137 



characterization of the Brazil Clause's effect is accurate. 



12. Page 6 (paragraph 1) you refer to the composition 

 of the Council saying the USSR and its allies have three 

 guaranteed seats, but the U.S. must compete with its allies 

 to be represented. The implication of the way you word this 

 is that the Soviet bloc is the winner and the West and the 

 U.S. the losers. However, this statement is not quite accurate 

 is it? The Soviets must compete among their Eastern Bloc 

 allies for their three seats; in addition, the Western allies 

 would have at least 6 or 7 seats under the present draft 

 convention. These are seats for major consumers and investors. 

 Since the U.S. is both a major consumer and investor, I fail 



to understand how you can imply the U.S. will have no seat. 



A. I did not mean to imply that the United States would 

 necessarily not have a seat. We may well obtain a seat, at 

 least on the first Council (we are subject to being rotated 

 out thereafter). The point is that in the current text the 

 Soviet Union is given special treatment explicitly based on 

 its ideology and political/economic system that is not given 

 the United States. We have to engage in a true competition 

 for our seat; they do not. 



13. Page 7 (paragraph 1) You say that the present text 

 imposes revenue-sharing obligtions on seabed mining companies 

 which would significantly increase the costs of mining. 

 Isn't it true that such obligations may provide reduced 

 profits, but probably not increase costs of mining per se? 



A. This seems to be a semantic question. If the costs 

 of doing business are considered to include payments to govern- 

 mental authorities for the right to continue in business, then 

 financial arrangements to the Authority clearly increase costs 

 over what they otherwise would have been. If the revenue 

 sharing payments are not considered a cost, but are 



