16 



sea-bed and of the ocean floor shall be used primarily to promote the develop- 

 ment of poor countries; 



(d) The sea-bed and the ocean floor, underlying the seas beyond the limits 

 of present national jurisdiction, shall be reserved exclusively for peaceful pur- 

 poses in perpetuity. 

 4. It is believed that the proposed treaty should envisage the creation of an 

 international agency (a) to assume jurisdiction, as a trustee for all countries, over 

 the sea-bed and the ocean floor, underlying the seas beyond the limits of present 

 national jurisdiction; (b) to regulate, supervise and control activities thereon; 

 and (c) to ensure that the activities undertaken conform to the principles and 

 provisions of the proposed treaty. 



Mr. Hanna. If you turn your attention to that memorandum 

 I suggest that what Malta is proposing falls into three categories. 

 The first category is that of a general statement, a very broad state- 

 ment; that for the benefit of all mankind the jurisdiction of the seabed 

 should be vested in the United Nations. 



The second section sets up actual mechanics as to how they feel 

 this jurisdiction should be exercised in terms of extending some kind 

 of rights to exploitation, and the third section of it determines what 

 shall be done with the income to be derived out of extending the 

 rights to exploitation, so this is a rather far-reaching proposal, going 

 as it does in these three directions. It seems to me implicit instruc- 

 tions which then limit, very materially, the options for alternatives 

 that history of the development of oceanography might dictate. 



When you look at what they have proposed, and critically analyze 

 what that means to the United States, I think you would have to 

 look at it in this way: 



First of all, what is the body to which this matter is referred? 

 How is it made up? What are you likely to read out of this body? 



Well, in this connection you have to classify the nations in four 

 categories. Those four categories would be as follows: 



The naval power nations, the maritime nations, the seaboard 

 nations, and the landlocked nations. 



Out of those four categories you would get a difference of attitude, 

 a difference of posture relative to what will happen in the deep seas. They 

 are very greatly divergent interests that come out of those categories. 



There are 109 nations in the world which have some contiguity 

 to the sea. 



At last count I think we have some 132 sovereignties in the world. 

 That is subject to correction, but it moves so fast nowadays it is hard 

 to keep it in mind. I hear that one of our nations is splitting up and 

 making three new nations this next month. 



However, if you take into consideration that at least there are 

 portions of nations that have no contiguity to the sea, anything 

 that would give them an interest in the sea is to be desired as against 

 what is now their case. 



If you look at the distinction between those nations which have 

 contiguity to the sea and those nations which are naval powers you 

 reduce it down to a handful. Now you are talking about perhaps 

 nine nations. To those nations it would be important to them that the 

 concept of freedom of the seas be very broad so they can move their 

 forces rather freely. 



If you move into the category of maritime nations now perhaps 

 you talk about a little more than a handful but certainly no more than 

 a clutch, say 29 or 30 nations, which have an active interest in maritime 



