16 



This is a difficult area, but it is also a fundamental question, not 

 just on the Law of the Sea but on all further negotiations. How do 

 you see this problem? 



Mr. Malone. Well, Congressman Pritchard, you have touched 

 upon a matter of concern. It is certainly a matter that goes to the 

 kinds of relationships that we have with other countries and per- 

 ceptions of our reliability. 



However, this is a matter which involves many fundamental 

 concerns to this country and not just to certain interests that may 

 exist in this country. There are concerns with regard to national 

 security issues of the greatest moment, the availability of strategic 

 minerals which are essential to us, as well as so many of the other 

 areas that are vital to U.S. interests. 



The basic consideration and concern, it seems to me, must be 

 that we believe, after a complete and thorough evaluation, that we 

 have met our national security interests in the broadest sense. 



I think that it is of overriding importance to this country that we 

 have assured ourselves that all of our key national interests, par- 

 ticularly our national security interests, have been adequately 

 taken care of before we took such a step as is contemplated here, 

 and that is exactly the reason that this administration is looking so 

 carefully at this matter. 



Mr. Pritchard. Let's take a look at the other side of the coin. 



Take a country, say Germany, which is involved in this process 

 with us. At the end of 10 years, Germany has an election and then 

 says it has to review the negotiations. We say to Germany, well, we 

 can understand that. What is your timetable? They say well, we 

 have had an election in November. We won't be ready to give you a 

 definitive answer until August. 



Now I think that if Germany said that to us, I would say that 

 was arrogant. Second, it would look as if Germany really didn't 

 want to play ball. It would send out very strong signals that 

 America or Germany or whatever country could not really partici- 

 pate in a long-running treaty negotiation because any time there 

 was an election it would have to stop for at least 9 months to get a 

 decision out of the new administration. 



I am disappointed, particularly since I am a member of the 

 administration's party. I realize this is not your policy, but I must 

 say that your answers here today really do not wash. 



Mr. Malone. Well, Congressman, I again have to indicate, of 

 course, that this is a concern, but I would hope that we would not 

 second guess the desire by Germany or another state to make a 

 review that it felt was fundamental to its national interests. 



I think there is a certain implication in your question that 

 somehow the outcome of the review has been predetermined and 

 that no one can really be sure that we are going to go on with the 

 negotiation and conclude a treaty. 



I can assure you that we have not, Congressman, made that kind 

 of a judgment. I would hope that none of the participants in the 

 Law of the Sea Conference have come to that sort of a conclusion — 

 that basically we are unreliable because we have already come to a 

 judgment and the judgment is x. We have not done that. 



We feel that we must look at the Law of the Sea carefully. We 

 feel that it is, indeed, in the interests of other countries as well, 



