News » articles

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.

For many people who are considering the Law of the Sea Convention for the first time, the question "What Would Reagan Do?" takes on special interest. Former advisors who once stood to Reagan's right say he would oppose the Convention, but Reagan's senior foreign policy advisors and the staff that prepared his decision memorandum on the Convention say he would support the Convention once it was modified according to his criteria in 1994.

National Journal published a story last Friday that addresses this issue. It is an interesting story that should be read by anyone interested in Reagan's legacy in foreign policy and the attempts by some to stretch his legacy to pet causes. The conclusion, however, leaves us all on our own to resolve the issue:

As for Reagan, it isn't clear what he would say. He believed in guns, but he also believed in diplomacy. He undertook a massive buildup of American arms, but he also negotiated arms reductions with the Soviet Union. He distrusted the United Nations, but he believed in American business. People can ask what he would do, but he's dead. He can't answer.

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.

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.

The Wall Street Journal, August 21, 2007 article by Neil King, Jr, titled U.S. Resistance to Sea Treaty Thaws begins with this opening Q&A:

What do the Nature Conservancy, Exxon Mobil Corp., offshore oil drillers, the fishing, shipping and diamond industries, President Bush and the U.S. Navy have in common?

Answer: They all support a little-known but highly contentious international treaty -- set to come before the U.S. Senate next month for ratification -- that governs nearly every aspect of ocean law, from underwater mineral rights to access to shipping lanes.

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.

Commodore Sam Bateman, RAN (ret) wrote in the August issue of the Naval Institute Proceedings that amplified the article in the July issue by George Galdorisi and Scott Truver ("Treaty at a Crossroads"). He was able to drawn on his experience as a naval officer who has lectured on Law of the Sea in Asia as well as in Australia. Several of his points deserve highlights because they are points that US naval officers can't talk about in public.

I regularly lecture on the Law of the Sea both in Australia and Asia. When I refer to the U.S. Navy's Freedom of Navigation (FON) Program, there are always questions about the right of the United States to enforce navigational freedom when it is not a party to UNCLOS. The argument that these freedoms are available under customary international law is becoming weaker, as customary international law evolves and some states act unilaterally to chip away at the balance of interests set out in UNCLOS. Excessive use of territorial sea straight baselines and "thickening jurisdiction" by coastal states in their exclusive economic zones are key examples of where customary international law may be evolving in a way contrary to U.S. Interests.

The FON by itself is no longer an effective means of dealing with these excessive claims. The United States should be prepared to take the offending countries to international dispute settlement, but it is unable to do so while it is not a party to UNCLOS. Quite simply, the United States could do much more to counter excessive maritime jurisdiction from within the Convention rather than by remaining outside it. Sitting in a corner and crying foul is not an effective approach.

While the United States remains outside, the rest of the world is establishing rules and principles for managing the 70 percent of the world's surface covered by water. One of the strongest points for US ratification is that this would allow the United States to participate in the international dispute mechanisms established under UNCLOS: the International Seabed Authority, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, and the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. These bodies are open for business and doing their work regardless of U.S. non-involvement.

The full text of Commodore Bateman's letter is to be found on pages 6 and 7 of the August issue of the Proceedings.

<img align="right" alt="Chukchi Plateau north of Alaska" border="0" height="367" width="338" vspace="5" hspace="5"src="http://www.oceanlaw.org/downloads/chukchi_plateau.jpg" /> The Russian research expedition to survey the Arctic seabed, highlighted by the placing of the Russian flag on the floor of the ocean at the North Pole, has gained much attention - more because it was billed as Russia laying claim to the north pole than for the extraordinary nature of the extended marine science operations under the ice cap.

Actually, this expedition is part of the Russian effort to obtain international recognition of their claim to portions of the Arctic ocean floor in the only way possible: by conducting research that may prove that part of the ocean floor is a submerged extension of the Asian continent and submitting it to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, an international commission of experts in marine geology established by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. If the Commission agrees with the Russian claim, then it will be binding on all 155 parties to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. And even though the US has yet to ratify the Convention, the recognition of the claim by every industrialized country other than the US and by most of the developing world will make the resources of the claimed portion under the sovereign authority of Russia. If the Commission does not agree that the data supports the claim, then Russia will have to try again to obtain the Commission's approval, either with better data or a different claim.

In all the hoopla about the Russian expedition, only a little attention has been paid to America's own potential claim to the Arctic Floor. In 1980, Ambassador Elliot Richardson spoke to the Conference on the Law of the Sea to declare that it was the understanding of the United States that the terms of the Convention would allow the United States to claim the sub-sea territory known as the Chukchi Plateau. This area is located more than 600 miles north of Alaska and may be rich in oil and gas resources (though that won't be known until exploration activities are undertaken in the area).

Richardson's statement still holds true - the United States can claim the Chukchi Plateau as well as other portions of the Alaskan continental shelf beyond the 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone and even the 350 NM limit to most claims over the continental shelf. But making a unilateral claim does not achieve what Russia is seeking - international recognition of sovereign authority over the seabed resources in the area of its claim.

The US is limited by its failure to join the Law of the Sea Convention: without being a party, its claim cannot be reviewed by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, and without the Commission's approval, a US claim will not be recognized by others. One can ask, "does that matter?" In fact, it matters a great deal. The oil industry is a multinational one, with projects and investments around the world and the same is true for the international banks that help finance oil and gas development. Offshore development in deep, ice-frequented water requires huge investment and is fraught with technical risks. Businesses with operations in countries that recognize the LOS Convention (notably Russia) are not likely to be willing to bear the legal, economic and political risks the may result from the lack of international recognition of US authority over the resources of the Chukchi Plateau. They may be even less willing to risk their relationships with the host countries of their other operations and opportunities.

Adm. Mike Mullen submitted answers to questions regarding the Law of the Sea Convention as part of his confirmation hearing on July 31st, 2007. The questions and answers begin below.

---

<div align=center>United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea</b<div align=left>

In May of this year, President Bush issued a statement urging the Senate to act favorably on U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea Convention.

Do you support U. S. accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea?

Yes, I support United States' accession to the Law of the Sea Convention, and I believe that joining the Convention will strengthen our military's ability to conduct operations.

How would you answer the critics of the Convention who assert that accession is not in the national security interests of the United States?

I believe that accession to the Law of the Sea Convention is in national security interest of our nation. The basic tenets of the Law of the Sea Convention are clear and the United States Armed Forces reap many benefits from its provisions. From the right of unimpeded transit passage through straits used for international navigation, to reaffirming the sovereign immunity of our warships, providing a framework for countering excessive claims of other states, and preserving the right to conduct military activities in exclusive economic zones, the Convention provides the stable and predictable legal regime we need to conduct our operations today and in the future.

The ability of United States military forces to operate freely on, over and above the vast military maneuver space of the oceans is critical to our national security interests, the military in general, and the Navy in particular. Your Navy's -- and your military's -- ability to operate freely across the vast domain of the world's oceans in peace and in war make possible the unfettered projection of American influence and power. The military basis far support for the Law of the Sea Convention is broad because it codifies fundamental benefits important to our operating forces as they train and fight.

• It codifies essential navigational freedoms through key international straits and archipelagoes, in the exclusive economic zone, and on the high seas;
• It supports the operational maneuver space for combat and other operations of our warships and aircraft; and
• It enhances our own maritime interests in our territorial sea, contiguous zone, and exclusive economic zone.

These provisions and others are important, and it is preferable for the United States to be a party to the Convention that codifies the freedoms of navigation and over flight needed to support United States military operations. Likewise, it is beneficial to have a seat at the table to shape future developments of the Law of the Sea Convention. Amendments made to the Convention in the 1990's satisfied many of the concerns that opponents have expressed.

Since 1983, the United States Navy has conducted its activities in accordance with President Reagan's Statement on United States Oceans Policy, operating consistent with the Convention's provisions on navigational freedoms. If the United States becomes a party to the Law of the Sea Convention, we would continue to operate as we have since 1983, and would be recognized for our leadership role in law of the sea matters. Joining the Law of the Sea Convention will have no adverse effect on the President's Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) or on United States intelligence gathering activities. Rather, joining the Convention is another important step in prosecuting and ultimately prevailing in the Global War on Terrorism.