136 



plants will be located, exemption from anti-density and anti- 

 monopoly provisions, special advantages under the production 

 ceiling, etc. The Enterprise could use these advantages to 

 dominate the field in short order. Second, the developing 

 countries will be in a position at the review conference to 

 vote through and then to bring into force any changes in the 

 seabed mining texts they wish. Even if the United States 

 and other developed countries were to take the very serious 

 step of denouncing the treaty, rather than be governed by 

 the revised treaty, the Enterprise could still be put in a 

 position by the developing countries to dominate seabed 

 mining, especially if developed states were then unwilling 

 to spend the necessary political and financial capital that 

 would be needed to compete with it. Third, U.S. ocean mining 

 companies say they will not invest under the Draft Convention. 

 The leaves the field to the Enterprise (see attached 

 correspondence). 



11. On page 5 (paragraph 2), you say the text guarantees 

 access to privately-owned technology by any developing country 

 planning to go into seabed mining. This is the so-called 

 Brazil clause, which the U.S. and others oppose. Therefore, 

 I question whether the text in fact "guarantees" such access 

 to privately-owned technology. 



The fact that we have in the past opposed the Brazil 



Clause, and likely will continue to do so, does not expunge 



it from the text. All previous efforts to have it deleted 



have failed. As the text currently stands, I believe my 



