News

The report's title is "National Security and the Law of the Sea." It is an excellent primer for people new to the issue who want a quick introduction as well as a review for people who have been long involved in the subject. This is not a superficial review - the meat of the report takes 45 pages .

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

Source: <a href="http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/LawoftheSea_CSR46.pdf"target=_blank>Report in PDF format (4.7MB)

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.

The fiercely anti-UN John Birch Society is leading the opposition to the Law of the Sea Convention in 2009 with <a href="http://www.jbs.org/index.php/freedom-campaign/4437-obama-clinton-senate-poised-to-give-the-un-control-of-everything-about-the-oceans" target=_blank>a post and call for action on their web site. Their call for action has three points, all wrong but satisfying for them to promote:

• 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.

The LOS Convention recognizes the control of coastal states over the Territorial sea and over the resources of the 200 mile exclusive economic zone as well at the continental shelf when it extends beyond 200 miles. Resources and use of the high seas are governed by rules adopted by states, not by the UN in some form of top-down control. The minerals of the deep seabed are governed by an international organization intentionally created outside the UN in which the US (once a member) would have the power to block adoption of rules, amendments, budgets and distribution of funds. That just doesn't measure up to any kind of threat to the US. The three points from the recommended letter to senators (printed in italics with response in plain text) are:

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

The UN gets no control at all. Near shore the oceans are managed by the coastal states and on the high seas, the rules of Freedom of the Seas continue to guide national use of the oceans.

• 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.

Now this point is just downright fear-mongering at its worst, but this seems to be the best that the JBS can muster.

It is important to note that when Barack Obama undertakes to fulfill his promise to work to ensure US ratification of the Law of the Sea Convention that he will be holding true to a consistent US policy that reaches back not just to the George W. Bush Administration, but all the way back through the Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford and Nixon Administrations to the initial planning under LBJ. Indeed, it is hard to think of more than a handful of US policy positions that have been as consistent and durable as US support of a codified, comprehensive and universal law of the sea convention.

In light of the consistency from one administration to the next, the statement by the Legal Adviser of the Department of State earlier this week is and will remain an important assessment of US interests and policy regarding the LOS Convention and a starting point for the incoming administration:

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.