another will probably correspond more to formulation C. And when the choice is finally made we will work on one set or the other.

Senator METCALF. Do you anticipate coming up to the U.S. Senate and asking for ratification of a treaty which turns over to an international authority the exploration and exploitation of the deep seabeds?

Mr. RATINER. Senator, I do not anticipate bringing to the U.S. Senate a treaty which gives exclusive authority to an international organization to exploit the seabeds, no, sir.

I think Mr. Stevenson's speech on August 10, was very clear on that point.

Senator METCALF. Perfectly clear, which leads me to the last question. It isn't the last question .of course, because this matter is going to go over and we are going to have you up here to tell us about the developments at your conference when we get back in September. We have a continuing and abiding interest in what goes on and a concern that this country will maintain its appreciation

for the need of developing countries of the world, just as much as we have a concern for the needs of our own industry.

It has taken 212 years with five sessions of the U.N. Seabed Committee's subcommittee 1 to draft 21 texts for the seabed treaty. And you have arrived at agreement on only two of such texts.

With only one session left to draft texts for the rest of the entire seabed treaty to include machinery and other important matters, plus all the articles which subcommittees 2 and 3 are charged with preparing, how can you expect to be prepared for a 1974 conference, and how can you expect such a conference to succeed?

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, the task is indeed not easy and I believe that it puts a premium on the States that will be participating in the Seabed Committee this summer to work as expeditiously as they can.

I think there are a number of factors that suggest cautious optimism at this point. One of those is that for much of the past 211⁄2year period there were greater differences with respect to the desirability of holding a Law of the Sea Conferences than I believe is now the case.

My perception of the international feeling as a result of watching this in the March/April meeting of the Seabed Committee is that there has in fact been a substantial commitment by essentially all of the nations of the world to a timely Law of the Sea Conference on the General Assembly schedule, and that the other nations are also very aware at the present time of our need to expedite the preparatory task.

The second point I would make is that in terms of the bulk of the articles in the final convention itself much of the bulk of those articles is reflected in the draft articles we have just completed going through.

Senator METCALF. Most of which are heavily bracketd?

Mr. MOORE. Most of which are heavily bracketed, yes.

The other kinds of draft articles, at least in some of the most important political areas, for example, the question of resource jurisdiction of the coastal states beyond the Territorial Sea basically can be drafted rather easily and rather quickly.

The problem really is a major and basic political problem of reaching agreement on things such as the limitation of the area in article 1 for example, reaching agreement on the kinds of resource jurisdiction, the limits of the area, and the appropriate international standards that will be applied in those areas.

And I believe as the work of the committee proceeds and as we proceed toward a conference and begin to reach a concensus of those issues that the drafting task can go forward hopefully rather quickly.

But, I would not like at all to underestimate the difficulties. These are extremely complex multilateral negotiations and all nations need to approach the conference and the last session of the Seabed Committee scheduled prior to that conference in a spirit of wanting to get down to work, as Ambassador Malleck put it at the begining of the last session.

Senator METCALF. I am going to try to share your optimism and euphorically hope for a very successful Conference and a resolution of these problems. But I assure you that I hope you are prudently going forward with alternative legislation as was previously suggested.

Mr. MOORE. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we certainly will continue to assess the situation carefully and if at any point it looks as though there will not be a timely or successful Conference we will consider alternative legislative approaches to fully protect our interests. Senator METCALF. Well, I want to thank you all. I am glad to have you here, Captain Yost, today.

Captain YoST. Thank you.

Senator METCALF. I want to thank you for coming and discussing this matter-very forthrightly, I think. We have in the course of these hearings written some definitive ideas on what the problems are and I think your answers have been helpful and forthright.

This is a continuing question that this committee is going to have as much interest in and concern for as you have. We share our concern. I am sure our differences are not any more bracketed than some of the suggestions you have made in the text.

I hope that you will continue to keep us informed. We will, I am sure, continue to work with you for the development of this important technological opportunity for resources for the world.

Mr. MOORE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity. We do greatly appreciate your interest in these issues and the fact that you share our sense of the importance of these issues.

This is an area in which you may be assured that we wish to work as closely as possible with the Congress in every way. So, we again wish to thank you for the opportuniey of being here today. Senator METCALF. Thank you very much. Thank

you all.

The committee will be in recess until Monday at 2 p.m. when we will hear spokesmen for the environmental groups.

Thank you very much.

[Whereupon, at 3:10 p.m. the committee was recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m., Monday, June 18, 1973.]