1263 
floor to refrain from doing so in the secure knowledge that they will not thereby 
be placed at a military disadvantage. This will require painstaking technical 
study and negotiation. It is important that we undertake this effort in a 
qualified forum, and at an early stage. (emphasis added) 
The kind of expert analysis and negotiation which is needed for the discussion 
of specific agreements is to be found in the Highteen-Nation Committee on Dis- 
armament. We believe that this expert body should tackle the problem of arms 
control with respect to the sea-bed as soon as possible, consistent with its other 
arms control activities.* 
The Soviet Union’s observations are certainly not less suggestive than those of 
the United States. After general remarks which served to re-emphasize the Soviet 
view that the U.N. had no more than taken the first step in a long process of 
deliberation, the very first specific matter mentioned was that of military use of 
the ocean. In this intervention the Soviet Union succeeded in calling attention to 
the lack of agreement on the scope of a prohibition of military use, to the Soviet’s 
devotion to peaceful uses of the ocean, and to the belief that the subject should 
should only be considered in the ENDC. On the latter point the Soviet representa- 
tive commented : ‘ 
“It was quite logical in our view to include the question of the prohibition of 
the use of the sea-bed for military purposes in the agenda of the Highteen-Nation 
Committee on Disarmament as one of the partial disarmament measures. Tis is 
the most correct way to solve the problem of preventing the extension of the arma- 
ments race to the sea-bed and ocean floor. . . . May we express the hope that as 
a result of these debates the Highteen-Nation Committee will soon be able to. 
work out an international agreement on the question of the prohibition of the 
use of the sea-bed and ocean floor for military purposes.* (emphasis added) 
Developments in the ENDC since it convened in the latter part of March 1969, 
support very strongly the impression gained from the First Committee debates 
that the U.S. and the Soviet Union both are extremely determined that negotia- 
tions about military use of the ocean take place primarily outside the General 
Assembly. At the first meeting of the ENDC in 1969, the U.S. and the Soviet 
Union jointly proposed a treaty to ban nuclear weapons from the ocean floor and 
both President Nixon and Premier Kosygin sent messages to the Committee 
endorsing such an agreement. Even more significantly, for present purposes, press 
reports stated that it had been privately agreed by the two powers that this 
treaty was the number one objective at the present meeting. The importance at- 
tached to this issue is emphasized by later stories from Geneva about dissatisfac- 
tion amongst other members of the ENDC with the American-Soviet priority on 
this item. A New York Times report stated : 
Angry statements yesterday showed that many at the 17-Nation Conference 
feel that a ban on underground nuclear tests and on production of nuclear arms 
should be given priority over the U.S.-Soviet sponsored ocean-floor issue. 
Subsequently both the Soviet Union and the United States tabled drafts of a 
treaty forbidding certain military uses of the seabed beyond particular distances 
from coastal states. Although there are still very significant differences in the 
U.S.-Soviet views it seems reasonably clear that they both regard agreement, or 
the appearance of possible agreement, as highly desirable. 
In sum both the statements of the two states and press reports lend credence 
to the suggestion that both the U.S. and the Soviet Union prefer negotiation and 
formulation of agreements in the seemingly more secure arena of ENDC in Geneva 
than in the 120-odd member General Assembly in New York. 
(2) Recommendations of President's Comniission 
(a) Procedural aspects 
The foregoing observations concerning perceived difficulties in international 
disposition of the problem of allocating authority over, and managing uses in, 
the ocean environment may be given sharper focus in the context of those aspects 
of the recommendations of the President’s Commission which have to do with the 
international decision process. Among the most important Commission proposals 
are those which exhort the U.S. to “take the initiative to secure international 
agreement on a redefinition of the ‘continental shelf’ for purposes” of the 
Continental Shelf Convention and to “seize the opportunity for leadership which 
the present situation demands and propose a new international legal-political 
framework for exploration and exploitation of the mineral resources of the 
deep seas, .. .” The Commission also recommends the policies the U.S. should. 
seek in the exercise of this initiative and leadership. 
26—563—70—pt. 2——_49 
