160 



protected under the current text, one can point to several 

 aspects of the text, especially in the seabed mining text, that 

 many commentators have criticized as contrary to our interests. 

 A number of these are identified in my testimony of April 29. 

 The weights to be accorded the various interests engaged in 

 the law of the sea area are to be determined in the review. 

 It is not possible for me at this point to say whether or not 

 one set of interests outweighs another. 



3. What would be the loss to our negotiating posture by 

 an Administration commitment which at least accepted the 

 desirability of a treaty (something which Ambassador Malone 

 refused to do in his testimony)? 



A. The objective of the review will go down to the 



bedrock level of analysis of our law of the sea interests 



and then work up. The question of the forum in which we 



pursue our interests and the nature of the agreement(s) we 



should seek have direct impact on the probability that we 



will achieve an optimal result. These questions have not 



yet been addressed in the review, and at this point it is 



necessary to keep all options open. 



4. There seems to be considerable question whether U.S. 

 companies which might otherwise mine the seabed could in 



the absence of a treaty obtain necessary financing, insurance, 

 and other guarantees. Does the Administration believe that 

 U.S. companies would effectively proceed to mine the ocean in 

 the absence of an international treaty? 



A. We do not know precisely under what set of economic, 



