THE PRESS TUESDAY, AUGUST 18, 1981. Trouble on sea law

Press, 18 August 1981, Page 20

THE PRESS TUESDAY, AUGUST 18, 1981. Trouble on sea law

The new round of the Law of the Sea negotiations appears to be heading for trouble. A draft treaty was within an ace of being agreed to earlier this year, but the new Reagan Administration then dismissed the entire United States delegation and instituted a review. It might have been expected that the hew Administration would need some time to become familiar with the provisions of .the draft treaty. But because the treaty has been under serious discussion since 1973, it might have also been expected that there would be some senior Republicans who would be familiar with the progress on the treaty. As it is the United States, either because it is unhappy about the contents of the draft treaty, or because it needs some time to do its homework, is holding up any conclusion. Until this latest move a consensus appeared close on practically every aspect. This was quite an accomplishment when 150 nations were engaged in . the discussions.

The draft treaty has a number of sections. The one the United States has so far raised objections, to concerns mining of the deep seabed. There are conflicting interests at work over the deep seabed, that is the seabed lying beyond any State’s 200-mile zone. On the one hand there are few firms and few countries in the world which have the. technology and the capital to invest in mining of the deep seabed. Probably only the United States, West Germany, and Japan are so equipped. Some of these firms feel that they should of right be able to mine the. deep seabed for minerals. On the other hand, some countries consider that the deep seabed should be considered the “common heritage of mankind." The provisions of the draft treaty were a compromise between these two philosophies. The resources of the deep seabed were to be shared between an international organisation and various national concerns.

Because the clauses of the treaty which relate to the deep seabed are only part of the proposed, treaty, it might seem possible to leave< the clauses out. In practice, the consensus reached in such a negotiation comes about because some States will cede a point on one aspect for gains on another. For this reason, the treaty has to be looked at as a whole. There is the additional point that a number of the non-industrial countries consider that the provisions on the deep seabed are the most politically and ideologically important in the treaty. Failure to take

account of aspirations on this issue may block agreement on others.

Just what the Americans object to in detail has not been made public. It seems, however, that they are more worried about how the treaty would work in practice than about the the idea of sharing resources. This' might amount to no more than a feeling that, if. an American, company wants to mine a particular area, it should be allowed to do so for as long as it wishes. The question will then become one of whether the embodiment of such a principle. will destroy the concept of the “common heritage of mankind.”

New Zealand has long put a great deal of effort into the Law of the Sea negotiations. It has several interests at stake. One is its own Exclusive Economic Zone and the fish and minerals within it. A second is the right of free passage through international straits. As a trading nation, New Zealand needs to feel that the ocean routes for trade are secure. The concern that New Zealand feels has been expressed by the New Zealand Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Taiboys, in a letter to the American Secretary of State, Mr Haig. Some of the contents of this letter were printed in an article by Mr Taiboys in the latest issue of the “International Review,” the official journal of the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs.

Mr Taiboys outlined the need to treat the draft convention as a package deal and he urged the United States Administration to weigh the benefits to be had from the rules governing the passage of vessels through international straits against certain disadvantageous provisions for commercial mining. Mr Haig was told that the draft represented major gains for New Zealand, “particularly in the area of offshore resource jurisdiction over fisheries and minerals.” Mr Taiboys noted in his letter that a review by the United States seeking changes that,- would place the successful conclusion of the conference in jeopardy “would be of great concern to New Zealand.” New Zealand’s objections to the upsetting of the draft were made clear enough and they must have been repeated when the subject was raised later in discussions of the A.N.Z.U.S. Ministerial Council meeting in Wellington. The United States seemed responsive, but the present Geneva meeting has gone a long way to set back the earlier hopes that the American objection to the draft treaty would be short-lived.