292 
The Soviet position remains steady insisting that states share in ocean 
floor mining and that the authority in no way control transit rights, 
fishing rights, or other freedoms of the high seas apart from seabed 
exploitation.”” 
Although the Soviet position on the international oceanic authority 
is not too different from those of the Western maritime powers in 
most regards, one significant difference should be pointed out. Espe- 
cially in the early years of the U.N. debate, the U.S.S.R. was greatly 
concerned that any seabed treaty ban all military uses of the ocean 
floor.23 Such a ban would include not only offensive weapons but 
the passive seabed listening devices the United States uses to detect 
passing submarines. Since the signing of the 1971 Seabed Arms Con- 
trol Treaty, banning the emplacement of weapons of mass destruction 
on the ocean floor, the U.S.S.R. has become much less concerned 
with this issue. There are still, however, passing references to the 
prohibition of all military activities on the seabed.‘ 
IDEOLOGICAL OVERTONES OF THE LAW OF THE SEA DEBATE 
The conservative substance of the Soviet Union’s law of the sea 
policy in the U.N. law of the sea debate has been unwavering. In 
the first years of the debate the representatives of the U.S.S.R. recon- 
ciled this conservatism with the Soviet Union’s revolutionary tradition 
by simply saying that the two were in no way incompatible: 
The progressive development of the international law of the 
sea must be carried out not against, but in conformity with, 
the generally recognized principles which came into being as a 
result of lengthy historical development, which became part of 
the everyday life of states and formed a solid legal foundation 
for the authority of those states on the oceans of the world.” 
This happy reconciliaton, worthy of Blackstone, lasted until the 
entry of the Peoples’ Republic of China into the United Nations. 
Red China has been unwilling to let the Soviet Union pass untor- 
mented as a conservative advocate. The seriousness with which the 
Soviet Union has taken the Chinese attacks can be seen in this rebuttal 
by a Soviet delegate in the second subcommittee of the Seabed Com- 
mittee in 1973: 
The Chinese representative’s attack on the Soviet Union was 
a slanderous distortion of the truth and that such attacks were 
becoming repetitive. Moreover, the Chinese representative had 
singled out the Soviet Union from among the many countries 
that engaged in fishing on the high seas and had said nothing 
about the others. The terms “plunder” and ‘‘piracy” which he 
had used had no place in the policy of the Soviet Union, which 
cooperated with all other countries on a basis of equality. What 
the Chinese representative described as “plundering” was, in fact, 
a giving of technical assistance. As to the claim that the Soviet 
Union imposed its will on others, that was ridiculous.” 
22 A/CONF.62/C.1/SR.8, at 8 (1974). 
28 A/AC.135/SR.11, at 3 (1968). 
24 A/CONF.62/C.1/SR.8, at 8 (1974). 
25 A/C.1/PV.1777, at 47 (1970). 
26 A/AC.138/SCII/SR.62, at 242 (1973). 
