Foreign Relations of the United States, 1981–1988, Volume XLI, Global Issues II

131. Memorandum From the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (Ikle) to the Deputy Secretary of Defense (Carlucci)¹

Washington, November 10, 1981

SUBJECT

• Law of the Sea Review

1. (S) On 10 November 1981, a LOS IG adopted a draft Presidential Decision Memorandum (PDM) for formal circulation (Tab A).² It is my opinion that the draft PDM represents a fair evaluation of the issues. The paper characterizes the DOD view of the navigation/security provisions of the Draft Convention as being “acceptable.” Any deterioration of the present language of those provisions, however, would of course render them unacceptable to DOD. It should be noted that the position of the Department of the Navy, as expressed by SecNav (Tab B),³ is that these provisions are only “barely, minimally acceptable.” The position of the Air Force (Tab C),⁴ on the other hand, is much stronger in support of the treaty provisions. As a balance between these two viewpoints, the characterization adopted in the draft PDM was that the provisions are “acceptable,” without positive or negative qualifiers.

2. (S) Although the JCS have not taken a position yet, there appears to be no dispute within DOD that the seabed mining portion of the text is unacceptable and should be amended. The draft PDM takes this position.

3. (S) The draft PDM lays out two basic options: (1) walk-away or, (2) continue negotiations with a view to achieving substantial improvements to the seabed mining provisions. From a DOD standpoint, Option II is considered advantageous as it diminishes the likelihood that the navigational articles will be unravelled at the next negotiating session, and it offers an opportunity to obtain changes to the text that will assure U.S. access to strategic minerals. The Department of State has already taken a position in favor of Option II.⁵ It is anticipated that the other agencies will follow suit (with only the Department of Interior evidencing possible disagreement).

4. (S) The PDM will be staffed this week for JCS concurrence. As the paper is generally consistent with previous JCS positions, JCS concurrence and support of Option II is expected. Subject to JCS review and concurrence, I recommend that OSD concur in the draft PDM as fairly representing the issues and express its support for Option II. All agencies have been requested to transmit their positions to DOS by Tuesday, 17 November.

5. (U) Further general background is provided at Tab D.⁶

1. Source: Washington National Records Center, OSD Files: FRC 330–83–0103, 801.2 (10 Nov–1981). Secret. Merrill signed for Ikle. A stamped notation on the memorandum indicates Carlucci saw it on November 12.
2. Attached but not printed.
3. Dated November 4, attached but not printed.
4. Dated November 9, attached but not printed.
5. In an October 19 information memorandum to Haig, Malone wrote, “I will not indicate any preference as to the options [in testimony before the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee] but will note that the weight of the arguments tends to support Option 2—to resume active participation at the Conference with the later possibility of not signing the treaty if the final result does not measure up to our standards for evaluation.” (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, P820003–1328)
6. Attached but not printed. There is no indication of approval or disapproval of the recommendation. At the bottom of the page, an unknown hand wrote: “Handled orally in meeting. In general terms, Mr. Carlucci agreed to Option II—continuing participation in the LOS Conference. J [illegible] 11/13.”