Aug.-Sept. 1982 RAIN Page 21 exclusive prospecting rights in a specific seabed area. Though this was an important concession to American interests, it was not enough to bring about an American affirmation of the treaty. The treaty did not guarantee that still other U.S. companies could go after the seabed minerals, complained U.S. delegate James L. Malone. The major deep-seabed mineral of commercial interest is nickel. It, along with manganese, copper and cobalt, is located within manganese nodules that, in certain areas, are bounteously strewn about the ocean floor. The nodules, often two or three miles below the ocean surface, have been difficult and expensive to retrieve. There is still considerable doubt whether revenues from mining the nodules will be very substantial. Author Wesley Marx, in The Oceans: Our Last Resource, (RAIN VIII: 6,2) says of the excitement over a mineral bonanza, "Once again, human expectations of the ocean far exceed its potential. The 120 developing nations applying for development grants from the Authority may be in for a rude awakening on the largesse available from the vaunted marine treasure chest." In difficult negotiations with 150 partners no one can expect to get everything he wants; everyone has to compromise. It is regrettable that the U.S. did not compromise and vote "yes" on the LOS Treaty in the interest of suporting diplomatic forums as a means of resolving global conflicts. By compromising we would have lost little. The treaty would not have deprived American companies of access to seabed minerals; it would only have allowed poor and landlocked nations to benefit too from a resource that is theirs as much as ours. But the treaty is not so much a financial issue, considering the questionable economics of nodule mining, as it is a matter of principle. It provided a chance to reject the "first come, first served" formula in favor of one that accounts for unequal circumstances and recognizes the high seas as no one's and everyone's at the same time. This idea has implications not only for the seas, but for Antarctica and outer space. Disagreements over the allocation of global resources will arise again and again, and may lead to significant disputes. If wise and equitable means of resolving such disputes are not fostered we are prone to indefinite conflicts over use of the global commons. In an increasingly complex world society it is narrowminded to consider only short-term national advantage in international negotiations. We have a stake in promoting long-term world harmony; it is our only hope for survival. The future of the treaty is uncertain. It will come into force one year after it is ratified by 60 nations, but no one knows how effective it will be without the participation of the U.S. and other mining countries. Some of the non-signatories may negotiate their own mini-treaty to govern their claims, thereby excluding developing countries from any benefits. Congressional hearings on the treaty are being conducted and there is still the possibility that the U.S., with a change of administration, will change its position and support the treaty. The matter is not closed. For more information on the Law of the Sea Treaty, write to United Methodist LOS Project/ 100 Maryland Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20002. □□ Reagan And The Law Of Sea Treaty by Jim Springer
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz