Page images
PDF
EPUB

we do support its general outlines and see them as a statesmanlike effort to bring order into the ocean environment and to see that ocean resources are used to benefit all mankind. Speaking, for a moment, as an individual, I will add that it seems to me that the U.S. Government is de-emphasizing one aspect of its ocean policy.

As you know, the United States Draft Seabed Treaty, presented at the United Nations Seabed Committee in August of 1970, provides that a very substantial portion of the mineral wealth of the outer continental margin, that is, the area beyond 200 meters depth, should be dedicated to the international community, especially to aid developing states. The specific figure is 50 to 66 percent. However, our ocean spokesmen seem to be backing away from this inspiring feature of the draft treaty.

Now, personally, I believe that unless the ocean settlement has generous provision for benefits, that is, substantial revenues from the seabed to aid the developing nations, it will be impossible to achieve these other goals which are much prized by the State Department and by the American business community. And I think they are very desirable myself and so the World Federalists.

I am, of course, referring to stability of expectations, security of investments, and compulsory settlement of disputes. The currents of economic nationalism are very strong in the developing world. Nationalizations, whether of copper mines, oil refineries or other foreign owned businesses, are all too common. It will take a great deal of ingenuity and diplomatic skill to devise an ocean package which on the one hand guarantees a stable economic climate and, on the other, makes a major and direct contribution to the economic development of the less developed states. But, in my view, it will be impossible to secure that climate without establishing that benefit system. I think this happens to be true of the United States of America and the Common Market, as well as the oceans of the World.

I do not have time to comment on the many points that witnesses made in their May testimony in support of this bill. But let me stress, to take one point, that while stockpiling of hard minerals is a sensible and prudent course of action, a drive for economic self-sufficiency, sometimes called autarchy, can have ruinous consequences for international peace. We cannot-and we should not try to-be self-sufficient in all the natural resources we need. What we should try to do is to build a world in which we have easy and friendly access, at fair prices, to the resources we need. Personally, speaking as a Pennsylvanian, I am happy to leave copper production to Montana and, perhaps a few other States. And I imagine that Montanans are happy to leave the production of railroad cars to Pennsylvania.

Senator METCALF. We sure wish you would produce a few and we would be glad to let you have Pennsylvania.

Dr. LOGUE. Most of them are being produced in antique shops and a few other States. It makes sense politically. This interdependence binds us together as a Nation. There is a lesson in this for the world. The industry witnesses also referred to the question of the balance of payments. I am no expert in economics. Far from it. But I have an intuition that if the problems of Southeast Asia had been turned over to the United Nations and to a U.N. peacekeeping force, we

would have saved hundreds of billions of dollars, tens of thousands of American lives and Vietnamese lives, and, I suspect, had much less difficulty with our balance of payments and other financial problems. And strong international institutions could have made the difference.

It is in the tradition of this body to take a long and a broad view of public questions. We hope that you will continue to take that kind of view of the ocean question. If you do we think you may well agree with us that S. 1134 is clever but not wise, and that a close examination of its provisions will persuade you, as it has persuaded us, that the bill undermines the national security of the United States. We hope you will oppose its passage. Thank you very much.

Senator METCALF. Thank you very much, Dr. Logue, for a very interesting, eloquent and persuasive statement.

Senator Buckley.

Senator BUCKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I regret, Dr. Logue, that I was not here at the beginning of your statement, but I did take the opportunity of reading it during the colloquy. I think you have given us much food for thought here. My concerns have to do with this matter of intuition that you referred to at the end, as to what would have happened had the U.N. been placed in charge of Southeast Asia, for example.

Is it politically so structured as to be able to handle problems of that nature and given the very large preponderance of the power in the hands of the smaller and less developed nations, is it plausible that a formula will be arrived at, agreed to, which would be an appropriate world arrangement? I don't know. I don't know, but I have large questions in this general area. I believe that you do point out the fact that were the United States to move in at this point with conferences going on, that it might jeopardize the outcome of those conferences. I should like to ask you, you have obviously been following the total area far more closely than I have. Do you have any "guesstimate" in your own mind as to how much time might go by before a draft treaty is agreed to by the parties, or at least until the draft treaty becomes a treaty in final form?

Dr. LOGUE. I will be surprised if a draft treaty, a comprehensive draft treaty or a package of draft treaties is accomplished by the end of 1974. My own sense of the thing, and many people know a good deal more about it than I, is that it will take into 1975. That there will be not only the spring, I guess the fall session in Santiago, Chile, in April and May of this year, but I imagine there will be a summer session there and possibly a session in the following year in Vienna. But it seems to me by 1975 we should have a fairly clear picture of whether it is going to work. Whether we can get an agreement on the oceans, and I happen to think, Senator, there is a close connection between that question and the question you didn't ask me, namely, to comment on what vou said a moment ago about the structure of the U.N., but I think this is very closely related, because it may be, Senator, that the conference on the Third Law of the Sea Conference will fail and if it does fail, even with a considerable amount of goodwill, it may be that then in ways that we have never done before, the peoples of the world and the nations of the world

will ask themselves, maybe the problem is broader than the oceans. Maybe the problem is the international political system. Maybe, to hurry along the thought that you made, maybe one nation, one vote isn't adequate. Maybe we need more revenues for the United Nations and so forth but I am hoping that some kind of a comprehensive settlement will come out by 1975.

Senator BUCKLEY. Thank you very much. I have no further questions.

Senator METCALF. I would hope that that rather sanguine appraisal would be realized. I pointed out that in 21⁄2 years we have met 2 out of 21, agreed on 2 out of 21, and we have 19 left to agree on. We also have subcommittee 2 and subcommittee 3 to go to work on, so I don't know whether we will arrive at that hopeful goal or not, but I would hope that we can be as optimistic as you are.

Dr. LOGUE. It is really hard to say, of course, Senator, and I think that as the conference itself gets closer, I think the nations are coming to the real positions and not just their bargaining positions, and hopefully we will see some progress.

Senator METCALF. Thank you very much for your appearance here today. As I told you in my introduction, I studied your testimony before the House Committee and we appreciate your views. It was not only well stated, but eloquently stated and this committee, the members of this committee, I think, are just as interested in world development as you are, and certainly every suggestion you have made will be given every consideration.

Dr. LOGUE. I appreciate that, Senator. Thank you very much.

Senator METCALF. Dr. Mangone, we are delighted to have you here. Dr. MANGONE. I apologize for being late, but there is a bit of traffic due to some special visitors we have in Washington today.

Senator METCALF. It is so frequent and so often that Senators are late because of our activities on the floor, that it is nice we don't have to apologize. We are delighted to have you here.

STATEMENT OF DR. GERARD J. MANGONE, PROFESSOR OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND ORGANIZATION, COLLEGE OF MARINE STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE, IN BEHALF OF THE COMMISSION TO STUDY THE ORGANIZATION OF PEACE, NEW YORK CITY

Dr. MANGONE. I am particularly happy to be here, Senator, because the last time I sat across the table from a Buckley was at Yale University with a very young student. He was one of my students. I hope you convey my regards.

Senator BUCKLEY. The last witness was a classmate of mine at Yale.

Dr. MANGONE. My name is Gerard J. Mangone. I am professor of international law and organization at the graduate College of Marine Studies of the University of Delaware. At the invitation of this committee I am appearing as a representative of the Commission to Study the Organization of Peace. For 33 years the Commission has been engaged in studies of world order and international peace and I have been a member of the executive committee for more than 10

years. Among other problems of international relations, the Commission has been particularly concerned about the uses of the oceans and the seabed beyond national jurisdiction. Its 23d report entitled, The United Nations and the Oceans, has just been published and I shall be pleased to submit copies to this committee.

Senator METCALF. It is voluminous?

Dr. MANGONE. Not very.

Senator METCALF. Unless there is an objection, I think it would be appropriate to make it a part of the hearing record immediately after your remarks.

Dr. MANGONE. I appreciate that very much.

Senator METCALF. As you heard me say to the previous witness, it is the desire of this committee to prepare what may well be a text on some of these matters, or at least a reference book. If you don't mind we will incorporate the report in the record.

Dr. MANGONE. Thank you, sir.

At the outset, may I express a personal word of appreciation for the fair way in which these important hearings have been conducted by providing an opportunity for industry on May 17 to express its views, then, by hearing from the administration of June 14; and now by allowing environmental and international groups to make their comments on S. 1134. It is vital that each of these perspectives on the conservation and orderly development of the hard mineral resources of the deep seabed be examined, for while industry, Government and private associations may each share a common goal of rational economic development within a context of international cooperation, the tactics for achieving that goal may profoundly differ. Cordell Hull, both as Senator and as Secretary of State, used to say, "Everyone wants to get to heaven. The problem is how."

The distinguished chairman of this committee indicated in his eloquent opening statement of May 17, 1973 that there is no need to repeat what has already entered in the record concerning this proposed legislation which would essentially provide the Secretary of Interior with authority to issue 15-year mineral exploration licenses in blocks up to 40,000 square kilometers on the deep seabed beyond the national jurisdiction of the United States. Furthermore, if commercial recovery were achieved within 15 years, while the licensee would relinquish 75 percent of his tract, his license would remain in force so long as commercial recovery continued. Although the license would be subject to any international regime agreed to by the United States, there would be no agreement unless such a regime recognized and protected the exclusive right of the licensee to develop the tract for the term of the license previously issued by the Secretary of Interior.

Proponents of this kind of legislation have argued that mining is one of the fundamental supports of the American economy, that the projected worldwide demand for minerals from both domestic and foreign sources, and that, in particular, three ferralloy metals, namely, cobalt, nickel, and manganese found with copper in the nodules lying on the deep seabed are of critical value for industry and strategic value for the nation. So far I can take no exception. It is further alleged, however, that since United States industry is ready and capable

97-898 - 73 - 28

of mining nodules on the bed of the sea beyond the jurisdiction of the United States and since the U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea scheduled for Santiago, Chile in 1974, may not reach an international agreement on a regime for the seabed, the United States should immediately proceed to issue licenses to explore and exploit the ocean floor.

This legislation is urged despite the fact that the United States on May 23, 1970 proposed that all nations renounce all national claims to the seabed beyond the point where the high seas reach a depth of 200 meters, acknowledge that resources of the seabed beyond that depth are the common heritage of mankind, and provide international machinery to regulate exploration and the use of seabed resources beyond the continental margin. This legislation is urged despite the fact that the United States joined 107 other states in the United Nations on 17 December 1970 in declaring that the seabed and ocean floor and the subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction as well as the resources of the area, are the common heritage of mankind and that this area shall not be subject to appropriation by any means by states or persons and that no state shall claim or exercise sovereignty or sovereign rights over any part of it.

The reasons why members of the Commission to Study the Organization of Peace believe this legislation is ill advised at this time rest upon both the economic of mineral exploitation and the dictates of foreign policy.

Representatives of the minerals' industry have made it amply clear that mining nodules from the ocean floor not only requires an advanced technology for lifting the material from great depths of water, but also demands extraordinarily large capital investments and operating costs. Indeed half of these outlays may go into the on-shore processing of the nodules. The conclusion was that only nations with the most modern sophisticated industrial capacity can even entertain the idea of ocean mining. Whom are we talking about? Only the United States, the Soviet Union, Japan, West Germany, and very possibly Great Britain and France could meet these criteria, and maybe possibly China.

Senator METCALF. Or a consortium.

Dr. MANGONE. Yes.

Even in the United States, because of technological complexity, large investment, and competitive land sources of supply, only a very few firms would be able to engage in ocean mining profitably.

Testimony before this committee by an expert representative of industry has already illuminated the severe difficulties associated with the physical recovery of ferromanganese nodules several thousand feet under the sea. Such nodules may contain 30 percent water and, when dry, 30 percent of their weight may be clay. It has been stated, moreover, that only nodules containing from 1.0 to 1.6 percent nickel and .75 to 1.5 percent copper may be of commercial interest. Scientific evidence of ferromanganese deposits of the north Pacific Ocean shows one-half that vast area to be of red clay sediments in which average values of only 0.76 nickel and 0.50 percent copper for the nodules have been calculated. Only nodules in the siliceous oozes, which range very roughly across the 10° north latitude in the Pacific Ocean west of Guatemala and south of Hawaii, seem to average 1.16 percent nick

« PreviousContinue »