1789 



The role of private enterprise in the extraction of petroleum and 

 hard minerals from the seabed is another subject of diplomatic con- 

 cern. Technologists in private companies are pursuing developments 

 in deep sea drilling, the raising of manganese nodules from the ocean 

 floor, prospecting for submarine deposits of minerals, extractive 

 metallurgy of seabed minerals, and operation of submerged oil rigs. 

 Meanwhile, the diplomatic community is wrestling with a host of 

 problems like sovereign rights to the ocean floor, protection and 

 regulation of seabed property rights, and equitable treatment of 

 claims by landlocked nations to a share of submarine resources. In 

 this broad area of activity, cooperation is essential between the diplo- 

 matic community and the technological entrepreneurs. Resolution of 

 the diplomatic problems must relate in its timing to the development 

 of technical capabilities to recover seabed resources economically, and 

 vice versa. This problem of timmg, m fact, is quite characteristic of 

 modern diplomatic technology generally. The contemporary problems 

 tend to be long-range and to require long-range planning. Present 

 decisions will determine the state of diplomatic technology two decades 

 hence. 



One of the most interesting contemporary problems has to do with 

 constructive ways of "recycling petrodollars." The rising prices of 

 oil from the Middle East result in an enormous accumulation of 

 dollar exchange in the possession of the oil-producing countries. 

 Characteristically, these countries are technologically "undeveloped," 

 despite their great wealth. They have the choice of spending this 

 wealth on consumer goods or on the capital equipment and infra- 

 structure required for a soundly based, balanced, diversified industrial 

 economy. The shape of the future global economy to develop out of 

 this present decision has diplomatic significance for the United 

 States: should the oil-producing countries be encouraged to become 

 mutually advantageous trading partners with the United States or to 

 develop economies in sharp competition with U.S. industry for world 

 markets? In the special case of the Soviet Union, can U.S. assistance in 

 the development of Siberian oil and gas reserves encourage a more 

 modern, possibly consumer- oriented, production system in the 

 U.S.S.R. or will it permit a continuation of Soviet emphasis on arms 

 production and military support? 



Both developed and developing countries are concerned with their 

 ability to exercise sovereignty over the foreign-based multinational 

 corporations that have penetrated their territories and economies. 

 These concerns extend to such matters as corporate control, use of 

 foreign management personnel, corporate policy decisions adverse to 

 national economic or social interest, excessive payments for the use of 

 foreign patents and technologies, tax evasions, insuflBcient return on 

 exported raw materials, and technological incompatibility with the 

 host country's industry. As the leading nation in providing a home 

 base for multinational corporations, the United States has a strong 

 diplomatic interest in minimizing adverse impacts of these institutions 

 on U.S. foreign relations and diplomatic goals. In the long run, the 

 corporations themselves share this interest. Provisions for cooperative 

 coordination of overseas activities of U.S. -based multinational 

 corporations in the interests of U.S. diplomacy would seem to be 

 generally advantageous to the corporations and to all the countries 

 involved. 



