18 



I am led now to recommend to the President of the United States that our 

 government must review not only the balance among our substantive issues but also 

 whether an agreement acceptable to all governments can best be achieved through 

 the kinds of negotiations which thus far have taken place. 



We all know, of course, that the negotiations have continued 

 since 1977. I have no reason to tell you that this will not be the 

 case for the future, but we must have a close look at this before we 

 take that decision. But certainly here was an instance in the very 

 recent past in which a question of review arose and in which there 

 were, I think we all know, no dire consequences as far as the 

 continuing negotiations were concerned. 



Thank you. 



Mr. Pritchard. Well, I would say it is rather a long reach to 

 take Elliot Richardson and attempt to make him a pillar of the 

 process that you are using now. 



I think there are reviews and there are reviews. Mr. Chairman. 



Chairman Zablocki. If I may further comment on it, there was a 

 session of the conference 3 months after this administration came 

 into power. Then, just before that session conference, the review 

 was announced as I said in my opening statement. Mr. Malone, I'm 

 sure you can perceive that this is not a partisan matter of concern. 

 As a matter of fact, my Republican colleagues were more direct in 

 their questions than I was to you. However, I must ask to see that 

 we get on the record, your assurances that this administration still 

 supports the conclusion of a comprehensive treaty. 



Mr. Malone. Again, Mr. Chairman, as I attempted to make clear 

 in my previous answer, this administration has not taken a posi- 

 tion for or against the conclusion of a Law of the Sea treaty. But 

 we have not taken such a position as you have characterized it. We 

 have not come down on that question on one side or the other. 



Chairman Zablocki. When will the administration come to this 

 simple conclusion that they are for or against? 



Mr. Malone. That is exactly what our review process is aimed 

 at, and that is what we would hope to be in a position to do just as 

 rapidly as we can complete this. 



Chairman Zablocki. I thought the review was for the purpose of 

 finding whether there was anything in the provisions of the 

 treaty — the draft treaty — thus far agreed to by consensus which is 

 contrary to our national security interests. I understand 95 percent 

 of it is agreed to and that the review is merely to see if there is 

 anything that would be contrary to our national security interests 

 and thereby amend it. 



But as far as the question of the attitude of the administration, 

 whether it is for or against a treaty, should be a simple answer. 

 Yes, we are for the treaty, with reservations — if you would only say 

 that much, but you say we have to review and review and we 

 haven't made a decision. 



Mr. Malone. Mr. Chairman, if I were to make that statement I 

 would not characterize — I would not accurately characterize our 

 review. Certainly we may judge it to be in our national interests to 

 do exactly as you have described, to request that certain changes 

 be made and then we would have something that we feel we can go 

 with. But we have to look more basically than that in this review 

 process. And that is, as I attempted to describe earlier, we are 

 looking at the full range of options and possibilities which would be 



