1579 



At this time the Secretary also took note of several other issues to 

 be faced when the Law of the Sea Conference reconvened in Xew 

 York in 1976 : 



Wa,ys must be found to oncounigo marine scientific research for the benefit of 

 all mankind while safeguarding the legitimate interests of coastal states in their 

 economic zones. 



Steps must be taken to protect the oceans from pollution. We must establish 

 uniform international controls on pollution from ships and insist upon universal 

 respect for environmental standards for Continental Shelf and deep seabed 

 exploitation. 



Access to the sea for landlocked countries must be assured. 



There must be provisions for compulsory and impartial third-party settlement 

 of disputes. The United States cannot accept unilater;^! interpretation of a treaty 

 of such scope b}" individual States or by an international seabed organization. '"^ 



Some Illustrative Questions 



What are the implications for U.S. policy at the continuing Law of 

 the Sea Conference of Third World pressures for a more influential 

 role in the development and operation of international institutions? 

 Is the trend toward politicization that marks current U.X. activities 

 spilling over into the deliberations of the Law of the Sea Conference 

 to the extent that it endangers the progress of the Conference? What 

 possible new U.S. diplomatic initiatives might help improve the nego- 

 tiating climate and the prospects of the Conference ? 



What is the likely timing of technological exploitation of seabed 

 minerals today, and what are the implications of this timing for the 

 urgency of reaching a resolution of the seabed problem in the 1976 

 conference? 



What factors and trends in the world diplomatic situation have 

 tended to obstruct the reaching of agreement on a Law of the Sea, and 

 what other emerging diplomatic/technological problems might also be 

 obstructed by these factors and trends? What constructive measures 

 might be taken by the United States to reverse them? 



Might U.S. technological capabilities provide a leverage to promote 

 international agreement in the seabed problem? 



Are there other U.S. -developed technologies having broad geo- 

 graphic implications that could provide leverage to promote agree- 

 ment on a Law of the Sea? 



Would a regional approach — one which took account of the needs of 

 landlocked countries — be useful in working out a svstem of benefits 

 from exploitation of seabed resources? 



CASE SIX— U.S.-SOVIET COMMERCIAL RELATIONS: THE INTERPLAY OF 

 ECONOMICS, TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER, AND DIPLOMACY^* 



Statement of the Case 



"The estabhshment of the Joint U.S.-U.S.S.R. Commercial Com- 

 mission at the May 1972 Summit Conference and the signing of a 

 comprehensive set of trading agreements on October 18, 1972, opened a 

 promising new period of economic relations between the two nations." 

 (p. 529) li initiated what Secretary of State Kissinger called the process 

 of creating a "vested interest in-mutual restraint". Although the scope 



i<» Ibid., p. 5. 



'»' U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Foreign Affairs, U.S.-Sovkt Commercial Relations: The Interplay 

 of Economics, Technology Transfer, and Diplomacy, in the series. Science, Technology, and American Diplo- 

 macy prepared for the Subcommittee on National Security Policy and Scientific Developments by John P. 

 Hardt and Cieorge D. Holliday, Congressional Research Service. Library of Congress, l!tT3. See vol. I 

 pp. .i26-60(j. 



Throughoul tliis commentary all citations are from lliis source. Page numbers are given in the text imme- 

 iliatcly after the citation. 



96-243 O - 77 - 6 



