518 



tively slow. As late as July 1969, almost two years after the Malta 

 proposal, the Department of State had not yet formulated a policy, 

 or was not ready to divulge its position if it had one. Testifying before 

 Senator Pell's Subcommittee on Ocean Space, the Honorable U. Alexis 

 Johnson, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, was asked 

 whether the issue of the outer continental shelf boundaries was a 

 question of language or modality. 



* * * Frankly, Mr. Chairman [answered Mr. Johnson], the question of the 

 boundaries, the question of the international regime, are questions the answers 

 to which are not yet dear to me, nor am I c'ear if I may say, both personally and 

 officially, as to where the U.S. interests lie best in this. * * * " 4 



Senator Pell termed this a "no-policy policy" in the exchange that 

 ensued : 



* * * In closing I would just make the point that I appreciate your frankness 

 and cooperation in coming here today, and I hope you will push ahead with the 

 policy paper for the United Nations meeting. 



At the same time, I must stick to my guns, when it comes to the questions of 

 the continental shelf and the moratorium on claims and say that we have a "no- 

 policy" policy, but I am glad to know that you are pressing ahead to change that 

 to a more specific statement of policy. If you think I have overstated the situa- 

 tion, please tell me. 



Mr. Johnson. No, frankly, I feel we have taken more of a leadership role in this 

 matter than you apparently feel, but nevertheless, I respect your point of view. 



Senator Pell. You mean a leadership role for going ahead or a leadership role 

 for going backwards? By this I mean a leadership role for establishing a regime 

 or a leadership role in preventing the establishment of a regime. 



Mr. Johnson. I would say a leadership role in keeping our options open until 

 we decide where our national interests lie best and where international agree- 

 ment may be reached. 



Senator Pell. Right. Well, I do not want to be rude in any way, but basically, 

 to keep options open, means to my mind to have a "no-policy" policy. 



Mr. Johnson. That is correct. We are keeping options open for that purpose 

 until we decide what our policy should be on this. 



Senator Pell. I agree that this is probably a question of semantics and what 

 the executive branch would call keeping options open, from where I sit and the 

 work that I have been doing on this for the last several years, I would say that 

 it is a "no-policy" policy. I know we are both doing the best that we can to try 

 to arrive at a state of affairs of advantage not only to the United States, but to 

 the world as a whole. 



Mr. Johnson. Yes. 1 " 



A policy statement enunciated by the President is transmitted by 

 directive to the departments concerned for implementation. The de- 

 partments evaluate it relative to their statutory responsibilities, pol- 

 icies, and practices, then try to relate it to the overall national and 

 international perspective, at the same time accommodating their own 

 interests. 



Congress, meanwhile, provides a forum where all sectors and indi- 

 viduals are afforded a chance to air their views on the subject. In the 

 case of oceanography, Congress has had the initiative for more than a 

 decade, and its efforts culminated in the passage of the Marine Re- 

 sources Act of 19GG, despite some opposition by the executive 

 branch. However, not all of the views expressed at hearings are thor- 

 oughly studied, or influence final national policy in any real way, un- 

 less such views are vigorously pursued and advocated by special in- 

 terest groups. 



"* "Governing the Use of Ocean Space," hearings, op. dt., pp. 221-222. 

 ^Ibid., page 232. 



