Why America Should Care About the Law of the Sea Treaty

by Don Kraus and Spencer P. Boyer

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is once again considering the international treaty known as the Law of the Sea Convention, and the stakes are high. Winning the ratification battle would begin to breach the walls of "Fortress America" -- that fear-driven construct that deprives the United States of the benefits of international law and institutions, while falsely claiming that our sovereignty is at risk if we engage globally. Joining the treaty would be an important step in tearing down this wall and putting the U.S. back on track towards responsible global leadership.

The treaty, which was adopted 25 years ago and has been in force since 1994, has 155 signatories and lays out rules of behavior for over two-thirds of the Earth's surface. Fortunately, there are benefits in this treaty for just about everyone -- including environmentalists, business associations, oil, shipping, and fishing companies, and the military - who all support ratification. Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers are largely in favor. Even President Bush, who has not exactly been a staunch supporter of an international rule of law, is on board.

Why is there such a perfect storm of convergent interests?

* The U.S. Navy and Air Force desperately need a strong legal foundation for their navigation and overflight rights, as well as for the Proliferation Security Initiative - their efforts to intercept illicit shipments of weapons material.

* The Coast Guard sees the treaty as a critical tool to enhance port security.

* Environmental organizations want the U.S. to join so it can strengthen global efforts to protect the marine ecosystem. They are working together with the U.S. oil and gas industry, which would gain exclusive access to exploit (or conserve, as our government sees fit) resources in an offshore zone bigger than the entire continental United States with ratification.

* Membership in the treaty would give U.S. firms the legal certainty to compete with foreign firms for certain marine resources.

Yet sadly the treaty has languished in the U.S. Senate since 1994, held up first by former Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) and then in 2004 by former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), despite a unanimous, 19-0 affirmative vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. With such support, what's the problem?

The convention's few isolated opponents see themselves as the guardians of Fortress America's inner sanctum. This is the crowd that falsely equates international law and organizations with the erosion of U.S. national security. Many of these same people said that we didn't need international support or cooperation before invading Iraq in 2003.

Unlike serving officers, these armchair admirals fail to recognize the need for any binding rules of the road regarding the world's oceans. They suggest that our overstretched military can be counted upon to protect U.S. ocean mining operations outside our territorial waters. They have no other ideas on how to protect threatened marine wildlife or manage pollution. And they offer no alternative to protect the military and commercial rights that the treaty explicitly guarantees to its member states.

That the Senate has not ratified a convention so overwhelmingly favorable to our interests remains a national disgrace, and one that has serious political implications. The Senate's inaction on the treaty gives rise to the notion that all multilateral treaties, no matter how important for U.S. interests, are dead on arrival. If you can't pass the Law of the Sea Convention, what chance would you have at passing agreements on climate change, human rights, or arms control? Why even try?

Furthermore, the U.S. has actually been in full compliance with the treaty since the Reagan administration. By recognizing the treaty but failing to ratify it, we have been respecting the rights of others while forfeiting the benefits we would enjoy as a member state of the convention.

The Foreign Relations Committee will soon vote to send the treaty to the Senate floor, where at least 70 senators appear ready to cast their votes in favor. Fortunately, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden (D-DE), and Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL), whose backing is also critical, are all proponents of the treaty. But with appropriations bills, the war in Iraq, and energy legislation all battling for space, time on the Senate floor is limited. And while the treaty may not have many opponents, they will try to use every trick in the book to prevent ratification, including trying to prevent a floor vote.

It is essential that this small group of ideologically driven naysayers not be allowed to hold up this treaty any longer, and that those in favor of the treaty use their political muscle to bring it to the Senate floor for a vote. Vital American interests depend on it.

Don Kraus is Executive Vice President at Citizens for Global Solutions, a non-partisan membership organization.

Spencer P. Boyer is Director of International Law and Diplomacy at the Center for American Progress, a Washington-based think tank.

Comments

[NATIONALSECURITY4US]

A MASS MAJORITY OF AMERICANS ARE WAY TOO BUSY

WORRYING ABOUT A VARIETY OF ISSUES THAT DOESN'T

AMOUNT TO A HILL OF BEANS - HOWEVER WHEN 1 DAY

WHEN AMERICA SUDDENLY LOSES ITS' SOVEREIGNTY 2

A COLLECTIVE CONSORTIUM OF NATIONS WHO REALLY

IN ALL HONESTY WANT AMERICA UTTERLY DESTROYED

AS A SUPERPOWER - WILL THEY FINALLY WAKE-UP &

SEE THE REAL PICTURE - ALTHOUGH BY THEN IT WILL

BE ENTIRELY WAY TOO LATE TO REVERSE COURSE...

[1will]

Everytime some dictator calls the United States "Satan" when addressing the UN over half of the delegates cheer and almost do cartwheels in the aisles. Do you really believe America will get a fair deal when letting a world organization decide how to use the oceans? Spain currently holds a US salvage ship that discovered a long abandoned Spanish treasure ship from several hundred years ago. Nevermind that Spain has never made an effort to find this ship. They consider it theirs and have impounded the US ship that has been salvaging it. We can expect more of the same under LOST except it will then have the air of legality.
The UN is no friend to the United States. The UN is a corrupt, inefficient organization that routinely has to fight charges of bribery and even rape. When was the last time the UN did anything worthwhile without America leading the way?
The World Trade Organization should be called the Organization to Screw Over America. While other countries subsidize their industries (Airbus) and their farmers America is penalized for trying to protect those industries vital to our national interest (steel). China violates our copyright laws and steals our patents. Nothing is done.
America does not get a fair deal as a member of these global organizations. These organizations are usually corrupt and little can be done about them. Why subject our country to yet another global scheme to hurt our country.
By the way, they are now finding oil everywhere from the North Pole to the Caribbean (between Cuba and Florida). Who do you think LOST would award the rights to this oil to? America? Doubtful.

[Plowboy]

There is one thing I cannnot understand. Here we have an issue which everyone seems to support except for a few on the extreme Right. And they can block action on it.
But since this is so, is there any wonder that no action is made to curb the excesses of an administration loved by a few extremists and nobody else?
Democracy in America -- a book about America's distant past.

[realitytrumpsbull]

I second 1will. If it hasn't been adopted by
the US, then there's probably a Damn Good
Reason behind it. The UN has already proven
itself a fraudulent, corrupt, and largely
ineffective body in a lot of areas, so
what makes you think they'll provide good
governance in maritime disputes etc? I don't
support anything that gives the UN any kind
of administrative authority over the United
States, I think that'd be a pretty big mistake,
and as far as the 'fortress america' thing
goes, well, take a good look at our borders,
specifically the US/Mexico border, the
failure to do a good job of maintaining
THAT border has caused all kinds of problems.

I'm more inclined to agree with Inhofe, keep
the global socialism OUT of the United States, please.
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/law_of_the_dea_treaty/2007/09/16/33102.html
I think, treaty or no treaty, the
oceans are being overfished, and in place
of swordfish, whales, and tuna, you'll see
floating piles of 6-pack rings,dead seagulls,
and bugs. 6.6 billion people gotta eat,
and a treaty is just a piece of paper, isn't
going to stop the ocean death...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/02/health/webmd/main2147223.shtml
Enjoy your tuna! How long does that canned
stuff last for, again? LOL

[1will]

Very good post. Well written and persuasive. I wish I had done a better job on my initial post now.

[TuffPosh]

Mike Gravel is also on record as supporting a world government:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu-OAu9hi2c

If you agree with him, please do us all a favor and renounce your U.S. citizenship.

As for LOST, the many downsides include giving corrupt UN bureaucrats de facto world taxation powers. For more, see this:

http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/LOST/

(Hopefully HuffPostians will be open-minded enough to be able to separate their personal opinions of Schlafly from her very valid arguments.)

[PeaceCzar]

Further:

Take a look at all of Gravel's "brain-washing world government" accomplishments.

He is FOR THE PEOPLE!

http://www.gravel2008.us/legislature

[heckleNjeckle]

Quiz Time! fellow progressives:

Question: Which visionary presidential candidate has supported the Law of the Sea Treaty since the 70's, before it was even a treaty?

Hint: It was the same Senator who read the Pentagon Papers into the record; the same Senator whose filibuster thwarted Nixon's plan to continue the draft; the same candidate who is now excluded from the Democratic debate on Oct. 30; the candidate for whom you should be calling and petitioning for his inclusion in the November debate, or you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Answer: Mike Gravel.

Don't be a wimp, support the candidate who really IS serious.

[1will]

LOST will work out for us just as good as the World Trade Organization has. This will end up being yet another screw America committee in the UN run by backwards ass dictatorships.