Click on the image to view the source article at the Pew Trusts website.

The PDF of the transmittal letter and list of treaties and conventions before the Seante, identifying those on which the Administration is requesting action, may be viewed by clicking here.

America is missing out by being stand-offish towards the law of the sea. So is the sea

YOU do not see many milestones on the floor of the ocean, but one was passed this week. May 13th was the deadline for the submission of new claims to the seabed, and from pole to pole coastal states have been asserting ownership of vast chunks of continental shelf in a rush for territory unrivalled since the scramble for Africa at the end of the 19th century (see article). The treasure this time is not ivory or cocoa beans but petroleum, or at least the promise of it, and perhaps amazing fuels and wonder drugs, as well as gold, silver and other minerals. The claims will now be accepted or rejected by a United Nations commission, but one big maritime power will, by choice, be absent: the United States. It should not be.

Authored by Scott Borgerson, CFR Fellow in Ocean Governance, the work draws on the users of the ocean who depend upon the rule of law to carry out their activities at sea: representatives of the groups that are actually affected by US non-participation in the Convention; negotiators who gained their experience at the LOS Conference and in the bureaucracy crafting US positions; and as scholars in ocean law and policy. The antithesis of the ideology-driven unilateralist and neo-know-nothing opposition, Borgerson and his advisory committee represent the people with knowledge of ocean law and policy and an organizational interest in the reinforcement of the law of the sea with US adherence to the LOS Convention.

If you can give only one publication to a person who is interested in the current debate over the LOS Convention, I recommend this one. In the near future we can complement it with talking points and summaries for which this report will be an excellent source.

The report not only addresses the "why" of joining the Convention but the "when" as well, calling for action early by the Administration.

Particularly helpful are two and a half pages that itemize 11 ways in which non-party status hurts US interests.

The report's conclusions do not end with a recommendation to join the convention as soon as possible. They go on to outline a foreign policy initiative including both symbol and substance. The symbol, of course, is renewed US commitment to the rule of law. The substance is to build upon accession to the Convention to increase our role as world leader in building security partnerships at sea, to implement programs and activities within the Convention that halt 'creeping jurisdiction' and excessive resource claims, to use our heightened stature as a champion of the rule of law at sea to help allies resolve their ocean-related disputes, to take an active role in the work of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental shelf and the International seabed authority, and to gain credibility for US leadership in environment and resource conservation issues,

The report also has valuable supporting documentation in its appendices:

• A critique of critical concerns related to National Security and National Sovereignty;
• President Clinton's submittal letter requesting that the Senate give its advice and consent to accession to the Convention and 1994 agreement on Implementation; President Bush's 2007 statement of support requesting favorable action by the Senate on US accession to the Convention; and,
• The 2007 Draft Resolution of Advice and Consent forwarded with approval by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to the full senate in December, 2007.

The chapter list is:

• Introduction
• Background and Context
  • Brief History of the Law of the Sea from Hugo Grotius to Today
  • Brief History of the Law of the Sea in the Senate
• Oceans and National Interests
• Arguments For and Against the Convention
  • Strategic Imperatives
  • National Security
  • Economic
  • Environmental
• Conclusions and Recommendations
• Appendices
  • Review of Critical Concerns
  • Presidential Documents
  • Text of Draft Resolution of Advice and Consent

I was disturbed to read this week the column written by Ed Feulner of the Heritage Foundation opposing the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which he derogatorily described as “LOST.”

I would like to make a few corrections. First, the U.S has signed the LOS Convention, but has not ratified it. Second, the last five Republican and four Democratic presidents have all sought a comprehensive treaty on the Law of the Sea. Third, since the convention was amended, Presidents Clinton, Bush, and now Obama have sought its ratification.

President Reagan said “Our review has concluded that while most provisions of the draft convention are acceptable and consistent with U.S. interests, some major elements of the deep sea mining regime are not acceptable.” He spelled out those six unacceptable elements and they were fixed in the above mentioned amendment.

The military is, and has been, supportive of the convention and our ratification of it.

The successful operation of the “Bainbridge” against the Somali pirates was in line with the convention and UN Resolutions 1816 and 1838. The Chinese backed off of harassing the U.S. scientific work off of China because it was exactly the type of freedom of navigation ensured by the convention. Contrary to Mr. Feulner’s statement, submarines can operate under water on the high seas and in international straits under the convention. This and the operation of carrier groups in international straits are some of the reasons why the U.S. Navy has always supported the convention.

The convention codifies freedom of the seas, extends our sovereign territorial waters to 12 miles and our fishing waters to 200 miles. The U.S. is the largest beneficiary of the convention, but the drafters deferred determining the end of a country’s deep continental shelf to a commission of countries party to the convention. Until we ratify the convention we cannot be on this commission, which is in the process of determining the extent of Russia’s arctic shelf. This is one of the reasons why our last three presidents have sought ratification, having also concluded, as did President Reagan, that the other provisions were in our national interest.

Charles Higginson lives in Cohasset. He is a retired foreign service officer and executive director of the Council on Ocean Law.

• Ratification of LOST would constitute a major step toward a United Nations world government and would give the UN control over everything happening over, on, and under the world's oceans and seas.

• Furthermore, the UN has not demonstrated that it deserves to be given control of over 70% of the earth's surface.

• Giving the UN with all its terrorists, dictatorships and human rights violators control over all oceans and seas would be like inviting the fox into the chicken coop.

John B. Bellinger III, Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State)
Remarks at the University of California, Berekeley School of Law's Law of the Sea Institute
Monday, November 3rd:

Let me begin by thanking David Caron and the other organizers of this conference. I am very pleased to speak to you today about the law of the sea. Now, the first thing to know about this topic is that it is the occasion of endless wordplay. The mere mention of the Law of the Sea Convention, and the puns set sail. I didn’t know the topic well when I joined the Administration in 2001, but it’s one in which I have since been immersed – at times, submerged. And after plumbing the depths of the issue – and diving into the details – I have concluded (now that I’ve come up for air) that joining the Convention is the right thing to do.

Lifelong Republicans Make The Switch

By WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS and RUSSELL E. TRAIN

The Tampa Tribune

Published: November 1, 2008

As former administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency, we have served three presidents as their principal advisers responsible for the implementation and enforcement of our nation's environmental laws. We are lifelong Republicans. Yet after much thoughtful deliberation we have decided to support Barack Obama in his bid for the White House.

It has never been more clear that we occupy a global commons. And the need has never been greater for U.S. leadership to address complex and potentially catastrophic issues such as climate change, energy security, and the degradation of our ocean and coastal waters. Senator Obama has compellingly stated his intent to re-engage the community of nations in support of policies that will begin the arduous task of realizing a clean and secure future for the planet.

We cannot lead other nations with credibility, however, unless we put our own house in order and lead by example. This is difficult to do when the United States has only 5 percent of the world's population, but consumes nearly 25 percent of its energy resources. The balanced approach put forward by the Obama campaign recognizes the central role of energy conservation by requiring increased fuel economy, energy efficiency standards, and green building design which can drastically reduce the amount of energy needed to maintain and operate our buildings and manufacturing facilities. This, coupled with an emphasis on renewable sources of energy and sensible, comprehensive policies to promote increased domestic production of oil and natural gas, offers the best hope of reestablishing U.S. leadership in these areas.

Oil and gas on the U.S. outer Continental Shelf are resources that have enormous benefit for the nation. But as the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy underscored, this resource must be approached as part of a comprehensive management plan that considers fishing, marine transport, recreation and tourism, and wind power as well as uses we haven't even thought about yet. The challenge for the new administration will be to minimize conflicts among users, safeguard human and marine health, and fulfill the federal government's obligation to manage public resources, including oil, for the maximum long term benefit of the entire nation. The plan being put forward by the Obama campaign is, in our view, best equipped to accomplish this goal.

Sen. Obama has clearly stated that he would actively promote early U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea. This treaty is essential to protect national security interests, secure sovereign rights over extensive marine areas and promote U.S. interests in the health of the oceans. While as a senator John McCain has supported U.S. ratification of this critically important treaty, as a candidate he has indicated he is reconsidering his support.

By virtue of having the largest Exclusive Economic Zone in the world, the United States must be a strong leader in international ocean dialogue to ensure protection of our national economic and security interests as well as our valuable marine resources. There are enormous benefits to U.S. participation in the Law of the Sea, most importantly a seat at the table and a leadership role in international negotiations. However, as virtually the sole industrialized nation not party to the treaty - to which 155 nations and the European Union belong - the United States remains sidelined.

As a senator, John McCain has demonstrated courage and vision on important environmental issues, most notably in his leadership in addressing climate change, a balanced approach to energy policy, and in support for the Law of the Sea. However in his quest for the White House he has often modified his policies to appeal to the Republican base. While this may be fortunate for his candidacy, it is unfortunate for the American people.

What is at stake in this election goes far beyond wise use of our oceans, safeguarding our climate, and even U.S. security. What is at stake is the future. America has often been the symbol to the world of how a free democratic society can solve its problems and project leadership through example.

If America can demonstrate, through active participation in climate change negotiations and the Law of the Sea how to responsibly and sustainably manage critical global resources for the new millennium, then we can help achieve a world which provides economic opportunity for all, including our own citizens. That is what is at stake in this election, and that is why we are endorsing Senator Obama as our best hope of achieving that goal.

William D. Ruckelshaus served as the first and fifth administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under Presidents Nixon and Reagan, was acting director of the FBI, and served on the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. Russell E. Train served as first chairman of the Council for Environmental Quality under President Nixon and the second EPA Administrator under President Ford.