230
The Last Resource
use of deep—ocean resources, particularly marine minerals. How—
ever, such commercial activity as may occur in this region during
the 19705 is not likely to conict with military interests. In addition,
international agreements, which would be more feasible without
demilitarization as an essential part of them, might well lay the
foundations for later disarmament talks. There are so many other
questions involved in developing the ocean resources that to stale—
mate discussions by bringing in threats to the security of the major
states would seem to be madness. Why should we expect to obtain
political agreement on the oceans, in many ways an attractive arena
for strategic deployment, when they have proved impossible to
achieve on the land?
A laissez—faire school of thought would go even further and say,
why bother with any special agreement on the deep oceans at all?
Broadly speaking, proponents of this line believe that the exploita—
tion of the deep ocean will not be important for decades to come and
that present international law is quite up to handling the few
incidents which might occur from time to time. Unfortunately, this
argument ignores the desires of those nations which do not as yet
have the technology even to consider exploiting the oceans. The
consequences for the world of allowing a handful of nations to
dominate the sea—bed and the ocean—oor would be disastrous: the
developing states would not accept peaceably a situation where the
strong nations would get stronger, the rich richer and the poor
would become little more than their slaves. The tensions between
the few nations involved in this conspiracy of marine technology
would spiral as their wealth and suspicion of each other grew. The
maintenance of any semblance of a balance of power would produce
intolerable stress. Finally, the oceans instead of providing the means
for a satisfactory life for the Earth’s family of nations could become
the new location for the planet’s Armageddon.
The Last Resource
use of deep—ocean resources, particularly marine minerals. How—
ever, such commercial activity as may occur in this region during
the 19705 is not likely to conict with military interests. In addition,
international agreements, which would be more feasible without
demilitarization as an essential part of them, might well lay the
foundations for later disarmament talks. There are so many other
questions involved in developing the ocean resources that to stale—
mate discussions by bringing in threats to the security of the major
states would seem to be madness. Why should we expect to obtain
political agreement on the oceans, in many ways an attractive arena
for strategic deployment, when they have proved impossible to
achieve on the land?
A laissez—faire school of thought would go even further and say,
why bother with any special agreement on the deep oceans at all?
Broadly speaking, proponents of this line believe that the exploita—
tion of the deep ocean will not be important for decades to come and
that present international law is quite up to handling the few
incidents which might occur from time to time. Unfortunately, this
argument ignores the desires of those nations which do not as yet
have the technology even to consider exploiting the oceans. The
consequences for the world of allowing a handful of nations to
dominate the sea—bed and the ocean—oor would be disastrous: the
developing states would not accept peaceably a situation where the
strong nations would get stronger, the rich richer and the poor
would become little more than their slaves. The tensions between
the few nations involved in this conspiracy of marine technology
would spiral as their wealth and suspicion of each other grew. The
maintenance of any semblance of a balance of power would produce
intolerable stress. Finally, the oceans instead of providing the means
for a satisfactory life for the Earth’s family of nations could become
the new location for the planet’s Armageddon.