28 



I have been grateful over all the years of my association with the 

 Law of the Sea negotiations for the sustained interest of this com- 

 mittee. 



It is not a subject that has during any of that period enlisted a 

 degree of public attention commensurate with its true importance, 

 and so I have been all the more appreciative of the recognition by 

 this committee of the dimensions of its implications for the long- 

 term interests of the United States, and I feel that way particular- 

 ly at this time, Mr. Chairman. 



In the interval since I last appeared before you, two develop- 

 ments have taken place which seem to me significant. 



First, the Conference as a whole has exhibited a notably tolerant 

 understanding of the need of the United States to carry out a 

 thorough review of the draft convention, provided that it is done 

 in a timely manner. 



The last point, of course, is one which you have just underscored, 

 Mr. Chairman, in your introductory remarks. 



There have been indications, moreover, that many delegations 

 would be prepared to consider proposals emanating from the 

 review that are designed to correct what we, the United States, 

 regard as flaws in the text. 



Short of such a futile gesture as attempting to change the basic 

 elements of the parallel system, how far we should attempt to go in 

 seeking such improvements is a question of judgment. Interses- 

 sional consultations with other delegations should help to provide 

 answers to this question. 



Although the Advisory Committee on the Law of the Sea, of 

 which, as you have just noted, I am the public chairman, will 

 undoubtedly have views on these matters, as well on the substance 

 of the changes to be sought, the committee will not have had a 

 chance to discuss them until it meets again on June 8 and 9. I shall 

 not, therefore, try to anticipate its recommendations. 



The second noteworthy development is the remarkable persis- 

 tence of distortions of the draft convention by critics apparently 

 less interested in getting a good treaty than in scuttling any treaty 

 whether satisfactory or not. These distortions are now being picked 

 up and repeated by people who are not fundamentally hostile to 

 the treaty but who, under the impression that the text actually 

 contains the alleged flaws, are understandably disturbed. This 

 hearing, Mr. Chairman, affords a timely opportunity to correct the 

 record. 



The most frequently repeated misstatements, and the answers to 

 them, are as follows: 



One, that the treaty would not give the U.S. assured access to 

 seabed minerals. In fact, the text expressly gives companies spon- 

 sored by a member state the right to apply for a plan of work, 

 spells out the qualifications of applicants in clear, objective terms, 

 and directs the International Seabed Authority to approve a plan 

 of work proposed by an applicant meeting the specified financial 

 and technical standards. 



Two, that the United States would not be assured of a seat on 

 the Council of the Authority, although the Eastern bloc would be 

 guaranteed three seats. Actually, the provisions for membership on 

 the Council would assure the Western industrial countries six to 



