B-19 



iterated by Barbara Mitchell when she outlined our organiza- 

 tion's views, and that's this question of whether or not 

 raising the long-range issues of distributing krill for the 

 benefit of the developing world has anything to do with tne 

 conservation regime — and whetner or not it's better to 

 raise those issues now or to let them percolate in the hopes 

 that a discussion of them would avoid jeopardizing the ne- 

 gotiation . 



I think two points have been missed. One thing that 

 Mr. Scully said, I confess, disturbed me a little bit. One 

 of the three reasons that he gave as to why it was premature 

 to raise the issue now was that, in response to Mr. Robinson, 

 there was not yet pressure from developing countries — that 

 was stating the case too strongly. 



It seems to me that it is clearly the public position 

 of the Carter Administration that national aid policies, 

 national policies about economic development in the Third 

 World, have nothing to do with international beneficence; 

 they have to do with the long-range perception of U.S. self- 

 interest. He outlined that in his speech at the University 

 of Notre Dame; and I think that that perception should guide 

 what we do, not the perception of the great giveaway. 



But second, and much more importantly, it's not a ques- 

 tion of international beneficence. I'd like to posit just as 

 a hypothetical the kind of thing that could happen if the 

 Convention takes no account of this issue at all. 



But suppose, as it seems likely, it takes six or seven 

 years to bring the Convention into force — or it seems 

 possible perhaps; "likely" may be too strong a world -- and 

 suppose that in that time krill does become a major fishing 

 resource. A country like Brazil, which is not a party to 

 the Antarctic Treaty and has the economic wherewithal to 

 develop a long-range fishing fleet which it doesn't now have, 

 might become very interested in the resource. It might de- 

 velop a fishing fleet. It's not that far away from Ant- 

 arctica. And it might get involved down there very heavily, 

 for example; and then you'd have a country that's not a 

 part of the Treaty; and it would be in a competitive situa- 

 tion with a country that is a party to the Treaty interested 

 in fishing and probably not all that interested in conserva- 

 tion. (Ed. Note: Brazil acceded to the Antarctic Treary 

 on May 16, 1975) 



I'm not saying it's going to happen; I'm saying it 

 could happen. 



