JPRS ID: 9702 WORLDWIDE REPORT LAW OF THE SEA

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: JPRS
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP82-00850R000300100065-6
• Release Decision: RIF
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 8
• Document Creation Date: November 1, 2016
• Sequence Number: 65
• Content Type: REPORTS

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02148: CIA-RDP82-44850R000300104465-6
_ FOR OwFIC1AL USE ONLY
JPRS L/9702
30 April 1981
Worldwide Re ort
p
LAW OF THE SEA _
- CFOUO 2/81)
_ ~BIS FOREIGN BROADCAST INFURMATION SERVICE
- FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000300100065-6

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02148: CIA-RDP82-44850R000300104465-6
NOTE
.TPRS publications contain information primarily from foreign
, newspapers, periodicals and books, but also from news agency
transmissions and broadcasts. Materials from foreign-language
sources are translated; those frcar English-language source~
are transcribed or reprinted, with the original phrasing and
other characteristics retained.
- Headlines, editor ial reports, and material enclosed in brackets
are supplied by JPRS. Processing indicators such as [Text]
or [Excerpt] in the first line of each item, or following the
last line of a brief, indicate how the original informa.tion was
processed. Where no processing indicatpr is given, the infor-
mation was summarized or extracted.
Unfamiliar names rendered phonetically or transliterated are
enclosed in parentheses. Words or names preceded by a ques-
- tion mark and enclosed in parentheses were not clear in the
original but have been supplied as appropriate in context.
- Other unattributed parenthetical notes within the body of an
item originate with the source. Times within items are as
given by source.
The contents of this publication in no way represent the poli-
cies, views or attitudes of the U.S. Government.
~
COPYRIGHT LAWS AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING OWNERSHIP OF
MATERIALS REPRODUCED HEREIN REQUIRE THAT DISSEMINATION
OF THIS PUBLICATION BE RESTRICTED FOR OFFICIAL USE 0~1LY.
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000300100065-6

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02148: CIA-RDP82-44850R000300104465-6
FOtt OFFICIAL USE ONLY
JPRS L/9702
30 Apri1 198].
WORLDWIDE REPORT
LAW OF THE SEA
(FOUO 2/81)
CONTENTS
Asza
~~~x
Acimiral Maeda Defines Protiection of Territorial Waters
- (ASAHI EVENING NEWS, 18 Mar 81) 1
LATIN AMERICA
CUBA
Havana Criticizes U.S. Law of Sea Stand
(Francisco Forteza; PRELA, 13 Mar 81) 2
WEST EUROPE
UNITED KINGDOM
'FINANCIAL TIMES' Advises U,S. To Move on Law of Sea
(Editorial; FINANCIAL TIMES, 17 Mar 81) 4
- a - [III - WW - 136 FOUO]
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000300100065-6

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02108: CIA-RDP82-00850R000300100065-6
FOR OFFiCIAL USE ONLY
JAPAN
A.DMIRAL MAEDA DEFINES PROTECTION OF TIItRITORIAL WATERS
OW191053 Tokyo ASAHI EVENING NEWS in English 18 Mar 81 p 1
[Text] Tne Defense Agency assumes that r_he�Self-Defense Forces will have to take on the
responsibilit~~ for the protection of sea lanes in waters arnund Japan extending to the
20th parailel. This kas made clear ]"uesday by Adm Masaru Maeda, chief of staff of the
Maritime Self-Defer~se Force. .
; In replfes to questions in the Diet, officials of the agency earlier said the waters
the SDF will have to defend extend several hundred nautical miles from Japan and about
1,000 nautical miles in terms of sea lanes.
Explaining this stand at a press conf ereace, Adm Maeda said the starting points for these
calculations are ports in the Tokpo-Yokohama and Osaka-Kobe industrial complexes.
The defense perimeter the Uefense Agency has in mind generally accords with the areas
for whose deEense the United States has been suggesting that Japan should be responsible--
the waters streCChing to the seas near the Philippines and north of Guam.
The de~inition of "the waters around Japan" which the United States wants Japan to defend -
on its own has been vague.
Referring to L.S. Ambassader Mike Mansfield's call on March 9 for a greater Japanese
defense role, Adm Maeda said he interprets it as a request fot Japan to do more within
the framework of the established policy under whfch the SDF limit themselves to defense
and count on U.S. forces for offensive action.
~dith regard to Mansfield's call for Japan to take up the slack caused by the shifting
of elemer.ts of the Seventh Fleet to the Indian Ocean, Adm Mae@a said the envoy presumably
did not mean to say Washington wants Japan to take over the mobile strikE power of the
~ Am~rican fleet. .
According to the Defense Agenc~~, PfSDF fleets are to defend the J~.panese coasts and sea ~
lanes ir. an emergenc~ under the air defense umbrella of the Air Self-Defense Force, and
the Seventh Fleet is to be depende~ on for mobile strike power and air superiority over ~
the offshore waters, which is beyond the ASDF's capabilities.
The Soviet Un�Lon must be made to reaffirm that the resumption of dialogue in such fields '
_ as the economy and culture does not necessari.iy mean that Japan has given iip the terri-
torial issue. The focus of Russo-Japanese talks can be narrowed down to this one point.
We very much hope tfiat Japan and the Soviet Union can coexist peacefully, and, for this,
we are trying to be realistic. We hope that the Soviet Union's next move will also be
realisCic.
COPYRTGHT: Asahi Evening News 1Q81
CSO: 52UQ
1
FOR OEFICIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000300100065-6

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02148: CIA-RDP82-44850R000300104465-6
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
CUBA
HAVANA CRITI:CIZES U.S. LAW OF SEA STAND
PA140144 Havana PR~LA in English 1946 GMT 13 Mar 81
[Report by Francisco Forteza]
[Text] Havana, 14 Mar (PL)--The United States decision to review all that has
been achieved by the United Nations conference on the law of the sea meant that
its tenth session opened in the midst of uncertainty.
Reactions in specialized quarters to the announcement continued to attract atten-
- tion this week, while internationally known experts described the U.S. move as
"disconcerting."
Other specialists based their accusations on Washington's efforts to openly favor
the transnational corporations.
_ For instance Venezuelan former Foreign Minister Simon Alberto Consalvi declared
in Caracas that President Ronald Reagan's decision free2es the negotiations and
undermines a series of consensus decisions achieved through a complex process
begun in 1958.
, International press media explained the attitude of the Reagan administration as
a response to pressures by transnational mining corporations that fear the partial
blocking of their operations in seabed mining.
UN Secretary General Kurt Waldheim echoed the generalized malaise of the inter-
national community in pointing out that rhe U.S. decision could alter the delicate
balance between tl~e rights and obligations of the states as a result of unilateral
decisions.
Another issue that pointed up Washington's scorn for contracted agreements, both
multilateral and bilateral, was the suspension of a wheat purchase credit to
Nicaragua.
The U.S. Embassy in Managua attempted to "prove" that WasY~ington never pledg,ed
to grant the credit with soft financing for 1981. Nicaragua's Domestic Trade
Ministry released two letters proving the existence of a pledge on the part of
the United States to grant the credit. The letters were sent to Pedro Antonio
Blandon, Nicaraguan under secretary for internal trade, by Lawrence Harrison,
- directo~ of the Agency for International Development, a L.S. government body,
and aid official Frank Heilemann.
2
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
I
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000300100065-6

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007102/08: CIA-RDP82-00850ROOQ3Q010Q065-6
r~x urrl~ttw u~n unLr
Along with the publication of the letters, the Nicaraguan ministry stressed that
the "U.S. Embassq claim that Washington at no time ple~ged to supply wheat with -
soft fina.n.cing in 1981 is fal$e."
Dianagua dailies for their part stated that in re~lity, the Reagan administratioh
move is an out and out economic ag~ression against Nicaragua.
- Speaking in La Paz, Carlos Alzamora, permanent secretary of the Latin American
Economic System (SELA), reflected the region's concern in the face of Washington
maneuvers. He spoke out in favor of the principles of non-intervention and self-
determination in this part of the world.
He ratified statements made in Managua in February when he urged the Latin American
countries to forge unity vis a vis the United States in the field of economic
negotiations.
In Quito on Tuesday, experts from 27 Latin American countries began a conference
~lesi.;ned to map out ~oint strategy for Lati.n American and Caribbean development
the next 10 years. ~
According to reports from the Ecuadorean capital, the participants are also
discussing the economic and social situation in the region in order to submit to
the Economic Co~nissian for Latin America action programs in the socio-economic
and especially energy fields.
CSO: 5200
~ 3
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY _
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000300100065-6

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02148: CIA-RDP82-44850R000300104465-6
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNITED KINGDOM
'FINANCIAL TIMES' ADVISES U.S. TO MOVE ON LAW OF SEA
LD171321 London FINANCIAL TIMES in ~nglish 17 Mar 81 p 18
[Editorial: "The Need for a Law of the Sea"]
[Text] The ~.~~a of the Sea Treaty being negotiated in the United Nations is too
important to be sacrificed to the interests of any one country or industry. It is
regrettable that the Reagan administration should have abruptly demanded a delay ~
before it will agree to a text which has already been under discussion for eight
years. But the administration's concerns about deep seabed mining are valid and
it is understandabie ttrat it should seek reassurance. There is, after all, no
point in having a treaty setting out how the mining companies may exploit the
wealth on the seabed if the provisions of the treaty mean that the companies are
unwilling to be involved.
Heritage
The potato-like nodules on parts of the world's seabed contain an estimated 240M
tonnes of cobalt, 290M tonnes of nickel and 6BN tonnes of manganese. It is one
thing if economics makes mining them of questionable value; at pr~sent dredging
_ thE seabeds would only become worthwhile when mineral prices reach a level also
making it practical to exploit widespread on-shore mineral deposits. It is quite
- another if the treaty itself discouraged inve~tment.
The present draft convention is a lawyer's delight and an industrialist's nightmare.
The seabed is classed as the "common heritage of mankind." To obtain a license
to mine it any state or state-sponsored company must apply for two sites. It
, will be allowed to minE at one site and the other will be banked for use either
by developing coun~ries or by the enterprise, the industrial arm of a projected
international seabed authority. Companies will have to contribute finance and
technology to the enternrise while the authority wil'. have the right to limit
production so as to pr~tect land-based producers.
Pressures
For the companies all these provisions are fraught with problems. Though the prin-
ciple of "double-banking" was proposed by Dr Henry Kiss3nger, its consequences are
complex and unsatisfactory. This is a point made strongly to the U.S. Congress in
_ recent years, not least by Mr Leigh S. Ratiner, now the second man in the U.S.
~
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000300100065-6

APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02148: CIA-RDP82-44850R000300104465-6
rvn vrrt~irw u~~ vivLi
delegation to the law of the sea conference and previously active on behal.f of
Kennecott, head of one seabed mining consortium.
In seeking a delay the administrati~n has responded to pressure from the mining
industry. But the arguments are not new. On the contrary in recent years the
industrialised countries have fought with some success to soften the draft treaty.
The result is that not all the U.S. mining companies feel as strongly as those
_ ones which have caught the Yieadlines. Indeed in other countries members of seabed
consortia argue that if negotiations on the basis of the existing draft are firmly
handled many of their fears could be overcome. It is to this end that the U.S.
should now work.
One reason for this is the importance which the rest of the world attaches to the
treaty. The years of negotiations have produced a text with something for every-
body. For the Third World in particular the principle of common heritage has
become crucial as one of its few tangible gains from the "north-south dialogue."
second and perhaps more telling argument is that the treaty is also essential
for ensuring freedom of navigation to ocean-going countries like Britain, the
U.S. and the Soviet Union. In exchange for access to the seabed the Third World
has agreed to keep the straits of the world open to international shipping, and
the airspace above them open to aircraft.
Strategic
Develogments like the proposed U.S. rapid deployment force only underline the
strategic interests of the West in this. The oil companies, too, need a framework
of international legislation to ensure that they can transport oil and that the
law of the sea does not become the law of the jungle.
_ In an ideal world the U.S. might like to scrap the provisions of the treaty
- relating to mining and maintain those dealing with navigation. The U.S. and other
industrialised countries might then seek to go ahead with the unilateral "tem-
porary" mining legislation that a number of them are introducing.
But too much bitterness would be created by such a~nove for the Third World simply
to acquiesce. Instead there is the real danger that coastal states would again
begin a drive to enlarge their claims over straits, continental shelves and what
are now considered to be high seas. It is not in the interests of the U.S. or
its allies to allow this.
COPYRIGHT: The Financial Times Ltd, 1981
~ CSa: 5200 END
5
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2007/02/08: CIA-RDP82-00850R000300100065-6