Basic HTML Version
RICHES OF THE SEA
(Continued from page 14)
Most Divisive lssue
The most d isputed pa r t of the
Law of the Sea-the part on
which success or failure of the
t reaty rests- is the makeup and
powers of the ln ter n a tiona l
Seabed Authority. l ts powers go
far beyond regulat ing access to
seabed minerals.
For years the industrial nations,
led by the United States, wanted
the ISA to
be
only a licensing
authority. Prívate Western mining
consortiums said they were wi lling
to give a certain percentage of
their profit s to thc Seabed
Authority to disperse to develop–
ing nations. But the developing
nations demanded that control and
output of minerals from deep-sea
mining be totally in the hands of a
supranational agency.
To resolve the deadlock, U.S.
delegates in 1976 agreed, without
U .S. indus tri a l approval, t hat
seabed mining could proceed by
two parallel mining groups. One
mining group to consis t of prívate
consortiums from developed na–
t ions; the other would
be
an agency
called Enterprise that would mine
directly for the benefit of develop–
ing nations, with profits, if any,
going to them.
The hi tch that irked many U.S.
mine rs was that príva te consor–
tiums would
be
heavily taxed , while
Enterprise would not. The prívate
consortiums would have to pay the
ISA high licensing and access fees
for mining arcas. Western consor–
tiums would also have to provide
two mining surveys of equal value
to the ISA-one for themselves,
one for Enterprise.
Moreover, prívate consortiums
would have to relinquis h their
mining technology to Ente rprise
at fair cost. That means prívate
consortiums would have to g ive up
thei r mining secrets and technolo–
gy upon demand to Enterprise so
it could compete wit h miners
from advanced nations. All this is
a radically new departure in the
transfer of prívate property in
internat ional affairs.
It
is totally
contrary to the usual principies
34
under which free enterprise oper–
ates.
But governance of the IS A was
even more troubling to Westero
miners and to man y U .S. leaders
in Congress. Each country rati–
fying the t reaty would be repre–
sented in the general assembly of
the ISA, but the real decision–
maki ng power would be in a
revolving membership, 36-nation
executive counc il. T hat would give
a nation such as the United States
one vote out of 36. The exact
makeup of who would be a llowed
in the powerful executive council
was not totally clarified in the
draft rejected by President Rea–
gan.
In many Westerner 's minds ,
the International Seabed Authori–
ty could be an Orwellian agency–
the ultimate custodian and dicta–
tor o f the high seas. And it would
be in the con trolling hands of
ideologies diametrically opposed
to many Western political a nd
business practices. Westero min–
ing companies particu la rly fear
limits placed on their production
would endanger their enormous
investments.
The R eaga n administration
pulled back from further treaty
negotiations to protect the nation's
fut ure supply o f critica! nickel,
copper , manganese and coba!
t.
Othe rwise these vital resources
could fall under Third Wor ld con–
trol. And that was dangerous. The
United States is heavi ly dependent
on the imports o f many of these
critical minerals and the Soviet
Union is not.
U.S. negot ia tors have always
contended that they would never
relinquish their right to mine the
deep seas to protect U .S . industry.
" We've never accepted that com–
mon heritage carried with it the
right to impai r [U.S.] mining,"
said one U .S. negotiator .
And so the conflict of who will
mine the seas threatens to break
down over the unresolved a nd
a ntagonistic
d i ffer~nces
of the
world's two main competing eco–
nomic and political ideologies.
The United States has already
formulated laws that would grant
U .S. miners rights to explore and
pursue deep-sea mining if the Law
o f t he Sea T reaty fails. O t he r
advanced nations have indicated
willingness to do so also.
What a dilemma!
Most of the present deep-sea
mining companies from the
United States, the United King–
dom, Canada, West Germany,
France, Belgium and J apan have
already laid out enormous sums of
money in preparatory deep-sea
research and developmen
t.
But spokesmen for the develop–
ing nat ions have hinted that if
industrial nat ions uni laterall y
min e the ocean beds, they will
push for reprisals such as cu tting
off o il , land-based minerals and
other r aw materials on which
industrialized nations depend.
Will a free- for-al! over the high
seas develop with the s trongest
taki ng all?
These opening months of 1982
will reveal which path nations will
take. But the Bible already reveals
the ultimate outcome of the Law
of the Sea Convention!
God says of all mankind , "The
way of peace they know not .. .
they have made t hem crooked
paths: whosoever goeth therei n
shall no t know peace"
(lsa. 59:8 ) .
And, ..They [world statesmen ]
have healed the wound . .. of my
people lightly, sayi ng , •p eace,
peace,' when
~here
is no . peace"
(Jer. 6: 14, R S V) .
Why wi ll the Law of the Sea
T reaty fail ?
Because the basic underlying
fears, the dist rusts, the enmities
and divisions that plague humans
have never been resolved! And
they will not be resolved until the
res toration of the government of
God on earth!
Ownership of Seas
Yet to Be Resolved
It
wi ll finally take the Supreme
Super-Authority over all land and
seas to force nations to live in
peace! To l ive a way of life of
giving, instead of voraciously con–
suming and wasting so many pre–
c ious mi nerals- part icu larly in
pre parations for war (lsa. 2:2-4).
God owns the oceans. And He
wi ll g rant use of its hidden riches
only when human beings prove
they have the c haracter to use it
for peaceful purposes and the ben–
efit of all mankind! o
The
PLAIN TRUTH