205 



Mr. Frosch. With regard to the representation at the Intergovern- 

 mental Oceanograpliic Commission, that is an international organiza- 

 tion to which the United States belongs, and I believe the U.S. mem- 

 bership in that organization was approved by the Congress and con- 

 sequently delegation and representation to it is paid for by State De- 

 partment funds appropriated for the purpose. 



Mr. Fascell. Mr. Fraser. 



Mr. Fraser. I have been rereading the Malta resolution. The first 

 principle that is embodied in the resolution says that the seabed and 

 the ocean floor underlying the seas beyond the limits of present inter- 

 national jurisdiction are not subject to national appropriation in any 

 manner whatsoever. Is that the part of the resolution that you dis- 

 agree with? 



Mr. Frosch. It is a part of the resolution that I don't think I under- 

 stand. Because I don't know what the ramifications of "in any manner 

 whatsoever" are. 



Mr. Fraser. If you don't understand it how can you have a position 

 on it? 



Mr. Frosch. Because I can think of some things that it could be 

 taken to mean and may be taken to mean that I would stroiigly oppose. 



Mr. Fraser. Isn't this a matter that would be developed through 

 discussion and redrafting and so on? 



Mr. Frosch. It might be. It could go in any number of directions. 



Mr. Fraser. I have been reading the statement by Ambassador Gold- 

 berg and I don't find him in his initial statement doing anything ex- 

 cept agreeing that the subject matter is one of importance, that it 

 needs to be studied, that he supports the inscription of the item on 

 the agenda, and it sliould have early consideration by the First Com- 

 mittee. Nowhere do I find a statement either pro or con on the resolu- 

 tion itself, but only an agreement that the subject matter is of some 

 importance. Is that in substance your position. 



Mr. Frosch. I would agree the subject matter is of some hnportance. 

 The question of what ^^'iIl the future use and understanding and ex- 

 ploration of the sea bottom be, I think that is an im|)ortant subject. 



Mr. Fraser. Your position on the Malta resolution itself is based 

 on the fact that you don't understand it and that it might be subject 

 to interpretations with which you would 



jMr. Frosch. No, what I stated was that I don't understand all of 

 the one phrase you read. There are lots of other things in the Malta 

 resolution that are, I think, fairly specific and one could clearly find 

 things in them to oppose, and which I do oppose. 



Mr. Fraser. It would be helpful if you could detail that for us. 



Mr. Frosch. Certainly. The memorandum ■ 



Mr. Fraser. I am referring to the memorandum because that is the 

 only thing 



Mr. Frosch. The memorandum, for example, on page 2 in para- 

 graph 1 states that — 



The seabed and ocean floor, underlying the seas outside present territorial 

 waters and/or the continental shelves, are the only areas of our planet which 

 have not yet been appropriated for national use, because they have been rela- 

 tively inaccessible and use for defense purposes or the economic exploitation of 

 their resources is not technologically feasible. 



