69 
The passage of this General Assembly Resolution, prepared by a committee of 
many governments including the United States, will provide an opportunity to 
define national interests very carefully so as to achieve acceptable agreement 
on the international principles, to be implemented by a treaty regime for the 
management of ocean space. Since you have already indicated in your statement 
before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee your intention to introduce at 
a later date a draft treaty for ocean space, you wiil have an opportunity at 
that time to urge specific principles and treaty provisions. 
My suggested change in favor of examining rather than declaring principles 
at this stage will provide more time to investigate a difficult subject of prime 
importance for national and international security and human welfare. You 
may, for example, wish to consider the question of the U.N. Secretary General’s 
role in implementing an international regime for the management of ocean 
resources and whether or not a new international body shouid be established 
to provide better management of ocean resources than may be possible with 
the present array of agencies. You may wish further time to examine the prin- 
ciples you suggest to govern the role of the U.N. Security Council, the rights of 
coastal states in ocean space adjacent to their territorial seas, and the responsi- 
bility of licensees to share knowledge and data, and, most particularly, the pro- 
posed “Sea Guard of the United Nations.” 
Please rest assured that even if my suggestions do not commend themselves 
to you, I nonetheless urge the adoption of Senate Resolutions 172 and 186. I shall, 
of course, forward you my study on the role of international organization in 
ccean Management as soon as it is available. 
Please note that I speak only for myself and not the Carnegie Endowment 
for International Peace where I am privileged to study as a Visiting Research 
Scholar on leave of absence from the University of Pittsburgh. 
Sincerely yours, 
DANIEL CHEEVER, 
Professor of Political Science and International Affairs, Graduate School 
of Public and International Affairs, University of Pittsburgh. 
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 
U.S. Coast GUARD, 
Washington, D.C., December 18, 1567. 
Hon. CLAIBORNE PELL, 
U.S. Senate, 
Washington, D.C. 
DeEAR SENATOR PELL: This is in reply to your request for the views of the 
U.S. Coast Guard with regard to Senate Resolutions 172 and 186. 
Although the resolutions contain matters of interest to the U.S. Coast Guard, 
they primarily affect the foreign policy of the United States and accordingly, it 
is desired to defer commentary on them to the Department of State. To this 
end, I am aware of and support the recent position of the Department of State 
as presented by the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organiza- 
ion Affairs before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 
Regarding the establishment of the Sea Guard, the U.S. Coast Guard is the 
logical organization within the United States government to participate in the 
“Sea Guard.” The U.S. Coast Guard presently performs for the United States 
many functions that are similar to those envisioned for the “Sea Guard,” and 
with some augmentation of forces, the U.S. Coast Guard could be ready to as- 
sume new responsibilities in a minimum of time. 
I thank you for this opportunity to comment on these resolutions. 
Sincerely yours, 
W. J. SMItTH, 
Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commandant. 
STATEMENT OF HuMBLE OIL & REFINING Co., BY T. D. BARRow, SENIOR VICE 
PRESIDENT ON SENATE RESOLUTION 172 AND SENATE RESOLUTION 186 
Humble Oil & Refining Company appreciates the opportunity to offer this 
statement in regard to Senate Resolution 172 and Senate Resolution 186 which 
have been introduced by Senator Pell and are now pending before the Senate 
Committee on Foreign Relations. 
