108010

JPRS 82812

7 February 1983

Worldwide Report

LAW OF THE SEA

No. 219 LO

co

cvj

"l^^rfoTpubUc release;

^^Wi'^jj!} ^|

FBIS FOREIGN BROADCAST INFORMATION SERVICE

iNf-

-a,,! [MM

/!
NOTE

JPRS 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 from English-language sources

are transcribed or reprinted, with the original phrasing and

other characteristics retained.

Headlines, editorial 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 information was

processed. Where no processing indicator is given, the information was summarized or extracted.

Unfamiliar names rendered phonetically or transliterated are

enclosed in parentheses. Words or names preceded by a question 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 policies, views or attitudes of the U.S. Government.

PROCUREMENT OF PUBLICATIONS

JPRS publications may be ordered from the National Technical

Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161. In ordering, it is recommended that the JPRS number, title, date and

author, if applicable, of publication be cited.

Current JPRS publications are announced in Government Reports

Announcements issued semi-monthly by the National Technical

Information Service, and are listed in the Monthly Catalog of

U.S. Government Publications issued by the Superintendent of

Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office:, Washington, D.C.

20402.

Correspondence pertaining to matters other than procurement

may be addressed to Joint Publications Research Service,

1000 North Glebe Road, Arlington, Virginia 22201.
JPRS 82812

7 February 1983

Worldwide Report

LAW OF THE SEA

No. 219

FBIS FOREIGN BROADCAST INFORMATION SERVICE
JPRS 82812

7 February 1983

WORLDWIDE REPORT

LAW OF THE SEA

No. 219

CONTENTS

WORLDWIDE AFFAIRS

Overview of Current Status of USSR, Norway Arctic Dispute

(Kjell Dragnes; AFTENPOSTEN, 12 Jan 83) 1

ASIA

JAPAN

Japan's Policy on Manganese Nodule Development Discussed

(Wataru Fukazawa; TSUSAN JANARU, Sep 82) 7

WEST EUROPE

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Greenland Government Now Demands Danes Use Force Against FRG

(AFTENPOSTEN, 10 Jan 83) 17

Norway, Greenland Boundary Dispute Entering Worsening Phase

(Terje Svabo; AFTENPOSTEN, 12 Jan 83) 18

Danes Boycotting Norwegian Herring Landings in Dispute

(AFTENPOSTEN, k Jan 83) ,.... 20

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

SPD Scores Government for Nonparticipation in LOS

(Horst Schreitter-Schwarzenfeld; FRANKFURTER RUNDSCHAU,

16 Dec 82) 22

FRANCE

Bürget, Reorganization of Ocean Exploitation Groups

(LES ECHOS, 29 Dec 82) 0 2k

- a - [III - WW - 136]
WORLDWIDE AFFAIRS

OVERVIEW OF CURRENT STATUS OF USSR, NORWAY ARCTIC DISPUTE

Oslo AFTENPOSTEN in Norwegian 12 Jan 83 p 37

[Article by Kjell Dragnes]

[Text] In the cold gray Barents Sea, whipped by

January storms, capelin seiners, cod trawlers

factory ships and sharks are steaming ahead in

the search for the ocean's resources, which are

unfortunately diminishing. In the warm offices

of Oslo and Moscow, the climate is almost as harsh

when the subject of the Barents Sea is brought up.

Talks on the dividing line, the demarcation of the

continental shelf on the ocean floor and the economic zones of the ocean have encountered even

choppier seas than those met by Norwegian and

Soviet vessels "on the spot."

that boi-h <=-M0o years ago. The only small consolation is

mUthto

C"hetrother"hatt0

th

haVe ^^ °f

^

at leaat *eith" <"* will adBut dlve^op^ria "rSSe

be;iSy^

r8enCy *" "^^ at an ^-ment.

ing carried out in thl §i

SCeneS'Norwe

g

ia

* oil drilling is belaßt mr If t geologic strata of Tromsoflaket. And on 17 May

£i.rM Si'B^nSi:.8^' H

d

i

lUng ships began workin^ *^

a signal as to whom the Russian, *.d W\

S P^bably accidental and not

mineral resourcls in the'n h?SE^^-^So^E"'1^'" *" separate the two views of «hal- K I 155,000 square kilometers still

tions have not led Norwav InH\tc^

l

°

Wh°m

'

And t0 date the negotiate each oth^r. Y

*

the S

°

V16t Union a sin

g

le centimeter closer

The big collision really came about in 1Q77 „i,ö„ M

economic zone of 200 nautili ?i

ln 1977, when Norway established an

«m. Both ont 1 ,

6S'aft6r Which the Soviet Union did the

Both countries followed what had already become established practice same.
lounZTes I" llliJt*"" '" ^"^ ^^* *>r drawing

which places the Una quite a MtT? ^

S

°"CaUed S6Ct°

r

P

ri-iple,

by Norway-a divis^ r^Ä^*' ^^ «—*id

198l!ain oSr «rdTBo

8"e

Jh;r,,ded ^ ^^ °

Ut W3S in °sl°in D

-^er

should invite thrhostnexL aro^^T^V0 CUSt°

m

'

next setting for talks W «n f .

Therefore>M

°scow will be

the

the^

Union with regard to this nor haT^ ^ ^

h

" °°me fr°

m the Soviet

tiations might get going again But'th "* ^f "

t0 When the ^°~

much time should nof^f K Z

Gre 1S an understanding that too

to the Russian 'to dec deS;har:h

e

i: t^l^^^ "^ "

±S »* in the habit of hnvrvint Jh.n .t

lnvolves, but the Russians are hardly

countries. ^

8 When Lt C

°

mes to difficult discussions with other

taUlke

adT oTar^nd ^TlTjlTT *" ^ '"*" SinCe the ^ ^«°

the Sea Convention was silll/i*, "^T^ table«

The UN Law <*

year since the conclusion of thp f^T ^^ December> a^st exactly a

Both the SovietZioHnd No'rwa^ we^ ^"Se" uTcVV^3*» ^

treaty. Thus both approved the contend l 1 countries signing the

time before the convention goe into effect fo^allf " """ J

6

.'

lon*

vidual country must ratify ft first! fo *^y, since each indiuL^rfto^e8

; ^;"0?,,11180 C°

ntainS Pri

-iples as to how dividing

overlap each othJr ^sth^ H ^T^ 2°

neS f

°

r diff^ent countries §

Conven^.^SpSc^

coantinef:talth2lf1:1heS £S ^^f"^^^ **

line principle is till ^ , ' "

W°rth n

°

tin

§

that the centeruniofon'the ^Kf^f'r „l* »~««"f« "••««» Norway and the Sovlet

occurred. But tne tttV e' aTö'the £. *lVÄ "° "^ ""

ence on the talks. U stl11 have some influT:J:X STES. .&;d

d

zrxrz

11

" "

specui cMditi°ns"«

things they point te a'pree ltio„ f117^1 ITTil^ *""* <"h"

given as the "western boundary for rt. 7

the sector line is

Union." But there ha« h«„ y,

P

°

lar

P°"««ions of the Soviet

shelf boundary on t„rpart of"thTf"^',,".0" "^ 1IM "

the continental
involve compromises and that means, in plain language, that both sides

have to give a little--but it does not seem that Moscow is prepared to do

that at the present time.

The Norwegian willingness to make compromises is not a result of developments in the field of international law, it is a political assessment,

according to those who have followed law of the sea developments closely

for many years.

The political assessment referred to is that it is not good to allow such

important problems as boundary-line disputes to remain unsolved for very

long. One unsolved issue has a tendency to create others. But at the same

time it is stressed that Norway is not under any pressure to hurry things

up, which could be used by the other side to gain greater concessions.

At first glance it may seem strange that it has not been possible to get

any movement in negotiations which, albeit with long intermissions, have

been going on for 12 years. But as former Foreign Minister Knut Frydenlund

said in his book, "Little Land—What Now?":

"The way in which the dividing-line problem is solved will also affect

future relations between the two countries. That is probably one of the

reasons why it is taking so long to arrive at a solution."

Military strategic developments have made the Barents Sea important and

that is something over which Norway has no control. Military assessments

have acted as an obvious check on the negotiations, and they have also

been used as a Soviet argument. But this has been rejected by Norway as

irrelevant in talks based on the Continental Shelf Convention of 1958 and

now on the new Law of the Sea Convention.

But it is clear that a small country must include in its assessment the

fact that the security interests of a superpower, even though these are

partially directed against Norway, are involved.

The most urgent problem, the regulation of the mutual fish population in

the Barents Sea, was temporarily solved in the gray-zone agreement that

was negotiated in 1977 and signed 5 years ago.

This agreement circumvents the dividing-line problem by covering both Norwegian and Soviet areas that are not disputed. But one of the reservations

is that 23,000 square kilometers of the gray zone lie in Norwegian territory, regardless of the principle of division. Only a small piece, 3,000

square kilometers, is in Soviet territory. The entire gray zone measures

67,000 square kilometers.

The gray-zone agreement is valid for a year at a time and is regularly

extended without much ceremony by means of an exchange of notes in Oslo

and Moscow each summer. The danger is that this undramatic extension

could become a permanent arrangement, despite the fact that this has never
been the intention. And the more time that goes by, the greater the possibility that the agreement will become a habit, even thought it was clearly

established that it would not form a precedent for a future agreement.

Svalbard is a separate problem, due to the special status of the island

group as a result of the Svalbard Treaty of 1920. Through the years there

have been several Soviet attempts to obtain a joint control over the

islands and now the problems have been extended to include the surrounding

ocean waters. For reasons of principle, the Soviet Union has opposed the

establishment of a fishing conservation zone that was set up in June 1977

and the discussion of the Svalbard shelf and the rules that should apply

to it have also bogged down there.

In brief, the question is whether Svalbard has its own shelf or whether

the ocean floor in the vicinity can be regarded as an extension of the

Norwegian shelf and whether the treaty also applies to the ocean and not

just the islands.

Oil is the joker in the deck in the negotiations between Norway and the

Soviet Union on polar regions. The estimated wealth of resources beneath

the ocean floor can lead to new conditions. Both countries have pursued

an intensive geological mapping program of the floor, not without incident.

But both sides have assumed that any future activity will not occur in

disputed areas.

There are certain indications that the Soviet Union will now be more interested than it was before in having a permanent boundary drawn up. After a

sluggish start, in the usual Soviet style, an offshore program has now been

worked out.

Three drilling ships have been purchased from Finland, two retractable

platforms have also been ordered from Finnish shipyards and the Russians

themselves have prepared to construct ice-reinforced platforms at a shipyard in Viborg.

The Soviet Union has put out feelers to other countries, including Norway,

on cooperation in the Barents Sea. Before Christmas, a delegation from

the Export Council, Norwegian Petroleum Consultants and Norwegian Contractors was in Moscow and presented an outline for a conutling project.

During February it will become clear whether the Russians are interested

in a closer look and later whether Norwegian firms will get deliveries of

equipment. At any rate things have come far enough that Moscow has requested a concrete proposal.

Careful evaluations indicate that it will take at least 5 years before

there will be any question of construction on the Soviet shelf in the

Barents Sea. And even that does not mean that there is any need to set up

a boundary agreement right away, since large areas are involved and there

is plenty of room on the Soviet shelf to work with.
But geological mapping has shown that the interesting structures extend

into the gray zone and the disputed territory. On a map that western oil

people have been allowed to see in Moscow, the strata that might contain

oil and gas extend like an open hand from the Kola Peninsula into the ocean

with the thumb over the Novaja Zemlja island group.

Key:

1. Center line

2. Sector line

3. 200-mile zone

4. Greenland

5. Disputed areas

7. Barents Sea

8. "Gray zone"

9. Iceland

10o Faeroe Islands

11„ Norway

6. 1920 Svalbard Treaty boundary ±2. Sweden
A Soviet proposal from the last boundary meeting also shows that it is oil

and gas that are the most important. They proposed restraint in utilizing

these resources in an area running an equal distance east and west of the

sector line. Norway rejected this because it would include less than a

sixth of the disputed area and because indisputably Norwegian zone areas

would come under the limitation. The proposal was also viewed as an attempt to have the sector line form the starting point for negotiations.

Despite all the talk about an oil surplus, these resources are of vital

importance for the Soviet Union, as well as for us. Therefore it is not

inconceivable that purely economic arguments may begin to have more impact

in Moscow than has been the case in the past. Ultimately, the economy and

energy supply considerations will have as much importance from a security

point of view in the Soviet Union as pure military striking force.

But the progress in the negotiations is not yet great enough to overcome

contrary winds and heavy seas. Fishermen and fish, submarines and other

military vessels are left to their own devices in the Barents Sea--in

fair weather and foul.

6578

CSO: 5200/2524
JAPAN

JAPAN'S POLICY ON MANGANESE NODULE DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSED

Tokyo TSUSAN JANARU in Japanese Sep 82 pp 48-53

[Article by Wataru Fukazawa, Agency for National Resources and Energy]

[Text] Introduction

"Manganese nodules," a future resource sleeping in deep seabeds, are heading

for a new age of development: on 30 April 1982, the UN Third Conference on

the Law of the Sea, which had been deliberating as long as 10 years on the

negotiating text of a treaty and four resolutions in order to formulate a comprehensive order relating to the seas, including a system for manganese nodule

development, adopted the documents by an overwhelming majority to conclude the

actual negotiations.

In this paper, focusing on the manganese nodule development problems which have

always claimed the central attention throughout the conference, I will discuss

the following: (1) policies administered by the Ministry of International

Trade and Industry, (2) international circumstances such as the Conference of

the Law of the Sea, and (3) Japanese countermeasures in consideration of the

situation.

MITI's Policies Relating to Manganese Nodule Development

Manganese nodules, sleeping in deep seabeds 4,000-6,000 meters below the surface and containing useful metals such as nickel, cobalt, copper and manganese,

wait quietly to be developed by mankind. Our country, which depends on imports

from overseas for virtually all these metals, has great hopes for deep seabed

development, a treasure house of quasidomestic resources. MITI is currently

administering a positive policy consisting mainly of a manganese deposit survey

and R&D of mining technologies for the development of manganese nodules.

It was 7 years ago that MITI started a full-scale manganese nodule deposit survey. The "Hakurei-Maru" owned by the Metal Mining Corporation sailed off to an

ocean area generally known as the "Manganese Ginza," south of Hawaii, in search

of sites with dense, high-quality manganese nodule deposits. Five years of

surveying by the Hakurei-Maru since that time contributed to the discovery of a

promising site. However, in FY-80 MITI decided to introduce "Hakurei-Maru No 2,'

a special ship for detection of manganese nodules, to facilitate more efficient
and accurate surveying. With introduction of this ship, which claims to have

a detection efficiency five-six times greater than the Hakurei-Maru, loaded

with the world's latest detector specifically for use on a ship, the detection

results of our country have shown a dramatic improvement, which enables us to

say that Japan has taken a large step forward toward the development of manganese nodule mining. (Figure 1 shows the concept of the survey by the HakureiMaru No 2.) The deposit survey operation is carried out by contract with the

Metal Mining Corporation (which then subcontracted it to the Deep Ocean Mineral Association (DOMA)). In parallel with this, MIT! is also eagerly promoting

the development of the survey devices necessary for deposit surveys (for example, a deep sea high-speed television system, a high-speed extensive area

detection system) by contracting out the work to the Metal Mining Corporation.

Figure 1 Concept of Manganese Nodule Exploration by the Hakurei-Maru No 2.

Key:

A. Method of Navigation

(1) NNSS (Satellite navigation

system)

Loran C

Exploration

Air gun

(2)

B.

(3)

(4) PDR

SRP

MFES

^sound depth detection

and exploration

(5) DTV (deep sea television)

(6) Free fall corer

(7) Free fall sampler Sample

(8) Dredge bucket ^collection

(9) Space corer

(10) Piston corer

(11) Ship boarding data processing

system
In the task of developing manganese nodules, mining technology is a key point

which is just as important as the deposit survey. As previously described, it

is not easy to hoist a large quantity of manganese to the surface at economical cost, since the manganese nodules are deposited in deep seabeds 4,000-

6,000 meters below the surface. However, unless this mining technology is

established, the manganese nodules will continue to sleep forever in the deep

seabed without reaching our hands, and the expenses and labor for deposit surveys will go for nothing. With this in mind, MITI adopted plans to establish

a mining technology and to develop basic technologies for sampling systems and

hoisting systems, for a total investment of 20 billion yen, as a 9-year project starting in FY-81 under the large project system of the Agency of Industrial Science and Technology. In addition, based upon the results of development, an experimental system is to be designed in detail and manufactured to

conduct a complete sea test in an actual sea area (see Figure 2). This research and development is being carried out as a contract project by the "Manganese Nodule Mining System Research Institute," after it was established in

January 1982 by a technical research union comprised of the Metal Mining

Corporation and 17 companies in the nonferrous metal, shipbuilding and heavy

machinery and shipping industries.

International Circumstances Including Law of the Sea Conference

The deep seabeds terrain is beyond the sovereignty or jurisdiction of any

nation. Manganese nodule development, because of its universal nature, has

always been attended by international problems.

Advanced nations, such as. America, Britain and Germany, which have international consortiums, and France, which has a government project, are showing strong

interest in manganese nodule development just as Japan is, with a view to a stable supply of resources. On the other hand, developing nations, centering

around the countries which carry out land production of mineral resources are

also interested in manganese nodule development in the negative sense, as they

are concerned about its adverse affect upon the land resources. Arguments relating to the manganese nodule development system put forward at the UN Third

Marine Law Conference on the Law of the Sea depicted this confrontation between

the advanced nations and the developing nations, the so-called South-North

issue. The confrontation between the Western advanced nations, which maintain

that development should be pursued freely by private enterprise, and the developing nations, which insist that development should be pursued unilaterally by

an international institution, continued vehemently to the final stage of the

conference.

Originally, the negotiating text was scheduled to be adopted under the essential mutual agreement by beginning of last year. The mutual agreement resulting from a compromise between the above-mentioned confronting advanced nations

and the developing nations was termed a "parallel system," it prescribed that

both an international institution and private enterprise (under the control of

the international organization, called the "Authority") may carry out development activities (see Figure 3). However, the parallel system, which was constructed upon an intricate conflict of interests, lost its balance when U.S.

administrative power was transferred to the hands of President Reagan.
M

X

1

)..

-Q

ft

rr^r. 7\ •-#: J iss« jjjgfi^S^V

;i (5)

(3)

?*^W~rtT^)

r

: (6)

*'f-r / )

'if;- ''-?.•..;'"•' I

.;i^!#-:..'

"Ill

I--3000 M

40C0M

imjl^O)

1 -5000M

b'JOOK

Figure 2. Concept of Manganese Nodule Mining System

Key:

(1) Mining ship

(2) Transporting barge

(3) Transporter

(4) Mining ship

(5) Air lift

(6) Underwater pump

(7) Mineral hoisting pipe

(8) Mineral collector

(9) Transponder

(10) Manganese nodule

10
(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(l) mmmftmn&i*

2. W.ttM&<r>y2 £x.>?--r7 4 Xco|iH-5£iIJ iLtt-'/'lf^ l-tlfÄ-f & <

4. m mtikcr>-'^m<^ £ * - v >; T < u » MI -r a. .•» •" . .5. -t«oflfeUB*i:

(14)£It

Vj= |S] 60

(20)

(24)1

(25)

•6(ßl,'l',-*'i L -TUIi'li'A

2. Ra5fi»9'r'«-W^eo*"U*fi (22)

Figure 3. Deep Seabed (Manganese Nodule) Development Scheme

Key:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

Conditions for development project, application

Applicant shall have financial and technical abilities

Half of rough exploration zone shall be offered to the Authority for

Development by the Enterprise

Development technology shall be transferred to the Enterprise under

fair and reasonable conditions

A set percentage of the developmental profit will be offered to the

Authority

The Authority's other administrative rules relating to development

shall be observed

Application of development project

Private business (or national government)

Profit

Approval of development project

Authority (international seabed organization) operating expenses

Revenue

Outlay of a prescribed percentage of income

Nations to which private businesses belong shall regulate the development of the private businesses by domestic law so that the treaty will

be respected

Sponsor

Distribution mainly to developing nations

Nations carrying out land production

[key continued]

11
[Continuation of key to Figure 3]

(18) Compensation in case of damage inflicted

(19) Part of the income

(20) Treaty powers

(21) Fund outlay, guarantee of obligation

(22) Enterprise (International Development Corporation)

(23) Public Corporation for implementation of development

(24) Half of the developmental funds needed by the Enterprise will be outlayed by those countries which signed the treaty (only for No 1 mine)

(The opinion is strong that those countries contribute according to the

rate they contribute to the United Nations)

(25) The remaining (1/2) funds needed by the Enterprise will be borrowed,

and obligation will be guaranteed by those countries at the rate of

their contribution to the United Nations

(26) Part of the profit will be recycled to the Enterprise (the International

Development Corp.) as part of the developmental funds.

Specifically, as a result of a 1-year review of the negotiating text concentrating on the manganese nodule development system, at the Law of the Sea Conference held last spring, America proposed amendments to the negotiating text

involving as many as 230 items based on the following points: (1) development

should be freely carried out by private enterprise, and (2) the organization

should properly reflect American opinions and interests. In response to this,

the developing nations reacted defiantly, alleging that the demand by America

showed lack of respect for the 10-year long deliberations. The conference

continued till the last day without any concessions at all being made by

either side. In consequence, it was necessary to give up the idea of adopting

the negotiating text containing the previously described parallel system by

consensus, and it was then decided that the matter of adoption would be concluded by the vote of each nation. (Voting result: approval, 130 votes:

Japan, France, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden and other northern European

nations, and the majority of developing nations; disapproval, 4 votes:

America, Israel, Turkey and Venezuela; abstention, 17 votes: England, West

Germany, Holland, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Luxembourg, Thailand, and nine East

European nations including the Soviet Union.)

Incidentally, for the deep seabed development system, a more significant system was stipulated outside the negotiating text at the Law of the Sea Conference as a current problem to be confronted—an "Advance Investment Protection

Resolution."

At present, aside from the Japanese project, business entities such as international consortiums and the French Government project are carrying on activities primarily of an exploratory nature. The objective of the resolution was

to find a way to relate these business entities to the Law of the Sea Treaty

(how these business entities could establish exclusive mining zones and conduct exploratory activities and how these activities could be linked to the

Law of the Sea Treaty until the treaty came into effect). At the conference

on the Law of the Sea held last spring, the maximum amount of time and labor

12
was spent on debate concerning this advance investment protection resolution.

This was because (for one thing, the negotiation of the Law of the Sea Treaty

itself was, as described above, deadlocked due to the confrontation) a simple

picture could not be drawn due to the pressing, concrete and realistic nature

of the problem, and the vectors of rights and interests of different nations,

pointing in all directions, were delicately intertwined.

To be precise, the nations which support international consortiums advocate

a system quite separate from the Law of the Sea Treaty and exclusively beneficial to the international consortiums as much as possible, while the developing nations insist on a system that is equivalent to the Law of the Sea

Treaty as much as possible. Furthermore, Japan insists that the Japanese project should be treated as equal to an international consortium while respecting the Law of the Sea Treaty, whereas the Soviet Union and the East European

nations maintain a position that will secure and maximize the profits of the

East bloc from the standpoint of East-West relations. These views are in complex confrontation on issues such as the qualification of advance investors,

the number and size of mining zones to be secured by advance investors, standards for adjusting overlapping mining zones claimed by more than one advance

investor, and the priority of development under the Marine Law Treaty. In

order to sort out these intricately entangled claims, negotiations continued

every night until midnight and Chairman Ko [phonetic] put forth uninterrupted

efforts for mediation at the Conference on the Law of the Sea. Table 1 shows

the system related to the Advance Investment Protection established as a result of these efforts. From our point of view, this system can be evaluated

highly (of course, there are some problems) since the Japanese project was internationally ranked equal to the international consortiums (incidentally, the

resolution was adopted together with the negotiating text on 30 April, and will

be formally adopted later at a treaty adoption conference scheduled to be held

this coming December).

With these results, the Conference on the Law of the Sea closed the curtain on

actual deliberations, but this does not mean that the international situation

surrounding manganese nodules has become stable. Not at all. The conclusion

of the Conference on the Law of the Sea rather reactivated further international uncertainty. Specifically, with actual agreement on the advance investment

protection resolution, it appears that advance investors are prepared to deal

in earnest with the adjustment of overlapping mining zones among themselves.

Therefore, it is inevitable that in these circumstances each nation or each

nation's business entities will conduct various negotiations to secure its

own exclusive mining zones.

Japanese Countermeasures

As previously described, international circumstances are ripe for earnest mining zone adjustments among the advance investors on the assumption of commercial mining, now that all the conditions are in order through the adoption of

the advance investment protection resolution. Therefore, Japan must analyze

the situation and deal with it appropriately for the manganese nodule development to be fruitful. It is of course necessary to promote further the deposit

surveys and the research and development of technologies for strengthening

13
Table 1. Resolution Relating to Advance Investment Protection

Advance

Investor

Qualification

(1) The following business enterprises which will have invested over $30 million for developmental activities by

1 January 1983, and have made up to now outlays of over

10 percent (S3 million) of the investment to the applied

mining zone.

a. Projects for national business corporations of Japan,

France, the Soviet Union and India

b. Four international consortiums: Inco, Kennecott,

U.S. Steel, Lockheed

(2) In the case of the developing nations, the main business

operators which will have made investment outlays as described in (1) above by 1 January 1985.

(3) In any of the above described cases, the rights of

advance investors are transferrable to the successors.

Number and

Extent of

Mining Zones

Solution to

Overlapping

Zones

Duties

Other

(1) The extent of the exploration—a zone shall be under

15 km . Only two mining zones of equivalent value shall

be applied, including the mining zone withheld for use by

the Enterprise.

(2) Half of the mining zone alloted to advance investors must

be eventually given up.

(1) Guarantee nations shall insure that their applied mining

zones will not overlap with the mining zones of others.

(2) If adjustment is not made by voluntary solution and

government-to-government agreement by 1 March 1983, the

cases shall be submitted to arbitration.

(3) Arbitration procedure shall start at the latest by

1 May 1983 and shall be concluded by 1 December 1984

(however, it is extendable).

(4) Dispute dissolving standards for mining zone overlapping

are as follows:

a. Applied mining zone coordinates shall be deposited

with guarantee nations on the day of the final protocol adoption of 1 January 1983, whichever is earlier.

b. The length of time and the size of investment relating

to the applied mining zones in the past.

c. Date of commencement of activities in the applied

mining zones, etc.

(1) For advance investors, operation project application fees

after the treaty comes into effect shall be discounted by

S250.000 from S500.000 to $250,000.

(2) Advance investors in applied mining zones shall concur in

disbursement of a fixed sum at a fixed time specified by

the preparation committee.

(3) Advance investors shall carry out on behalf of the Enterprise mining zones (onerous), staff training and technology

transfer preparation.

(1) The Authority shall approve applications of work plans by

the advance investors.

(2) Advance investors with an approved work plan have the

first claim in conformity with the production limit.

14
Japan's real power to meet the needs, and in addition the following countermeasures are deemed necessary.

As a prerequisite for advance investors to carry out mining zone adjustments,

it is necessary for each business entity to have its own mining zone to be

claimed. On this point, each of the advanced nations—America, Britain,

Germany and France—has organized its domestic laws so that each business

entity can currently submit a mining zone application to the authority concerned (furthermore, on 17 April, the Soviet Union also promulgated an order

of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet). To counter the international

state of affairs centering around advanced nations with mobility and propriety,

Japan also needs to establish a domestic law. From this point of view, recently a law on provisional deep seabed mining measures was enacted (taking

effect on 20 July). The law is defined as a provisional law until the Law of

the Sea Treaty takes effect in Japan. The general rules of the law provide

the following: manganese nodule detecting and mining activities can be conducted only by those entities approved by MITI in compliance with a prescribed

standard; those which conduct detecting and mining activities (deep seabed

mining operators) are responsible for prescribed duties such as a duty to

start a business, a duty to carry on continuously, and a duty to respect and

observe operational proposals; MITI must verify whether or not the zones named

by the Japanese applicants overlap with those of the applicants to the Deep

Seabed Mining Chart, and if so, necessary action must be taken for adjustment.

The stipulation of the law is significant for enhancing the Japanese negotiating position in dealing with advanced nations so that Japan can secure its

own mining zones, and can be very highly rated.

In developing manganese nodule mining, it is essential to secure exclusive

mining zones. Therefore it can be predicted that advance investors and nations which have them will fight undeservedly to secure their own mining zones.

Japan also needs to develop positive diplomacy to secure its own mining zones

that will become a supply source for resources.

So that Japan can deal appropriately with the various external and internal

circumstances, such as the international trend toward commercial exploration

and the mining and the enactment of a domestic law, it is necessary to set

up a corporation that will directly conduct manganese nodule exploration by

mobilizing public and private wisdom and knowhow. Currently there exists

DOMA, organized by the leadership of nonferrous metal companies and related

industries, for the development of manganese nodule mining. For setting up an

exploration corporation, an investigation is underway which includes the idea

of using the services of DOMA (as of July 1982). Likewise, in view of the

fact that a manganese nodule detecting and mining operation requires enormous

funds, MITI is considering the need to devise measures to subsidize operations;

for instance, constructive utilization of the overseas metal mineral mining

investment system governed by the Metal Mining Corporation.

15
Conclusion

The internal and external state of affairs surrounding deep seabed mineral

material development has taken a giant leap forward as exemplified by the

adoption of the negotiating text of the Law of the Sea Treaty and the Advance

Investment Protection Resolution, as well as the stipulation of a law for provisional deep seabed mining measures. Nevertheless, in trying to awaken this

resource sleeping on the deep seabed in order to use it efficiently as a stable supply source for Japan, there are still various problems to be surmounted.

We are renewing our resolve to put maximum effort into conquering these issues

in the future, as in the past, in order to achieve successful manganese nodule

development.

8940

CSO: 5200/4201

16
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

GREENLAND GOVERNMENT NOW DEMANDS DANES USE FORCE AGAINST FRG

Oslo AFTENPOSTEN in Norwegian 10 Jan 83 p 6

[Article: "Greenland Fisheries Demands"]

[Text] Copenhagen, 9 January. The government of Greenland now demands that

the Danish government put teeth into the demand that West German cod fishing

near Greenland be stopped. Both the national assembly [Landsstyret] and the

government have protested against the EC Commission's provisional approval

of this West German fishery, but at a meeting in Copenhagen on Saturday

representatives of the national assembly made it clear to Tom Haydem, minister for Greenland, that protests alone do not suffice.

"The government must back up its demands with force by using fishery inspection when required," says National Assembly member Lars Emil Johansen.

According to Johansen, the Danish government is especially reserved just now

because of the fisheries conflict with the EC and Great Britain. Denmark

is afraid of worsened relations with West Germany. At the meeting on Saturday the government was sharply criticized for lack of action in the matter

of Greenland's fisheries problems.

"What we see today is the EC community in a nutshell," Johansen asserts. In

his personal opinion, speedy withdrawal from the EC is preferable to waiting

for the results of negotiations on an alternative adherence by Greenland to

the EC. Greenland's goal has been that of getting out of the EC by 1 January

1984. The withdrawal procedure and negotiations on a new agreement have

taken so much time that the withdrawal can take place at the earliest in 1985.

Greenland also insists upon the claim for a 12-mile fisheries limit. In this

matter the Danish government is even more reluctant. That demand harmonizes

poorly with Denmark's protests to the EC Commission against the British 12-

mile limit.

Nor does the Greenland home rule acquiesce in Danish fishermen's demand for

enlarged shrimp quotas on the west coast of Greenland. "If other countries

were to obtain almost unlimited access to shrimp fishing in our waters, the

fishermen of Greenland would lose the basis of their catches. This the government can in no way accept," says Lars Emil Johansen.

11,256

CSO: 5200/2522

17
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

NORWAY, GREENLAND BOUNDARY DISPUTE ENTERING WORSENING PHASE

Oslo AFTENPOSTEN in Norwegian 12 Jan 83 p 10

[Article by Terje Svabo]

[Text] Greenland is taking a negative position on a center-line solution

between Jan Mayen and East Greenland. Greenland government chairman

Jonathan Motzfeldt said at a press conference yesterday that Greenland has

noted with interest the solution Norway arrived at with Iceland on the Jan

Mayen zone. In these negotiations, Norway deviated from the center-line

principle. Motzfeldt hopes that Norway will be part of an effort to build

up a Greenland fishing fleet directed at capelin fishing.

At the press conference, Motzfeldt and his fisheries minister, Jan Emil

Johansen, said that they have the full support of the Danish government in

the talks on a fishing zone between Jan Mayen and East Greenland. Denmark

has already made it clear in these talks that it cannot accept a centerline solution with Norway between Jan Mayen and East Greenland.

The two representatives of the Greenland government strongly underlined

Greenland's dependence on fishing resources which makes it necessary to

safeguard these resources as much as possible. It was said that in contrast to Norway, Greenland currently has no other resources besides fish

from which to make a living.

Jonathan Motzfeldt expressed hope that Greenland can withdraw from EC by

1 January 1985 at the latest. It is almost a year since the inhabitants of

Greenland made this decision via a popular referendum and Motzfeldt hoped

the EC bureaucracy would soon take steps to implement Greenland's withdrawal.

"Nothing has happened to date. The EC bureaucracy works very slowly. We

are patient, but something must happen soon. We had hoped we could leave

EC as early as 1 January 1984," the government chairman said at the press

conference.

18
Motzfeldt revealed that although neither the former nor the present governments in Denmark shared the view of the Greenland inhabitants toward EC

membership, they have received full support from the Danish government in

the current negotiations with EC.

Neither Johansen nor Motzfeldt would say anything concrete about the fish

quota Norway would have in Greenland's zone after it withdraws from EC. But

they did indicate that Norwegian interests would not be in a worse situation

than they are now.

Greenland hopes that in return for fish quotas, Norway will help to build

up a Greenland fishing fleet. Capelin fishing is of special interest,

although the two government representatives expressed concern about the

declining capelin population. For that reason they wanted closer cooperation on the part of Norway, Iceland, the Faeroes and Greenland with regard

to fishing in the North Atlantic.

6578

CSO: 5200/2524

19
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

DANES BOYCOTTING NORWEGIAN HERRING LANDINGS IN DISPUTE

Oslo AFTENPOSTEN in Norwegian 4 Jan 83 p 4

[Article: "Danes Boycott Norwegian Herring Catches"]

[Text] At a quay in Hirtshals in northern Jutland herring valued at 1 million kroner was denied unloading from the combined trawler and purse seiner

Meridian of Aalesund. Danish fishing boat owners and skippers undertook an

illegal blockade of the catch because they feel themselves unjustly treated

by Norwegian fisheries authorities. After repeated attempts, including

calling police, Skipper Jostein Storksen had to abandon the hope of having

his catch unloaded. At 1930 hours, Meridian returned to Norway.

"Instead of about 1 million kroner we shall now receive only 150,000 kroner

for the catch in Norway. The boycott in Hirtshals reduced the quality of

the catch to such a degree that it can now be sold only for production of

herring meal in either Egersund or Flekkefjord," says an irate skipper

Jostein Storksen to AFTENPOSTEN as the fishing boat departs from the Danish

port city.

Yesterday's blockade is also connected with the fact that no fisheries

agreement has been reached between the EC and Norway, which fact excludes

EC countries—including Denmark—from the Norwegian fisheries zone. Naturally, Skipper Storksen complains bitterly about Meridian becoming an economic victim of big politics.

"We are 14 men aboard Meridian, and on the average each of us suffers a loss

of close to 20,000 kroner as a result of the action in Hirtshals. Meridian

was the only boat that sailed out to catch herring between Christmas and New

Years, and we would have received a very good price for the extra effort.

No wonder the mood is gloomy aboard the Meridian now," says Storksen, who

is unloading the fish today in a Norwegian port. Fishing boat owner OddBjorn Huse, Aalesund, depended upon the Danish police for help to get the

first class herring unloaded. High quality herring is in great demand at

this time. But because the mood among fishing men and employees of fish

processing plants has steadily become more anti-Norwegian, the boycott could

not be stopped. All negotiations through the afternoon came to naught.

When the police appeared to protect the unloading the Danish dock workers

refused to work, immediately making it clear that they would not unload the

20
fish under such conditions, referring to a previous dockworkers' strike in

which one man was killed. No further attempts to defy the boycott were

made, and efforts to get the 250 tons of fish landed were abandoned.

It is the opinion of those who backed the boycott that Norwegian authorities

have been too strict and that, among other things, Norway is to blame for

the Danes being forced out of an increasing number of fishing grounds. In

addition, the entire fishing industry in the [Danish] province is in a

period of depression, leading to record unemployment. Even though the Norwegian vessel was acting within its right to unload fish caught in the

south of the North Sea, the drastic step was taken.

Fortunately, there was no fighting at the quay in Hirtshals as a result of

the boycott. AFTENPOSTEN has been informed that everything took place

quietly. Fishing boat owner Odd-Bjorn Huse states that the reduced quality

of the fish caused by the fact that it had to be transported to Norway

leads to great economic problems. The waste of time leads to deterioration

of the catch, and it can be used only for production of herring meal when

it is unloaded in southern Norway today.

11,256

CSO: 5200/2522

21
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

SPD SCORES GOVERNMENT FOR NONPARTICIPATION IN LOS

Frankfurt/Main FRANKFURTER RUNDSCHAU in German 16 Dec 82 p M

[Article by Horst Schreitter-Schwarzenfeld: "SPD Charges Government with

Breaking Faith in Failure to Endorse Law of the Sea. Social Democrats

Suspect Genscher's Defeat, Lambsdorffs Victory in Cabinet Fight. 'Third

World Feels Cheated.' Industry Also Opposes Convention"]

[Text] The SPD accused the government this Monday in Bonn of having broken

faith on the issue of the new Law of the Sea. "The Third World feels it has

been buggered," was the way Bremerhaven SPD deputy Horst Grunenberg put it in,

as he termed it,"the straight talk of the shipyards." The reason for the charge

was the Kohl administration's statement that the Federal Republic would not

participate in the new maritime convention at this time. The Law of the Sea

is intended to regulate access to and mining of mineral resources/on the sea

floor.

In the view of SPD leaders Grunenberg, Uwe Holz and Karl-Heinz Kledzinski, a

significant turnabout has taken place in West German foreign policy. Foreign

Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, they claimed, has suffered a setback. Earlier

Genscher had promised representatives of foreign governments that Bonn would

endorse the new maritime convention. Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Hans

Werner Lautenschlager, as recently as 27 October, had addressed the Bundestag's

Foreign Affairs Committee, arguing for Bonn's support of the new Law of the

Sea. Later, the leader of the German delegation to the international body's

closing session at Montego Bay in Jamaica, was suddenly obliged to declare that

the Federal Republic would not sign the document.

The SPD maintains that it was the views of Minister of Economics Count Otto

Lambsdorff and other "conservative keepers of the crypt" which prevailed on

the issue. Uwe Holz claimed to see in Bonn's refusal the results of pressure

from the United States. Between Bonn and Washington, he said, there had suddenly arisen a "coalition of renunciation." Former U.S. Defense Secretary

Donald Rumsfeld had recently visited Europe as the special envoy of President

Reagan in an effort to gain allies for the U.S. policy of non-support.

Resistance to the new maritime convention was also forthcoming from those sectors of German industry already involved in the development of the so-called

deep-sea mining. They fear a reduction of profits if control of ocean floor

mining is placed even partially in the hands of an international body under

UN auspices, as called for in the convention. Minister for Research and Technology Heinz Riesenhuber had been for a time director of the Frankfurt mineral

22