1086 
Mr. Potuack. Yes, sir. This is on the international machinery. 
Mr. Lennon. It is interesting to note what came out of that report. 
There was more or less of a consensus recognizing the importance of 
the seabeds out of this resolution, which you indicate covers three- 
fourths of the earth’s surface, both from the political, economic, and 
other points of view. It became apparent, according to your statement, 
that the so-called Malta Resolution got back into this study and it was 
the desire of the lesser developed countries to play a greater role in 
the development of seabed policies and to insure that the seabeds be 
exploited in ways which would benefit all countries, and not merely 
the technologically advanced countries. 
ene is In substance what the Malta Resolution was all about, was 
it not ? 
Mr. Potuack. Yes, sir. 
Mr. Lennon. So that what you have here is a recapitulation or a 
reaffirmation through this study created by this resolution, from which 
our Government abstained, of the same position taken by the Malta 
Resolution. 
Is that generally a fair statement ? 
Mr. Poriackx. The resolution, Mr. Chairman, from which we ab- 
stained was one which called upon the Secretary General to prepare a 
report on international machinery. This resolution did carry. That 
report was prepared by the Secretary General, and it was considered 
at the recent August meeting by the Economic and Technical Sub- 
committee, and, as a matter of fact, was the principal subject of 
discussion. 
Now, that discussion, as all other discussions, reflects the interests 
of the developing countries for a'substantial voice in the decisions that 
are going to be taken with respect to the ocean floor and its resources. 
Mr. Lennon. Now, as a result of this resolution that we referred to, 
“for the Secretary General to undertake a study on the question of 
establishing in due time appropriate international machinery for the 
exploration and exploitation of the seabed resources,” did they come 
forward with any specific recommendations, or only the general things 
that you referred to on page 5 of your statement ? 
Mr. Potiack. The Secretary General’s report itself simply explored 
the alternatives, tending to group them into three major possibilities. 
One would be a registry. One would be a licensing authority, and the 
third would be an operational authority. 
It was these three alternatives that formed the focus for the dis- 
cussion in the subcommittee this past August. 
The most accurate way to summarize that discussion is to say that 
the various countries exposed their preliminary views on this subject. 
Our representatives made, I think, a very excellent case in their 
statements as to what the deficiencies and shortcomings of an oper- 
ational international authority would be. 
The summary that was prepared by the subcommittee itself of its 
activities pretty accurately reflects that practically every side of this 
question was exposed, and that no consensus at this point is in sight, 
except possibly the fact that almost everyone agrees that there ought 
to be at the minimum a registry of some kind. 
Mr. Lennon. Mr. Pollack, this country does not recognize the terri- 
torial waters of any nation beyond the historic 3-mile limit, do they ? 
Mr. Potuack. I believe that is correct. 
