29 



in marine science and resource development. Cooperation with other nations and 

 international organizations in marine science is to be done when such cooperation 

 is in the national interest. Clearly this Government has gotten us into the difficult 

 position of starting the tidal wave by which we may very likely be inundated. 



The Maltese Resolution is certainly no general, study commission type of 

 action. It calls for a specific treaty with many very disturbing provisions. Their 

 resolution expresses the fear that the ocean floor will become subject to national 

 appropriation and use. They call for a treaty forbidding appropriation of the 

 ocean floor by a nation "in any manner whatsoever." Many high-sounding, but 

 meaningless, phrases are used to justify this extraordinary action: "safeguarding 

 the interest of mankind," ocean floor shall be "reserved exclusively for peaceful 

 purposes, in perpetuity," and "for the development of poor countries." 



DEVELOPING COUNTRIES 



Mr. Chairman, at this point in our own marine research program development 

 it would be a serious mistake for the United States to support a resolution such 

 as that proposed by Malta. 



The Maltese Resolution calls for the United Nations, or some similar inter- 

 national organization, to assume jurisdiction ov^er "the sea- bed and ocean floor, 

 underlying the seas outside present territorial waters and/or the continental 

 shelves." Another similar phrase — "the ocean floor, underlying the seas beyond 

 the limits of present national jurisdiction." 



These phrases might have solid, legal significance, except that they could easily 

 be changed in the next few years. In 1969, we have that meeting to revise the Con- 

 vention on the Continental Shelf. What "continental shelf" and "territorial 

 waters" and "present national jurisdiction" mean now, they probably will not 

 mean after 1969. 



We see, therefore, that the Maltese Resolution is anchored to the bobbing cork 

 of changing international law and political theory. There is nothing solid and con- 

 crete on which to carry forward this nation's marine resources and oceanographic 

 programs. 



The present state of the technology of the sea is in such a mobile condition that 

 it would be dangerous to begin to make political decisions based upon what we 

 know. Just a few years ago 200 meters was considered a reasonable depth for ef- 

 fective exploitation of the resources of the ocean floor. But right now exploratory 

 drilling is being planned in water depths exceeding 4,000 feet, several hundred 

 miles offshore. 



In reality, Mr. Chairman, we probably know less about the bottom of the ocean, 

 and its resources and potential, than we know about the surface of the moon. It 

 would be completely foolish for us to begin to divide up jursidiction of the moon. 

 It would be foolish to give jurisdiction over tlie moon to the United Nations. It is 

 equally unreasonable for us to talk about political jursidictions on the bottom of 

 the sea. 



There are too many questions to answer before the United States agrees to such 

 a Resolution as proposed by Malta. The United Nations would be acting out of 

 ignorance. 



Questions are still unanswered concerning the food potential of the sea; the 

 possibilities of fish utilization for human consumption; the technology of aqui- 

 culture. We are not sure how the ocean behaves in its depths. What kinds of tools 

 must be used to get into the sea? How can we mine from the floor of the sea? Can 

 man survive in the environment of the sea? 



Scientific exploration could be seriously hampered by a premature definition of 

 political jurisdictions. The Report of the Panel on Oceanography of the Presi- 

 dent's Science Advisory Committee, entitled "Effective Use of the Sea" on page 

 91, states, "* * * significant interference with scientific research from the existing 

 or future legal regime of the sea could pose serious obstacles to the entire national 

 ocean program. That there is occasion for concern about this matter is plain." 



Nearly five-sevenths of the world's surface lies at the bottom of the sea. That 

 is too much territory to give away, especially when we do not even know what 

 is there. 



There exists a large body of international law to cover the remote possibilities 

 of conflicts between nations or private interests operating under national flags. 

 If expeditions from too many nations find themselves in dispute over a rich mineral 

 deposit, the questions raised are going to be settled bj' accommodation among 

 the various parties, and by the gradual development of adversary case law. 

 We are not left in a vacuum, if we do not follow the ISIaltese position. 



