10 
While my Delegation believes that it is too early to take any final decisions on 
proposals for a comprehensive legal regime for the Geep ocean floor, such as sug- 
gested by Ambassador Pardo, we would participate energetically in the studies 
which will be needed before such decisions can be made. 
Mr. Chairman, the program I have suggested would represent an ambitious 
undertaking for the Assembly. The problems ahead are vast. Yet the opportunities 
are equally vast. 
A Committee on Oceans, building on the present efforts of member states and 
the United Nations, could serve as the focal point within the General Assembly 
for study and development of the next steps which the nations must take to- 
gether in this field. In creating this Committee, and directing it toward the tasks 
ahead, we would take effective action to enhance our knowledge of the ocean and 
its floor—and to use it for the long-term benefit of the human family. 
_ DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 
Washington, D.C., Novenber 1, 1967. 
Hon. J. W. FULBRIGHT, 
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations, 
U.S. Senate. 
Dear Mr. CHAIRMAN: The Secretary has asked me to reply to your letter of 
September 21, 1967, requesting comments on S.J. Res. 111. 
The resolution would express the sense of Congress that it would be premature 
and ill-advised at this time to vest control of deep ocean resources in an inter- 
national body. It would further ask the President to instruct our representatives 
at the United Nations to oppose any action at this time to vest control of the 
resources of the deep sea beyond our continental shelves. 
Let me say at once that the United States Government has no intention of sup- 
perting an effort at this General Assembly to vest jurisdiction of the deep ocean 
floor in an international body and does not expect the Assembly to take such 
action. 
Accordingly, we do not believe that the current situation is such as to require 
the expression of Congressional opinion advocated in the resolution. 
It may be helpful in this regard to review briefly the proposals which have 
caused the sponsors of the resolution some concern and to indicate the character 
of the Administration’s thinking on the issues involved. 
Recent technological advances have aroused speculation concerning the poten- 
tial wealth available to mankind on and under the deep ocean floor. This has 
resulted in rapidly increasing interest in the problem of making suitable inter- 
national arrangements with respect to the exploitation of deep sea bed resources. 
In August the Representative of Malta at the United Nations, Ambassador 
Arvid Pardo, proposed the inclusion in the agenda of the current United Nations 
General Assembly Session of an item calling for the consideration of a treaty 
reserving use of the ocean floor, beyond the limit of national jurisdiction, for 
peaceful purposes; providing for use of the financial benefits derived from its 
exploitation primarily for the benefit of less developed countries ; and envisaging 
the creation of an international agency with jurisdiction over the deep ocean 
floor to accomplish these purposes. 
All these proposals refiect a felt need for additional legal guidance for public 
and private organizations which contemplate activities on the deep ocean fioor. 
Very careful study will be required before the United States determines its 
position in this area. 
The United States is therefore not now prepared to support the proposal of 
Malta in the General Assembly as it was introduced. We believe that other major 
maritime powers will react with similar caution. The General Assembly can be 
expected to undertake a deliberate study of this problem before taking specific 
action, such as the preparation of a treaty. In this connection, it should be noted 
that the development of legal principles for outer space activity required years 
of negotiation before culminating in the conclusion of the Outer Space Treaty 
of 1967. Discussion in the General Assembly this year could well initiate a 
similar process. 
For these reasons we believe that S.J. Res. 111 overstates the immediacy of 
the problem and addresses itself to a danger which is not present. We do not 
believe its passage would be necessary or helpful and we consequently recommend 
that no action be taken on it. 
