APPENDIX 8 



Letter of March 6, 1981, From Members of Congress to Secre- 

 tary of State Haig, and Response of April 3, 1981, From James 

 L. Malone 



(Umtgrass of i\\t Jbttiefr States 



(Qammititz an JJioragn <&itmxs 



■■ JHmise of ^Sepresettfaiities 

 ^asljuigton, «S.GL 2D515 



March 6, 1981 



Honorable Alexander Haig 

 Secretary of State 

 Department of State 

 Washington, D.C. 20520 



Dear Mr. Secretary: 



As interested Members of Congress actively involved in the U.S. negotia- 

 tions on the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea, we understand your 

 prerogative to undertake a full-fledged review of U.S. policy in the Conference. 

 However, since the draft convention was carefully considered and worded, we 

 had hoped that this administration could go to the 10th session without such 

 a review. In this regard, we would have preferred to have been consulted 

 on your decision rather than learning about it through a Department press 

 release and subsequent Washington Post and New York Times articles. 



In undertaking your review, we believe that you will reach the conclusion 

 that the present text, now referred to as the Draft Convention, is essentially 

 the basis for a sound Treaty. The negotiations have been difficult, delicate, 

 and prolonged.. The present text has been worked on by three administrations 

 and in a strictly bi-partisan manner. It reflects a series of important 

 political compromises that the majority of U.S. interest groups involved in 

 the negotiations had agreed upon. The text stands at a point where U.S. 

 national defense, security, economic and environmental and political-legal 

 interests are effectively protected. It would be most unfortunate to see 

 the work on this draft convention undone at this juncture due to the loud 

 voice of only one of those domestic groups. 



We have looked forward to the 10th session to bring resolution of the 

 few remaining issues: preparatory investment protection, the participation 

 of entities other than states and the creation of the Preparatory Commission 

 that would, in turn, develop the rules and regulations under which U.S. and 

 foreign companies would operate under the International Seabed Authority. 

 We are concerned that the recent press articles may make the prospect of 

 resolving these issues much more difficult. 



(104) 



