January 19, 1976
Page 125
Mr. GRAVEL. I would like to speak to some of the points of my distinguished colleague from Maine, for whom I have great affection and respect, as everybody knows.
In this particular area I believe we have a slight disagreement. I think the disagreement hinges not so much on the deep emotional commitment he has to solve the problem or his understanding of the problem. I believe we all recognize that great harm has been done to our fisheries in the past.
I think where we differ is how to try to solve the problem for the future. If my colleague believes that passing this bill will be a prod to the international conference, all I can say is I disagree radically and so do most of the leaders of the delegations at the conference itself.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. GRAVEL. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jim Case, of my staff, be granted the privilege of the floor during the consideration of the pending legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. I understand the position of the Senator. I must say that over the years of my public life I have been in the forefront of those who have tried to press for international agreements to establish an international regime of law, not only with respect to the oceans but with respect to other matters that set nations against nations. I have been to the SALT talks. I have been to just about every international conference that had any chance of resolving points of friction between nations in the context of the international regime of law and order.
But here we have a unique problem which we find stalemated all these years. I have heard these arguments year after year. I would not have passed the judgment I have passed and described here in the Chamber had I not been to the conference. But I have received the flavor of it. There are a lot of things that stand between the conference and the agreement on the 200-mile limit.
The 200-mile limit is not one of them. As I understand, there is strong support on the 200-mile limit, but it may be blocked from final international agreement because there are other problems that look pretty intractable in many ways. I just do not see why the 200-mile limit should be held hostage to these other more intractable problems, which could hold up the Law of the Sea Conference for some time.
Frankly, there was one other impression I had of the conference which I thought was very reassuring. I thought for the most part there was a very positive attitude on the part of all 149 nations toward the importance of writing a new law of the seas. They were involved in a learning process at that time but they were not reluctant in any way to assert their national interest.
A lot of them there at that conference had already established a 200-mile limit, not just as a coastal fisheries zone but a territorial limit of 200 miles. But they did not find that fact to inhibit their participation in a conference that could establish a different set of rules, nor did I find other nations inhibited in talking to the nations that had already acted because they had already acted. Every nation pursues its self-interest as best it can.
For some reason we in the United States seem to feel we are the only Nation that can never unilaterally pursue its own interest, but that we can only do so in the context of achieving agreement with all other nations. The frustration I experienced with this problem finally persuaded me to move in the other direction, but I understand the rationale. We just reach a different conclusion.
Mr. GRAVEL. I think our conclusions are the same, but our methods to get to the conclusion are different. The method I would employ would be to put more pressure on the international body. I do not think this legislation would act as a pressuring device.
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me tell the Senator one reason why I think it acts as a pressuring device. The Third World countries of the conference, especially those that are land-locked, are particularly interested in the minerals of the deep sea. They think they have a right to share them. They view that as — what is it they call it? Not the global heritage
Mr. GRAVEL. The heritage of mankind.
Mr. MUSKIE. The heritage of mankind. They are much more interested in that than in this problem. But if they see the United States moving unilaterally out of frustration to deal with this problem, they might well feel we would move unilaterally in that area also. They understand that the problem cannot be resolved without our participation, and they also understand that we have the technology and the capital to move unilaterally to exploit the mineral resources of the deep sea. So if they see us moving unilaterally with respect to this problem, they could well conclude that the United States might move unilaterally in order to deal with that other issue in which we are interested, and we had better move rapidly to conclude this Law of the Sea Conference.
Everyone pursues whatever motivation seems to have the highest priority with him. But I cannot see enacting this legislation unilaterally as persuading those nations to abandon the only chance they have to get a share of the heritage of mankind.
Mr. GRAVEL. Let me just say that if it is OK for the fishermen to take 200 miles, what is wrong with giving it to the third world? If we can do it unilaterally, why should not the mining interests move unilaterally to begin mining the deep sea?
Mr. MUSKIE. For very real reasons.
Mr. GRAVEL. Why?
Mr. MUSKIE. Those are not being exploited and devoured and disappearing, and the fisheries are being exploited and devoured and disappearing, and being subjected to growing assault from other countries.
Right now, there is a moratorium worldwide on the minerals of the deep sea. There is none here. If the Senator can get us a similar moratorium with respect to the fisheries off our coasts, I will join him.
Mr. GRAVEL. There is no moratorium on deep sea mining.
Mr. MUSKIE. There is a tacit moratorium.
Mr. GRAVEL. They are only withholding moving in because of the actions of our executive with respect to certain pressuring moves. There is also pressure in this body to get legislation to move.
So I make my one small point in respect to the Senator's argument: If it is good for fisheries, why is it not good for mining? If it is good for fisheries, why not doit for mining?
Mr. MUSKIE. Because the Senator mixes up the motivation. If that is an example of the strength the Senator is arguing, he knows I am not persuaded. at all. I am persuaded even more that we are not.
Mr. GRAVEL. I was merely trying to address myself to one of the minor points the Senator raised.
Another point I would like to make is in regard to the charge the Senator makes that our fisheries are being decimated right now. That is not the case.
Mr. MUSKIE. If the Senator would come to Maine and persuade my fishermen that that is not the case, then it would be much easier for me to join with the Senator in his position.
Mr. GRAVEL. I have talked with some of the New England fishermen.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mine? Would the Senator identify them?
Mr. GRAVEL. I would be happy to goto Maine, as the Senator from Maine knows, and state my position on fisheries, and let him attack me, and I hope that would help him.
Mr. MUSKIE. I would rather attack the problem.
Mr. GRAVEL. Right; that is what I would like to attack also. The problem right here and now as to what its impact would be on the international community.
I wish someone in the media would interview the various heads of delegations and report back to the American people as to what they think about it — not what you or I think or the Senator from Washington thinks would be the impact of the conference, but what the people at the conference think would be the result of the conference.
Mr. MUSKIE. I can tell you what they will find out.
Mr. GRAVEL. I wish the Senator would accord me the same courtesy I have accorded. If we act unilaterally in this matter, what is to stop any nation from acting unilaterally in a matter it perceives in its interest?
Mr. MUSKIE. Is the Senator asking me the question?
Mr. GRAVEL. Let me finish. Be it in the area of fisheries, passage, mining, transportation, pollution, or what have you. If we determine this to be in our interest and move unilaterally, what is to stop any other nation from doing the same, and if that happens, as every other nation moves unilaterally, what is the point of having an international conference to move in a concerted fashion?
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me answer the first question first. If they ask that question of those delegates, they will get a 100 percent uniform answer.
Mr. GRAVEL. They will not get a 100 percent answer.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am willing to conclude that they will. You talk with the delegates, and their posture is that, of course, they are going to. But when you talk to some of them privately, off the record, I think you will get a more valid assessment.
The Senator asks me what is to stop any nation from acting unilaterally. Absolutely nothing, whether or not this legislation is enacted; and some of them have acted unilaterally, without this legislation having been enacted.
We are involved in the SALT conference. Has that suspended any activity on our part in establishing our defense posture, building up our armed forces, continuing with the development of nuclear weapons? We went ahead with the ABM treaty even while the SALT negotiations were going on, and they ultimately resulted in outlawing the ABM. But we proceeded. I mean the fact that a conference is called and is being held does not suspend the action of nations acting in their own behalf. Nations are going to be motivated in their reaction to what we do here, not by any sense of outlawry by which we effect it, but by their perceived self-interest.
What I said in my prepared speech is that I do not believe that the perception of their self-interest which led 149 nations to go to the Law of the Sea Conference with respect to this issue, notwithstanding the fact that several other countries had already acted unilaterally to establish 200-mile territorial limits, indicates they all understand, while nations are now acting unilaterally and may continue to act unilaterally until the agreement to the new law of the seas is established, it still makes sense to write a new law of the seas.
We cannot expect people to suspend all their activities or nations to suspend all their activities on the basis of a hope that something in the nature of some form of specific agreement will ultimately make a unilateral action void, without meaning, and ineffective.
We continue to do business as our national interest requires until there is an international agreement which establishes a new set of rules. I think those delegates at the Law of the Seas Conference are sophisticated enough politicians to understand that.
I have talked to a lot of them about their internal politics. They understand that until one reaches agreement one does not give away anything.
We have not had an agreement yet. I am saying we are not going to give away anything that we do not have to give away.
With respect to the deep sea minerals, of course, there is not an agreement on a moratorium, but everyone has held back because they know they can. Those minerals are not going to disappear while the conference goes on. But I say to the Senator that our fisheries can. It is that prospect that motivates us to move. If we can declare a moratorium, as I suggested to the Russian delegates at Caracas, as I suggested to the Japanese delegates, and as I suggested to others, and if we could voluntarily create a moratorium at some level so that we can suspend the threat of exploitation and decimation of our resources, I would be happy to join in such a moratorium and vote to suspend action on 200-mile-limit litigation until we get an international agreement, but I am not going to assume that there is going to be an international 200-mile limit at the end of this calendar year. I think that is a very unrealistic assumption.
The Senator cannot promise me that there will be an agreement at the end of this calendar year. The State Department cannot. The President cannot. The record is that there probably will not. So that means still another year because once we enter a calendar year with such negotiations, the tendency is to use it all. So I am just not content to wait, and I do not think we are going to jeopardize the Law of the Sea Conference. I am not going to be able to convince the Senator from Alaska on that point.
I regret to say I shall have to leave the Chamber for reasons the Senator understands.
But before I do it, even though I disagree with him so strongly, I compliment him on the vigor and thoroughness with which he has pursued his point of view. It has been an example of the way a Senator ought to approach an issue when he thinks deeply about it. So in my disagreements with the Senator I do not in any way challenge the ability with which he is pursuing his case.
Mr. GRAVEL. I thank our colleague for that, and I do understand the reasons for his absence. I regret that this whole country is going to be denied his wisdom as we pursue it. But we understand his duty and I think the Nation shall perceive it this evening.
Mr. MAGNUSON addressed the Chair.
Mr. President, do I still have the floor?
Mr. MAGNUSON. I wish the Senator from Maine would wait for only a half minute.
I listened to his able presentation, and I have listened to the Senator from Alaska I do not know how long, but a long time. But if I can have the attention of the Senator from Alaska — those are a lot of papers he has there — the argument that was made that the Senator from Maine so adequately answered takes me back a long time. It takes me back 11 years ago in Geneva. I was there 11 years ago. Exactly the same argument was made against the 12- and 9-mile limit that he is making. That was 11 years ago. Now that is waiting a long time. The military was there arguing against a 12-mile limit. Oh, everything was going to happen, everyone in the world was going to have a navigation revolution. We do not have that.
The Senator knows these nations are going to make their agreements according to their own interests. We are not fishing off everyone else's shores.
I wish to say again, that which I have said before. Here, for example, is a half page ad from the Japanese Government which is intimating their views. I shall say to the Senator from Alaska that they will never sign a law of the sea agreement that will restrict them in any way. This was an ad by the Japanese Fisheries Association printed in American papers all over the country during the recess.
They do not practice conservation. Fifty or 60 years ago, the greatest fishing grounds in the world were off the islands of Japan and because they did not do what we are trying to do, they have to go someplace else. This is the real problem.
If we went fishing off the coast of Japan today, if we went fishing off their coasts, I am sure the Senator from Alaska will agree with me — if he will listen a minute — if we went fishing off the Japanese coast, if we started early enough in the morning, the Japanese Diet would meet in the afternoon and throw us out. That is also true with all the countries that are fishing off our coast. We do not fish off everyone's coast. But we are only saying we are protecting our own pasture. That is all.
This was the same argument — and it is like a broken record — that I listened to 11 long years ago. Everyone is going to do something and act unwisely.
As the Senator from Maine says, that is ridiculous.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator from Washington.