News » support

The following letter was sent to Sen. John F. Kerry, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee A similar letter was sent to Sen. Richard Lugar, Ranking Minority member of the Committee.

October 16, 2009

The Honorable John F. Kerry, Chairman
Committee on Foreign Relations
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman,

Recognizing the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's intention to consider the Convention on the Law of the Sea, I offer my strong support for U.S. accession to the convention.

As you are aware, the convention protects and advances the national security, economic, and environmental interests of the United States. In particular, the convention codifies navigational rights and freedoms critical to U.S. military and commercial vessels and secures U.S. economic rights to natural resources off-shore. In addition, as a party, the United States would have access to procedures that would maximize international recognition and legal certainty for U.S. sovereign rights over offshore resources (including minerals) beyond 200 miles of our coastline.

The United States, as a major maritime power, the country with the largest exclusive economic zone, and one of the largest continental shelves, stands to gain more from this treaty in terms of economic and resource rights than any other country. Having a seat at the table as a party would allow the United States to participate more effectively in the interpretation and development of the convention and the ability to participate formally in its institutions.

As the committee proceeds toward hearings on the convention, the Department of State stands ready to facilitate the Senate's consideration of this treaty by providing witnesses, testimony, and overall support.

I appreciate your leadership in our efforts to gain the necessary support for advice and consent to accession of this vitally important treaty.

Sincerely yours,

(signed)

Hillary Rodham Clinton

The following letter endorsing U.S. accession to the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea was sent to Gen. James Jones, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs by former Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs Tim Wirth, former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbot, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Thomas Pickering, former Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte and former Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs Frank Loy.

Appearing in the Wednesday, June 24th, editions of the Washington Post and Politico:

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

The Washington Times
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Ratify UNCLOS

Don Kraus and Robert A. Enholm

Some challenges are global in dimension and cannot be resolved by any single country, no matter how powerful - not even the United States. The use, protection, maintenance and sharing of the oceans and their resources present such a global problem. Doug Bandow argues that the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is futile or worse ("Paper promises vs. real costs," April 22).

In fact, UNCLOS has been developed over many years, with input from many countries, drawing on practical experience from across the globe. The treaty involves 157 countries. Some provisions of the treaty that gave the U.S. pause in the 1980s have been rewritten.

The current version of UNCLOS enjoys the support of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and such surprising allies as the American Petroleum Institute and the World Wildlife Fund. The Senate should ratify UNCLOS in the current session of Congress.

Asserting that we do not need the Law of the Sea because the United States has a large Navy and can protect its interests is like saying that we do not need traffic rules because we drive a really, really large automobile.

DON KRAUS,
Chief Executive Officer

ROBERT A. ENHOLM,
Executive Vice President

Citizens for Global Solutions

Washington

SPEAK OUT: In defense of UN’s Law of the Sea
The Patriot Ledger
Posted Apr 24, 2009 @ 10:38 AM
COHASSET —

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.

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.

March 13, 2008

To:	Senator Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader Senator Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader
Cc:	Senators Lugar, Stevens and Murkowski
From:	Rev. Theodore M. Hesburgh, C.S.C. (original copy signed by Rev. Hesburgh)

Dear Senator Reid and Senator McConnell,

I am writing concerning the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Convention was voted on favorably by the foreign Relations Committee and needs to be brought to the full Senate for a vote.

I have followed the Law of the Sea negotiations since the late 1970s and I support US ratification of the Convention. Timing is critical and recent events clearly illuminate the importance of the Law of the Sea Convention to our nation.

Last summer Russian politicians and scientists used submersibles to plant their flag at the North Pole. This event was carried out to enhance the Russian claim for an extended continental shelf in the Arctic. Flag planting does not constitute a claim. However the event does confirm the strategic value of obtaining the undisputed rights of the Arctic seafloor. The other circum-Arctic nations: Canada, Denmark (for Greenland)and Norway have ratified the convention and have or are preparing to submit their claims for extended continental shelves on other sections of the Arctic seafloor. Because we have not ratified the Convention, our nation is completely out of the game as these claims are evaluated. In addition our nation has no feasible avenue to introduce our own claim to the Arctic seafloor, where our national jurisdiction could extend 600 miles north of the Alaskan coast. The Arctic is not the only location off the US coast where we could claim an extended continental shelf.

Other nations among them: Australia, Brazil, France, Mexico and New Zealand have submitted extensive seafloor claims. Again, because we have not ratified the Convention we are excluded from commenting on their claims or participating in the evaluation process.

It is time for this situation to change and for the Senate to vote and ratify the Convention.

The Convention is the constitution for the seas. The continental shelf claims are currently in the limelight, but the other aspects of the Convention, national security, environmental protection and dispute settlement are no less important.

In closing, I recognize that the Convention is not perfect, no document negotiated over 75 weeks by 130 plus nations could be. Nevertheless, more than 154 nations have ratified the Convention. These nations are at work implementing the Convention and our nation needs to join them, not only for our own purposes by to insure legitimate governance of the world's resources.

ABA President William H. Neukom urged the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month to pass an advise and consent resolution for the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, which provides a legal framework governing the uses of the oceans and their resources.

More than 150 nations are party to the treaty, which was negotiated in the 1970s and early 1980s and signed in 1994 by the United States only after major revisions were made in the deep seabed mining provisions. That same year, the treaty went into force and President Clinton submitted it to the Senate.

"The convention was carefully drafted to preserve freedom of navigation, not only on the high seas but through all international straits and waterways, and to protect economic interests relating to off-shore resources, notably oil and fisheries," Neukom wrote in a statement submitted for a Sept. 27 hearing. Pointing out that the United States was very involved in the drafting of the treaty, he said this country "must become a party to the convention and resume our leadership role in order to protect our future interests."

Under the 1994 amendments to the convention, the United States, when it becomes a party to the treaty, will be a permanent member of the Governing Council of the International Seabed Authority and of the Finance Committee, which operate by consensus.

"Our failure to become a party to the convention and take advantage of these changes negotiated in the agreement will become more problematic in the future when and if mining of the deep seabed becomes commercially feasible," Neukom cautioned. In addition, he said that the United States currently cannot participate in critical discussions now being held and decisions being made that impact U.S. interests in the Arctic and other areas around the world.

Neukom emphasized that none of the dire consequences that had been predicted by opponents of the convention has come to pass, including inhibiting anti-terrorist activities on the high seas, imposing any taxes, or creating any international forces. In addition, he said that the alarmist objections regarding the jurisdiction of the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea created under the convention are "patently untrue," and the convention "does not and will not award any control over U.S. military activities to any international court or international bureaucracy."

John D. Negroponte, deputy secretary for the State Department, expressed the Bush administration's strong support for the treaty, testifying at the hearing that "U.S. accession to the convention is the best way to secure navigational and economic rights related to the law of the sea."

Gordon England, deputy secretary of defense, focused on the national security interests of the United States, emphasizing that the navigation and overflight rights and high-seas freedoms codified in the convention are essential for the global mobility of the armed forces and the sustainment of combat forces overseas.

Additional hearings scheduled for early October focused on the views of non-governmental organizations

Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff sent a letter of support for Senate approval of the Law of the Sea Convention to Senate Majority and Minority Leaders and Chair and Ranking Member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

A copy of the letter sent to Senator Biden can be viewed by clicking <a href="http://www.oceanlaw.org/downloads/HomeSec_Letter-27Sep07.pdf" target=_blank>here.

Secretary of Commerce Carlos M. Gutierrez and Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne sent a joint letter of support for Senate approval of the Law of the Sea Convention to Senate Majority and Minority Leaders and the Co-Chairmen of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

Citing the nations history as a seafaring nation and one of the earliest international treaties that established rights at sea with Morocco during the Jefferson administration, the Secretaries recounted their departmental responsibilities and national interests and concluded with their belief that it is imperative that the US join the LOS Convention.

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.

<table width=100%>