News

RATIFY THE LAW OF THE SEA TREATY

Dear Colleague:

Recently, 36 Members of Congress wrote to the Senate to oppose U.S. accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. While I respect the position of my colleagues, such opposition should be based on accurate representations of the treaty and its implications for U.S. national and economic security. This is an urgent matter and, as a former Vice Admiral in the U.S. Navy, I can attest that this is a national security issue. Senate failure to accede to the Convention this year will adversely impact our economy, security and the environment:

• The Convention will greatly enhance U.S. national security. The Joint Chiefs have urged accession now in order to codify “navigation and over-flight rights and high seas freedoms that are essential for the global mobility of our armed forces.” The Coast Guard needs accession in order to “interdict illicit drug traffickers and illegal immigrants far beyond our own waters.” And the framework of rules provided by the Convention will strengthen our coalition efforts to fight nuclear proliferation through the Proliferation Security Initiative and regional maritime security arrangements.
• Norway and Russia have already submitted claims to extend recognition of their continental shelves in the Arctic – which only State Parties to the Law of the Sea Convention may do. The United States stands to gain recognition of continental shelf extensions as far as 600 miles offshore. But without a seat at the table, we cannot present data to substantiate our claims or to challenge Canada’s forthcoming claim, which will likely conflict with one of our own. Given the extensive resource wealth in the Arctic seabed, nothing less than the energy security of our country is at stake.
• The convention safeguards imperiled marine habitats by strengthening the ability of nations to enforce environmental regulations within their national jurisdiction and empower them to stop harmful pollution and ocean dumping caused by previously unregulated ships. The convention also contains special measures to save endangered whales, salmon, and other marine mammals. It allows U.S fisheries and those of other coastal states to set limits within their 200 miles economic zone while protecting dwindling migratory fish stocks such as tuna and billfish on the high seas.

Please consider the following information when considering your position regarding this important treaty that could benefit U.S. national security, our economy, and the environment:

• If the U.S. were to join the Convention:
  • the United States could extend its exclusive sovereignty over living and non-living resources of the continental shelf up to 600 miles offshore.
  • the United States will have an effective veto over all critical decisions of the International Seabed Authority (ISA), which recognizes claims to resources in the seabed beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. This includes the budget, rules and regulations, and distribution of royalty payments. U.S. oil and gas and deep-sea mining industries are in favor of the royalties regime set up under the Convention, which does not provide for taxation of American citizens.
  • The 1994 Implementing Agreement to the Convention, which satisfied all of the Reagan Administration’s reservations, explicitly states that the mandatory technology transfer language in the Convention “does not apply.”
• Military activities are not subject to dispute resolution under the treaty. The United States has already agreed to provisions limiting military activities in the territorial waters of other states in the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, to which the United States has been a State Party for over half a century. In fact, National Security Advisor Hadley has informed the Senate that joining is “essential to the formulation and implementation of the President’s National Security Strategy as well as the National Strategy for Maritime Security.”
• Negotiations on the Law of the Sea Convention were initiated by the U.S. and, as President Reagan said, are consistent with our balance of interests. Moreover, President Reagan clearly articulated U.S. objections to the original Convention, all of which were addressed in the 1994 Agreement. The diary entry quoted by my colleagues’ letter refers to the option of ratifying the treaty piecemeal, without the seabed mining provisions. President Reagan’s Secretaries of State, National Security Advisor, and numerous other officials in his administration agree that the Convention in its current form achieves all of U.S. goals in negotiations.

Again, as a former Vice-Admiral in the U.S. Navy, I can attest to the great benefits that accession would offer to our men and women in uniform – and the unnecessary peril to them and to U.S. interests that our absence from the Convention is creating. As the only nation that is truly globally deployed, the U.S. has a unique stake in the stability and reliability of international ocean law. We cannot continue to rely on customary international law, which drifts over time and whose application can be unpredictable, to guarantee our rights at sea.

I do not make these assertions merely on my own behalf. The views espoused in this letter are shared by all living State Department Legal Advisors, all living Chiefs of Naval Operations, as well as President Bush, his National Security Advisor and Council on Environmental Quality, and his Secretaries of State, Defense, Interior, Commerce, and Homeland Security. In addition, ratification is supported by a diverse coalition of business groups, environmental organizations, scientific and research institutes, and military reserve organizations.

I urge you to carefully consider the question of advice and consent to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Convention and support United States accession.

Sincerely,

JOE SESTAK
Member of Congress