Attachment
Paper Prepared by the Senior Interagency Group
No. 85
Washington, June 25, 1982
Interagency Report on The Law of the Sea: Agency
Recommendations
The SIG met on June 24 and reports
the following agency views and recommendations on the issues
presented in its report on the Law of the Sea of June 15. CIA has made no recommendation on the
issues, but believes that the report, from an intelligence
perspective, adequately describes the options facing the U.S. in the
aftermath of the LOS negotiations.
All interested agencies agree the U.S. should greatly strengthen
efforts at the highest levels to persuade key allies to remain
[Page 478]
outside the LOS Convention and to participate with
us in alternative seabed mining arrangements.
Issue 1: Should the United States decide to
sign the LOS Convention as adopted
by the Conference?
All interested agencies recommend against signing the LOS Convention as it fails to meet all
of the objectives set by the President.
Issue 2: Should a decision on signing be made
now or be deferred?
All interested agencies except Transportation recommend that the
decision be taken as soon as possible and that it be publicly
announced in advance of the LOS
drafting session (July 12) and after appropriate consultation with
our allies. Transportation recommends that the decision be deferred
until we know better whether such action will drive our allies
closer to the LOS Convention.
Issue 3: Should the U.S. discontinue all
further participation in the Law of the Sea Conference process or
take part in the Drafting Committee and informal plenary and the
Caracas Session?
Interior, Labor and OMB oppose any
further U.S. participation in the LOS Conference process. They believe that any benefits
achievable are outweighed by the costs inherent in such
participation; the Conference process has done little to respond to
U.S. concerns in the seabed mining part of the Convention; we should
not lend credibility to the process by continued participation; and
any participation will be seen by some as a weakening of U.S.
resolve not to accept the LOS
Convention.
Defense, Treasury, Commerce, State and Justice, assuming a prior
Presidential statement that the U.S. will not sign the Convention
adopted by the Conference, favor continued participation in the
process. They believe that participation in the Drafting Committee
and the closing session in December is an effective means of (1)
ensuring that no “technical” drafting changes, adverse to U.S.
navigation and overflight, fisheries, and other non-seabed mining
interests are included in the final text; (2) countering adverse
interpretive statements that may be made at the closing session; and
(3) they believe that the Presidential statement will counteract
misinterpretation of U.S. participation. This participation would be
at the expert technical level.
Transportation and USUN believe we
should participate in the process whether or not there is a
Presidential statement.
Issue 4: Should the U.S. sign the Final Act at
Caracas and participate in the Preparatory Commission?
DOD, Interior, Energy, Justice,
Labor, and OMB recommend against
signing the Final Act and participating in the Preparatory
Commission. They believe that little if any advantage is to be
gained by such action and that it could be misinterpreted by some as
a weakening of U.S. resolve not to accept the LOS Convention.
[Page 479]
Treasury, Commerce, Transportation, State and USUN recommend that this decision be
deferred until a time closer to the Caracas session when we will be
in a better position to judge the best course of action.
Issue 5: Should the United States encourage
efforts to amend the text of the LOS Convention?
Treasury, Interior, Energy, OMB,
Justice and Labor oppose U.S. steps to encourage efforts to amend
the text. They believe that such efforts will fall short of U.S.
objectives, could be misread by some as a U.S. willingness to sign a
slightly altered Convention now or in the future, and could detract
from our efforts to get an alternative seabed mining
arrangement.
Defense recommends that the U.S. take a neutral position, neither
encouraging or discouraging such initiatives.
Commerce believes the U.S. should, under certain circumstances,
encourage efforts to amend the text in a manner that would not
compromise U.S. objectives. It may be that there is “no chance of
achieving U.S. objectives”, but we should be prepared to exploit the
possibility, however slim, that the Convention could be changed to
accommodate our interests in fostering the development of deep
seabed resources by US-flag consortia. By all current indications,
Commerce believes, the U.S. now stands in the worst conceivable
position with respect to its previously identified interests in the
deep seabeds: the Convention as adopted does not meet our
objectives; and a viable alternative regime acceptable to U.S.
mining interests appears unachievable.
Given the current disinclination of other potential seabed mining
states to join in an RSA, as well
as their assertion that U.S. seabed interests can still be met in
the treaty, State and USUN believe
that we need better knowledge of the facts in order to determine
what approach will secure maximum support for U.S. seabed objectives
before deciding this issue.
Transportation supports both the Commerce and State positions,
believing these views to be mutually complementary.
