RECOMMENDATION FOR ADVICE AND CONSENT SUPPORTED

Mr. Chairman, the Department of Defense believes this treaty is in the security interests of the United States, and supports the President's recommendation that the Senate give its advice and consent to its ratification.

I would be happy to try to answer any questions the committee may have.

Thank you.

Senator PELL. Thank you very much indeed, Mr. Eagleburger. Because of my long familiarity with this treaty, I have a series of technical questions, but before moving into them in any substance, I would defer to the senior ranking minority member of the committee, Senator Aiken, who is very kind to be at this hearing.

EXTENT OF COVERAGE OF GULF OF SAINT LAWRENCE

Senator AIKEN. Mr. Chairman, I think the witnesses have made the situation quite plain. The only question I might ask is to what extent the Gulf of St. Lawrence is covered by this treaty.

Mr. IRWIN. The treaty, itself, Senator Aiken, does not attempt to speak to any particular area. It speaks only in general terms, such as historic bays or internal waters.

In the process of the negotiations we have not really gotten into whether a particular area is covered. I myself am not fully aware of the details of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. If it falls within the category of internal waters or historic bay, then it would be exempt.

Senator AIKEN. I would suppose you would have to determine at what point it ceases to become internal waters?

Mr. IRWIN. I think that the line at which it would become internal waters or a historic bay would be the line across the opening of whatever body of water it was that constituted the historic bay.

Senator AIKEN. Would the line be drawn across where it is 12 miles wide or would it apply where it is 20 miles wide or

Senator PELL. Wouldn't the Senator's question be clarified at the coming convention?

Senator AIKEN. I realize a lot of things would have to be worked

out.

Mr. LEONARD. I am not equipped to deal with the question of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. There are a number of disputed questions with regard to the law of the sea including the question of historic bays, also the question of the proper width of the territorial sea, and the question of how one draws the baseline in certain respects is not settled.

(The following information was subsequently supplied by ACDA :) The Gulf of St. Lawrence is not claimed as an historic bay and it does not otherwise fall within Canadian internal waters. Therefore, the treaty would be applicable to the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

COMMENDATION OF CHAIRMAN'S EFFORTS

Mr. Chairman, I am glad to see that the witnesses commend you for your efforts because I think they have been commendable. Senator PELL. Thank you very much.

Senator AIKEN. That is all I have.

Senator PELL. Senator Case is vitally interested in this subject. We have both been named as advisors concerning the peaceful use of the seabed and I know he is most knowledgeable.

Senator CASE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You are, of course, correct as to my deep interest in this problem. I join with you and Senator Aiken in welcoming the opportunity to participate in the making of this treaty.

AMBIGUITIES AS TO HISTORIC BAY AND PARTICULAR APPLICATION

There have been a number of questions raised and the witnesses have been very frank in stating some of the ambiguities as to the historic bays and as to particular applications.

I don't press that because I think this is a necessary thing, even though I may not agree with the Soviet Union as to some of the things that it considers historic bays. But it would not be right or sensible to let that disagreement prevent the agreement, so far as we can make one, from coming into effect, and I certainly think that that has been a sound approach.

QUESTIONS RAISED BY MR. STONE

A number of questions in addition to those have been raised by Mr. Stone in his prepared statement.

Since I have to be out of town at a meeting this morning, Mr. Chairman, I would hope it would be possible to get from the Department's witnesses their comments on Mr. Stone's questions. I am sure you have them marked for that purpose.

I think it would be well to have not only our reaction to his points, but also the Administration's reaction.

I wish I could stay with you for the rest of this session, which is so important. This is a limited but still highly useful step. Senator PELL. Thank you very much.

WEAPONS SPECIFICALLY COVERED

First, I would like to cover the questions as to what weapons are specifically covered. This is more a question of detail, but I think that the hearings would be a good place to define the interpretation of

weapons.

First, the Creepy Crawler Vehicles that carry nuclear weapons that depend for their means for navigation on many contacts with the ocean floor, the seabed. Are they covered?

Mr. IRWIN. It is my understanding, yes; they would be covered unless the machine has the capability of navigating in the superjacent waters. If it is limited to the seabed, it is covered.

Senator PELL. It is limited to the seabed. It is somewhat like the definitions we have with wildlife. If it is a crab or lobster, it jumps up and it doesn't count, but if it is a clam or an oyster that can't jump up, it counts.

Mr. IRWIN. Yes, sir.

Senator PELL. That pertains to seabed. I think this is an important point to make clear because there has been some confusion within the

executive branch of the government in this regard. I know the understanding at Geneva in the negotiations was that they were included. But I think all of the officials in the executive branch should be aware of that fact.

Does the phrase nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction provide a loophole in which some countries might some day suggest small nuclear weapons used for defense, used with no or zero loss of life, might not be precluded by the terms of this treaty?

Mr. IRWIN. I would think not, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps I should ask Mr. Leonard to comment.

Mr. LEONARD. I would certainly agree with that. Any nuclear weapon is included. I think we have no doubt whatever about that.

We have also made it plain, in the negotiating history, that we considered chemical and biological weapons were also weapons of mass destruction and would also be prohibited.

Senator PELL. You have Mr. Stone's questions in front of you, his statement?

Mr. LEONARD. I do not have it.

Senator PELL. I think as a matter of fairness you should see them. Mr. LEONARD. The exclusion of nuclear weapons is categorical and I would think there was no exception no matter how small the nuclear weapon or what the purpose might be.

DEFINITION OF WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION

Senator PELL. What would be your general definition of a weapon of mass destruction? What was the definition at the Geneva Conference? Mr. LEONARD, Mr. Chairman, the term "weapons of mass destruction" is one that has come into quite a number of international documents, treaties and so on, and it has, I think, generally the meaning of embracing nuclear weapons, embracing also chemical and biological weapons, and then being open-ended, if I may express it that way, in order to take care of developments which one cannot specify at the present time, some form of weapon which might be invented or developed in the future, which would have devastating effects comparable to those of nuclear or chemical or biological weapons, but which one simply cannot describe at the present time.

Senator PELL. In other words, it would be any weapon up the technological scale on up through gun powder, beyond gun powder? Mr. LEONARD. Beyond what we now call conventional weapons. We don't have, if you like, a weapons-system-by-weapons-system definition of it, but only a commonsense definition.

WEATHER MODIFICATIONS

Senator PELL. Now this is perhaps a sensitive question. I don't mean to entrap you in any way.

Would weather modifications be considered a weapon of mass destruction? This applies not only to the treaty and if you feel you don't want to reply

Mr. IRWIN. I would think it would not necessarily be, but under certain circumstances I suppose it could be. I think this was not addressed in the process of the negotiations.

72-936-72- -3

Senator PELL. This is a separate subject because I am trying to develop a draft treaty on the use of weather modifications and five years from now this may also be subject to ratification, I would hope, by the Senate. That is why I brought that subject up even if you and I do not have the job of being around.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS MOORED TO SEABED

Are nuclear weapons moored to the seabed considered to be prohibited?

Mr. LEONARD. Very definitely, yes, sir. That is what we meant by mines, but I think the word mines was meant in the most general sense of a nuclear weapon of any sort that was attached or moored or fastened in one fashion or another to the seabed.

Senator PELL. A submarine moored would not be covered?

Mr. IRWIN. That is right. A submarine is like a ship and has the right to anchor where it chooses to anchor.

Senator PELL. Perhaps nuclear weapons permanently emplanted or fastened to the seabed would be prohibited, but if simply moored, which means you can undo the mooring, that would not count, I would think.

Mr. IRWIN. If by the word "moored" it is meant that a weapon has a capability of navigation when it is unmoored, then the weapon which was moored would be excluded.

Senator PELL. I think mooring usually would denote that connotation, but again I would stand corrected on that.

FACILITIES SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED FOR USING NUCLEAR

WEAPONS SENSORS

Article I states: "Undertake not to emplant or emplace on the seabed . . . facilities specifically designed for . . . using such weapons." In this connection, could sensors based on the seabed be installed to fire mines floating in the ocean, or would the sensors, which are active rather than passive, be facilities specifically designed for using nuclear weapons?

Mr. IRWIN. This again gets into a difficult definitional problem, Mr. Chairman.

Senator PELL. I regret pressing on these questions, but I feel that we should because they are properly raised by the public witnesses. Mr. IRWIN. I think it is perfectly proper to raise the questions and they are interesting questions.

Mr. LEONARD. I could note, if you will permit me, that mines floating in the water are prohibited under The Hague Convention of 1907. So that this particular weapons system, if I might call it that, could certainly be approached from that direction and would be prohibited. Senator PELL. Wouldn't there be a difference between those sensors that are passive and active, or would that be a factor here?

Mr. LEONARD. I would not think one would want to make that kind of definition of sensors, but rather the point here is the function of the sensor. If it is simply to give one warning, it obviously is a very different sort of thing from something that fires off a weapon.

Mr. IRWIN. If the item implanted on the seabed, whether it is called a sensor or something else, were part of a system that was intended to

be used as a weapon of mass destruction, even though part of it was floating, I would think the likelihood is it would be covered.

Mr. LEONARD. I would support that.

Mr. IRWIN. If it were a sensor, in the sense of what a sensor usually does. i.e., that it senses objects and doesn't trigger a weapon, and if from accident that sensor or some unrelated weapon were defective and was exploded by the sensor, perhaps then it would not be part of a system.

I think one gets off into rather esoteric definitions, but as I say, I think they are points well worth considering.

Senator PELL. They are esoteric now, but they might not be in the future.

Mr. IRWIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. LEONARD. In terms of the present weapons system, if there is a warning device which tells someone on shore that the enemy is approaching and then, for example, a submarine or aircraft carrier, which has nuclear weapons, attacks that enemy intruder, I don't think that the warning system being on the seabed would be a violation of the treaty.

LASER BEAMS

Senator PELL. Would it cover laser beams?

Mr. IRWIN. I think in some of these we get beyond our competence. Senator PELL. This is not beyond the drawing boards of the Defense Department or the Kremlin.

Mr. LEONARD. I would think, Mr. Chairman, if the laser beams become weapons of mass destruction, they would be included in this general category of prohibited objects.

Senator PELL. I would like to ask, if I could, the Defense Department witness.

Mr. EAGLEBURGER. Senator, I think the answer is as Ambassador Leonard has given-if they become weapons of mass destruction, obviously, they are prohibited.

Senator PELL. Thank you.

STORAGE FACILITIES FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS

What about silos or barns, storage facilities where nuclear weapons could be left to be picked up by a nuclear vessel at a later date? Would they be covered or not?

Mr. LEONARD. Very definitely, Mr. Chairman. That is storing of nuclear weapons and there is no question that that is one of the three criteria for prohibition-testing, storing, or using.

SYSTEM WHICH DRIFTS WITH CURRENT

Senator PELL. What about a system which drifts with the current? In other words, it moves along the bottom. I realize this is esoteric, but it can happen. It is not anchored to the bottom, but moves. Because of the current, it moves. The weapon can be moved at a slow rate of speed.

Mr. LEONARD. I would think one gets here into the definition of what we meant when we used the word "navigate."