News » Editorials & Op-Eds

It is an understatement to say that there is support for the Law of the Sea Convention in the state of Alaska. Three governors (including Sarah Palin) and three senators (two republican and one democrat) have endorsed the Convention, and the Alaskan state legislature endorsed joining the convention by overwhelming bipartisan margins earlier this year.

This week, the Anchorage Daily News stepped forward with its own endorsement of the LOS Convention. One hopes that in a contest between tangible benefits to Alaska and the nation and the unsubstantiated and ill-founded fears inflamed by unilateralist and isolationist groups such as the Heritage Foundation and the John Birch Society, US leaders in the Senate and the White House can step forward in the same way as leaders in Alaska have done.

Thursday's Anchorage Daily News brings enlightened self interest to the debate (or, at present, the lack of debate) over whether and when the Senate should act on the Law of the Sea Convention that has been before it for 15 years and under active consideration since 2003. After recognizing the resources that could be enclosed by a US claim to the extended shelf under the provisions of the LOS Convention and reviewing the history of the Convention before the Senate, the paper concludes "BOTTOM LINE: Alaska needs the U.S. Senate to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty."

Our view: Racing to resources
Alaska prospects uncertain as U.S. sits on the sidelines

(09/11/09 17:19:27)
Friday's front page carried a heart-warming example of international cooperation between the U.S. and our Canadian friends. Icebreakers from the two countries are doing joint surveys of the high arctic ocean floor. They're looking for geographic features that might enable the nations to make territorial claims that extend beyond the 200-mile limit now recognized in international law.

If the arctic holds rich resources beneath the international ocean floor, this is how the U.S. would claim our rightful share.

Only one problem for the U.S.: We won't be able to make any new claims to arctic ocean territory until we ratify the Law of the Sea treaty.

Every other arctic and industrialized nation has officially approved the treaty, which was first concluded in 1982 and revised to meet U.S. objections in 1994. At first the U.S. accepted all aspects of the treaty except for those saying how seabed mining in international waters would be administered and regulated. The 1994 revision cured U.S. objections. Since then the call to ratify the treaty has garnered impressive political support.

President George W. Bush supported ratification. The American Petroleum Institute did too. So have environmental organizations and the official U.S. commission on ocean policy. The Pentagon has said ratifying the treaty will be helpful to national security.

The treaty has won strong support in votes on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Conservative Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana was an enthusiastic supporter when he chaired the committee.

Here in Alaska, Lisa Murkowski, the fifth-ranking Republican in the U.S. Senate, supports ratification. So does her Democratic counterpart Mark Begich. Republican Gov. Sean Parnell recently endorsed ratification as well.

So what's keeping the Senate from doing the right thing?

In 2004 Sen. Richard Lugar described the opposition this way: "Concerns have been expressed primarily by those who oppose virtually any multi-lateral agreement."

In other words, it's the crowd that thinks cooperating with other countries is a step toward one-world government.

But as Sen. Lugar has noted, the oceans beyond 200 miles are international territory now. The U.S. can be part of international agreements to manage those areas, or we can stay home and pout about having to cooperate with other countries. The treaty would give the U.S. a strong role in managing resource development in distant ocean waters. Those issues would not be handled through the United Nations General Assembly.

Sen. Lugar has described the treaty this way: It "expands the ability of American oil and natural gas companies to drill for resources in new areas, solidifies the Navy's rights to traverse the oceans, enshrines U.S. economic sovereignty over our Exclusive Economic Zone extending 200 miles off our shore, helps our ocean industries create jobs and reduces the prospects that Russia will be successful in claiming excessive portions of the Arctic." In the race to stake potentially valuable resource claims in the high arctic ocean, the U.S. is way behind. As soon as Congress finishes work on health care, the Senate should ratify the Law of the Sea treaty.

BOTTOM LINE: Alaska needs the U.S. Senate to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty.

It is also worth noting that Alaska's most recent governors (2 republican and 1 democrat), three current and recent senators (again, 2 republican and 2 democrat) and the entire legislature (by a vote of 34 to 4 in the Alaskan House and 15 to 2 in the Senate) have called for approval of the LOS Convention.

An awkward absence
May 14th 2009
From The Economist print edition

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.

In the April 13th, 2008 edition of the Amarillo Globe-News, Professor Syed Tariq Anwar of West Texas A&M University presented a case for US leadership in protecting the Arctic. Among his points was this comment regarding the Law of the Sea Convention:

From a global business perspective, we need a unified Arctic plan based on an acceptable treaty. Being the most powerful nation on earth, it is expected that the U.S. will be supporting the Law of the Sea Treaty, which was favored by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by a 17-4 vote last November. It is also critical that we favor the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS). Many people and organizations are endorsing this treaty. Two former secretaries of state (James Baker and George Shultz), former admirals, various industry organizations, politicians and business leaders from the U.S. have supported the treaty. For the U.S., the contentious treaty issues continue to be national sovereignty and security, coastal state extension and the continental shelf beyond 200 miles, taxation, exploration and licensing rights, and problems of eminent domain.

Law of the Sea debates can be both intense and boring - after all, the negotiations were once selected as one of the 10 Most Boring Things in New York City. Every once in a while it helps to look at the subject from a new perspective.

Gail Collins at the New York TImes gives just such a look in her column of November 3rd. She gives a quick snapshot of the opposing sides:

...While the pros will tell you all about the importance of having a rational system for arbitrating disputes over the Alaskan continental shelf, the cons spin up conspiracy theories about how the International Seabed Authority will force us to give up our cars and cancel the war on terror.

Just take my word. The Navy wants the treaty. Greenpeace wants the treaty. The oil and gas industry wants the treaty.

Her real point is aimed at the candidates for the GOP presidential nomination. After poking John McCain for his campaign conversion, she shines some light on others in the crowd:

The other candidates have issued statements that seem to reflect an inability to come up with any rational arguments. Rudy Giuliani said he “cannot support the creation of yet another unaccountable international bureaucracy that might infringe on American sovereignty and curtail America’s freedoms,” and Fred Thompson roused himself long enough to announce that “the efforts of treaty proponents would be better spent reforming an ineffective, unaccountable and corrupt United Nations.” Mitt Romney’s spokesman just said Mitt has “concerns.”

Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee called the treaty “the dumbest thing we’ve ever done.”

Pause now to make a list of things we’ve done that you think might be dumber.

Loreliei Kelly, writing at Democracy Arsenal, discusses linkages between national security and the environment. She points to the Law of the Sea Convention as an example of linkages between security and the environment, and other issues as well.

She also points out the difficulty of addressing these issues, each difficult on their own and much more so for their interlinkages. The problem is made more difficult by opponents of the convention who base their opposition on faulty interpretations of the convention, misinformation and a record of failure in building productive relationships with other countries. Her two sentence summary of the issue of Senate approval of the Convention is:

There is a huge upside to America signing this treaty versus a negligible downside. At the end of the day, the Law of the Sea detractors are global anti-socials whose preferred method of interaction for nearly every international problem is physical intimidation.

Lorelei is right - the LOS Convention greatly expands the area of the ocean and continental shelf under sovereign US control, it provides the basis for a comprehensive regime for the Arctic that protects our sovereignty, our security and our sustainable use of resources. It creates the legal regime that can allow US industry to rebuild itself as a leader in deep seabed mining. At the same time, it protects our rights to transit critical international straits, gives access to distant water fisheries, sets requirements for countries from Russia to the least developed states for the protection of the marine environment, and provides ways to settle disputes without recourse to armed conflict. And it accomplishes all this at an insignificant cost while even improving relationships with our allies, neighbors and maritime partners.

San Diego Union-Tribune
October 14, 2007

Debating 'LOST' - Should The U.S. Ratify The Law Of The Sea Treaty?

Yes: A plus for the Navy, U.S. maritime industries

By James D. Watkins and Leon E. Panetta

As politicians in Washington, D.C., struggle to find common ground on issues of national importance, one that is ripe for action - that enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support - is United States accession to the Law of the Sea Convention. The convention is vital to our national security interests, sovereignty, maritime industry and our leadership role in international ocean policy.

Thankfully, recent hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations have rekindled attention within the Senate and the opportunity to take action on a treaty that would greatly advance U.S. interests is easily within the Senate's grasp.

Support for the convention comes from a broad, bipartisan coalition of political, military, economic, academic and environmental leaders. This support is clearly articulated in a letter sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Sept. 24 from 101 prominent leaders, including 16 former Cabinet-level officials; nine governors; representatives of major oil and gas, commercial shipping and fishing industries; and the environmental community. The letter urges the Senate to expeditiously approve U.S. accession to the convention, stating "[i]t is clear that accession will protect and enhance our country's sovereign military, economic, and environmental interests."

The convention has the support of President Bush, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the national security adviser and the secretaries of Defense, State, Commerce, Homeland Security and Interior. A personal statement issued by President Bush on May 15 states that "[j]oining will serve the national security interests of the United States, including maritime mobility of our armed forces worldwide. It will secure U.S. sovereign rights over extensive marine areas, including the valuable natural resources they contain. And it will give the United States a seat at the table when the rights that are vital to our interests are debated and interpreted."

Gaffney Lost on Law of the Sea

by Martine Apodaca

The UN Convention on Law of the Sea, which came into force in 1994 and has been ratified by 154 countries and the European Community, has been gathering steam in the U.S. Senate, is widely supported by both government and business leaders, and appears to be on track for ratification by the U.S.

This seems to be frightening a fringe group led by Frank Gaffney, a neocon columnist for the Washington Times and the National Review online, who has launched a nonsensical attack on the effort for U.S. ratification, claiming that the bid is a "UN power grab" and that US accession would transform the UN into a "world government" and force the United States to surrender sovereignty and immense resources in the sea and on the sea bed. Those unfounded views are reflected in Gaffney's column yesterday in the Washington Times.

Gaffney apparently thinks he knows how to protect U.S. national and security interests better than the President, the Secretary of the Navy, and the combined leaders of the U.S. petroleum, fishing, mining, and shipping industries. That's not a bet that the U.S. Senate should take.

Rather than acknowledge and debate the vast military, economic, and environmental benefits of UNCLOS, Mr. Gaffney chooses to scare-monger about "international taxes" and "world government." UNCLOS establishes neither. Mr. Gaffney also doesn't acknowledge that an international race for oil, fish, diamonds and shipping routes has begun and is being accelerated by global warming as the arctic ice cap recedes. At stake are a possible 460,000 square miles of Arctic seabed that could hold as much as 25 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and gas, valuable commodities like gold, diamonds, fishing stocks, and lucrative freight routes.

The race is on.

Other nations are moving to take advantage of this situation. In August 2007, Russia planted its national flag on the seabed beneath the North Pole, calling international attention to a dubious claim to ownership of the North Pole and the Lomonosov Ridge -- with substantial potential oil, gas, and mineral deposits. The Canadians are staking claims in the arctic as well. In August 2007, Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper set off on a three-day tour of the region and announced plans to build two new military bases to reinforce Canada's territorial claims, and the Canadians are spending $7 billion on new arctic patrol vessels.

The U.S., however, has taken itself out of the race; only nations who are party to the Convention can make such claims -- or challenge the claims of others. Thus, while nations struggle for control of the arctic, the U.S. is sitting on the sidelines.

In truth, Mr. Gaffney is nearly alone on the far fringes in opposition to the Convention. Perhaps that is why he is making such desperate and outlandish arguments.

I've left Gaffney's sovereignty claims until last because they are perhaps the most ridiculous.

The Convention has, in fact, been called, correctly, a U.S. land grab because it expands U.S. sovereignty and sovereign rights over extensive maritime territory and natural resources off its coast. It provides a 12-mile territorial sea subject to U.S. sovereignty, U.S. sovereign rights over resources within a 200-mile exclusive economic zone, and U.S. sovereign rights over offshore resources (including minerals) to the outer edge of the continental margin, which extends well beyond 200 miles in several areas, including up to 600 miles off Alaska. This Convention clearly expands our sovereignty.

The Convention has a built-in, dispute-resolution forum where nations can come together to peacefully and efficiently settle disagreements. The deep seabed mining provisions would not apply to any areas in which the U.S. has sovereignty or sovereign rights. Further, these rules will facilitate mining activities by U.S. companies. Investors would have the legal certainty of the convention to protect their claims and investments. And the navigational provisions ensure that U.S. military and commercial vessels have worldwide maritime mobility with the backing of international law and not subject to the whims of any nation.

Senate ratification of the convention is inarguably in America's best interest. Scaremongering to the contrary is simply irresponsible.

September 27, 2007

NewsDay published an editorial today endorsing the Administration's request for Senate advice and consent to join the Law of the Sea Convention.

An impressive coalition of environmental, military and business leaders urged the United States Senate this week to do what it should have done 25 years ago: become a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Far from eroding American sovereignty, as critics have oddly maintained, this agreement can protect the nation's vital interests on a broad array of issues - but only if we're at the table, along with 155 other nations.

After reviewing the history of US leadership in creating the Convention, its endorsement by over 100 civic leaders, headed by Admiral James Watkins and Leon Panetta, and the US interests promoted by the Convention in establishing our claim to the Arctic seabed, NewsDay went on to say:

Even President George W. Bush, no fan of international accords, supports this move. Let's hope he shows leadership and pushes the Senate to get it done.

The Secretaries of State for President George H. W. Bush and President Ronald Reagan spoke out today in favor of US ratification of the Law of the Sea Convention.

The Convention of the Law of the Sea is back. It will be the subject of Senate hearings this week. If the U.S. finally becomes party to this treaty, it will be a boon for our national security and our economic interests. U.S. accession will codify our maritime rights and give us new tools to advance national interests.

After a detailed review of the benefits of joining the Convention and the costs of staying outside, the former Secretaries of State concluded:

Given President Bush's public statement of support for the convention, the support of prior presidents and their administrations and the strong, bipartisan and diverse support it has from all major U.S. ocean industries, the environmental community and national security experts, it is clearly time for the Senate to act by supporting accession to the Convention on the Law of the Sea.

23 September, 2007

Law Of The Sea: An orderly world
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD

In hearings this week, the U.S. Senate will again consider the long-postponed ratification of the U.N. Convention of the Law of the Sea. The Senate should sail beyond the conservative fantasies about a loss of sovereignty.

Without the treaty, the U.S. has no ability to assert its sovereign rights over areas offshore from Alaska. By ratifying the treaty, which came into force internationally in 1994, however, the U.S. can claim exclusive economic rights 230 miles off the coast, where large oil reserves may lie.

As Sen. Maria Cantwell advocates, the country also needs to update the Coast Guard's Arctic icebreaking fleet, based in Seattle. As the Arctic sea ice disappears because of global warming and wind fluctuations, there will be more need than ever for researching and assisting shipping in the region.

Already, the reduction in the ice cover is setting off jockeying for claims in the Arctic by Russia, Canada and other countries. Even if the oil reserves are less than suspected, economic and environmental interests increasingly will come into play.

Conservatives like to complain about international law limiting U.S. sovereignty. International law's real effects may be modest, but they tend to create a safer, more orderly world. While the scaremongering about the United Nations continues, the Bush administration and the U.S. military are supporting ratification of the Law of the Sea treaty. That's a sure sign that Senate action is long overdue.

Ratify sea treaty: U.S. Senate should end delay
Tribune Editorial
Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated:09/04/2007 06:28:55 PM MDT

Remember when the Russians planted their flag last month on the ocean floor beneath the North Pole? Some people in the commentariat called it a publicity stunt.

Maybe it was. But if it causes the U.S. Senate finally to weigh anchor and ratify the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, it will have been a good thing for the United States, although that's probably not what the Russians had in mind.

From Saturday's (September 1st, 2007) Eugene, Oregon Register-Guard editorial page comes this conclusion:

Now, President George W. Bush says he fully supports the treaty and intends to push for its ratification. That's welcome news, because the treaty not only governs ocean boundaries and mineral resources, but also provides legal frameworks for determining rights of passage by military and commercial vessels, scientific research, pollution control and environmental resources.

Given that oceans cover more than 70 percent of Earth's surface, surely it's in America's best interest to come to the international table known as the Law of the Sea.

Click on "Read full article" for the complete text of the editorial.

---

Lee Hamilton, president of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and former chairman of the House Committee on International Relations endorsed the Law of the Sea Convention in an op-ed in today's (August 27, 2007) Indianapolis Star. His conclusion is"

America cannot advance its interests in a globalizing world without strong international partnerships and legal frameworks. When we turn our back on the world, we weaken our ability to lead, and we miss important opportunities to press our case. The Law of the Sea is an international framework that advances American interests on many different fronts. It's time to reap the full rewards of that success. It's time to ratify this treaty.

The full text is available on the site of the <a href="http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070827/OPINION/708270327/-1/LOCAL17" target=_blank>Indianapolis Star

The New York Times on US Accession to the Law of the Sea Convention (click "Read full article" or "View Editorial at NYT" for full text):

August 25, 2007
Editorial

A Treaty Whose Time Has Come

A solemn international treaty known as the Law of the Sea Convention will celebrate its 25th anniversary this December, and for 25 years the mere mention of its name has been enough to induce deep slumber. Yet for all kinds of reasons — not least growing fears about the availability of energy resources — people are finally paying attention. That includes the Senate, where right-wing scare tactics and official inertia have long blocked the treaty’s ratification, leaving America as the only major power standing on the sidelines.

From the Los Angeles Times in an editorial titled "The Cold Rush", the paper addresses the US Senate's need to give advice and consent to joining the Law of the Sea Convention:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should make time to approve the treaty as soon as possible. But the Senate should also ponder the future of the Arctic and how its treasures can best be used and safeguarded for the future. To ravage the melting ice cap for fossil fuels that will further warm and pollute the North Pole would be a tragedy for humankind.

The full text of the editorial is available on the <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-northpole24aug24,0,7871576.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials" target=_blank>LA Times web site.

In an editorial regarding US activities in the Arctic, the Seattle Times identified the LOS Convention as the first step in a more effective, more aggressive Arctic Ocean policy:

First, the Senate must ratify a 25-year-old United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which has languished since the Reagan administration worried about ceding sovereignty to an international body. The U.S. hesitated, and now is on the outside looking in.

The<a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2003842766_arcted20.html" target=_blank> full editorial is available at the Seattle Times web site.

<a href=http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/08/our-view-on-law.html" target=_blank>USA Today (August 14, 2007) gave its endorsement for US ratification of the LOS Convention:

When President Reagan refused to endorse the Law of the Sea back in the 1980s, one of his chief U.N. envoys was Ken Adelman. Adelman now has changed his mind. Many Republican senators are still opposed, but they, too, should reconsider. Ratifying the treaty will help the United States assert its stake to Arctic riches and curb Russia's appetite for them.

Michael Byers, professor of International Law, University of British Columbia, says that the United States should ratify the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, as Russia did in 1997 and Canada did in 2003. It would then participate in the complex scientific and legal process whereby data on the geography and geology of the sea-bed is collected and submitted to a special UN Commission for assessment as to whether the area of seabed in question is part of the relevant country's extended continental shelf.

Washington Post
July 30, 2007
Pg. 15

Taking Exceptions
Opportunity On The Oceans
America Wins With the Law of the Sea Treaty
By Lawrence S. Eagleburger and John Norton Moore

Foreign policy concerns, as the Israeli-Palestinian dispute shows, are like the Energizer bunny; they generally go on and on. When we have an opportunity for a decisive foreign policy win, it should not be missed. One such opportunity has arisen with the Law of the Sea Convention, and in contrast to what Jack Goldsmith and Jeremy Rabkin have argued on this page [" A Treaty the Senate Should Sink," op-ed, July 2], the convention should be approved.

The convention is strongly supported by our military leaders and aids our national security in crucial ways. It provides legal certainty for U.S. naval vessels navigating the world's oceans, the largest maneuver space in the world. It assists the Coast Guard and facilitates crucial oil and gas development on our offshore continental margin, reducing the need for Middle Eastern oil. Indeed, in its 200-mile economic zone, it extends U.S. resource control into the oceans in an area greater than the land area of the nation, giving the United States the largest economic zone in the world.

The United States would hold the only permanent seat on the Counsel of the Seabed Authority. This new functional entity permits U.S. firms to develop critically needed deposits of copper, nickel, cobalt and manganese from ocean-floor sites. But the delay in U.S. adherence to the convention has already meant the loss of one of four original U.S. mine sites, and the other three are at risk. Meanwhile, China, Russia, India, Japan and others have moved to obtain exploration licenses to their deep-seabed sites.

Not surprisingly, the Navy; the Coast Guard; and our fishing, shipping, undersea cable, mining, and oil and gas industries all support ratification, as do environmentalists. The congressionally established Ocean Policy Commission voted unanimously for U.S. accession to the convention as its first official act. There are also important foreign policy reasons to adhere, as Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte and Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England wrote in an op-ed in June.

In sharp contrast to the Kyoto treaty, the United States led the world in negotiating the Law of the Sea Convention and achieved a historic negotiating success -- a success that probably could not be replicated today. Moreover, when President Ronald Reagan subsequently determined that Part XI of the convention, on seabed mining, required major revision, the world expressly met his conditions before the convention went into effect.

Today the convention is in force for 154 nations, including all the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council but the United States. Failure to adhere diminishes the voice of the United States in protecting our interests worldwide; it excludes America from the new functional organizations created by the convention, such as the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf; and it sends a signal of American isolationism.

Why then has the convention, which was successfully renegotiated in 1994, not yet received a vote in the Senate? Sadly, ideologically driven opponents have purveyed a web of distortions. They assert that the convention would give our sovereignty away, but the reality would be enhanced protection of our ships on the seas and the greatest expansion of resource jurisdiction in U.S. history, greater in area than that of the Louisiana Purchase and the acquisition of Alaska combined. They assert that the International Seabed Authority, which after a quarter-century of operation has 35 employees and a budget of less than $12 million, is both a U.N. agency (it's not) and a stalking horse for world government. The agency also has no power to tax Americans.

Opponents assert that Ronald Reagan deep-sixed the convention, when instead he set requirements for renegotiation of Part XI, which were successfully achieved, and he directed that we follow the remainder of the convention, which has been U.S. oceans policy now through four presidencies. They assert that the convention harms President Bush's Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), when the Joint Chiefs of Staff state flatly that the convention "strengthens the coalition" and "supports" PSI.

Foreign policy issues deserve debate, but not shameful distortions. The Senate must not cede its role to uninformed voices, especially when our president and national security leaders are on record as to what is in our country's interest and when the rest of the world has specifically accommodated America's request for renegotiation. If the Senate misses this opportunity, our allies and adversaries alike will note that U.S. foreign policy has been diminished by an ideological extreme. The Senate should follow the president's leadership on this important issue.

Lawrence S. Eagleburger was secretary of state under President George H.W. Bush. John Norton Moore, director of the Center for Oceans Law & Policy at the University of Virginia, was U.S. ambassador for the Law of the Sea Convention under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford and was a Reagan appointee to the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere.

San Diego Union Tribune
America's treaty

By George V. Galdorisi and Scott C. Truver July 19, 2007

In the coming weeks and months, the U.S. Senate will have the opportunity to provide its "advice and consent" on a treaty of vital importance to America. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, with 153 parties, represents the outcome of the most comprehensive international negotiation ever undertaken - a negotiating process that the United States helped spearhead beginning in the mid-1960s. But it also represents a failure of Washington to take the high ground on something that clearly is in our collective interests: the good order and security of the oceans and seas worldwide.

The Chicago Tribune endorsed US ratification of the LOS Convention in their July 14, 2007 issue. The article focused strongly on the growing issue of access to the resources of the seabed of the Arctic Ocean and new Russian claims that extend farther from shore than any other claims.

The Tribune editorial makes the following conclusions regarding the Convention"

"There is strong military justification for this treaty, and there is strong economic justification. Case in point: As the polar ice recedes, resources beneath it become available for drilling. Russia has rushed in, and more nations will follow. By leaving the treaty unratified, the U.S. denies itself the ability to contest Russia's claims in the Arctic Ocean."

"The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has recommended the treaty. Chairman Joseph Biden (D-Del.) asked President Bush to publicly support the treaty, and the president did so in May. The Senate has no reason to fear this treaty. It has every reason to ratify it."

Click on the "Read full article" link below to view the full text of the Editorial.

On July 14th, an article endorsing the LOS COnvention appeared in the New York Times as an Op-Ed written by Adm. Vern Clark (Chief of Naval Operations from 2000 to 2005) and Amb. Thomas Pickering (US Representative to the UN, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Ambassador to Russia, Israel, India, Nigeria, Jordan and El Salvador). Admiral Clark and Ambassador Pickering end their article with the following statements of support for ratification:

"Our national security interests alone should be sufficient to persuade the Senate to act now. But the Convention also advances the economic interests of our country. It gives us an exclusive economic zone out to 200 miles, with sovereign rights for exploring, exploiting, conserving and managing the living and non-living natural resources of the zone. Coastal states are given sovereign rights over the continental shelf beyond 200 miles if the shelf meets specific geological and other scientific criteria. Under the Convention, our Arctic continental shelf could extend out to 600 miles."

"Our nation will be in a much stronger position to advance its military and economic interests if we ratify the treaty. We can guide and influence the interpretation of rules, protecting our interests and deflecting inconsistent interpretations. The agreement is being interpreted, applied and developed right now and we need to be part of it to protect our vital interests in the area of security and beyond."

Click the "Read full article" link below to view the entire editorial.