Richard G. Lugar, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations - U.S. Leadership in the World and the Law of the Sea

In a harmonic convergence of truly historic proportions, the Bush administration, the military, oil and mining companies and environmental groups all agree that the U.S. Senate should ratify the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. Earlier this year, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on a 19-0 vote, sent the treaty to the Senate floor with a recommendation for ratification. The administration has placed it on its list of treaties that deserve "urgent" action by the Senate.

So what's the holdup? Apparently it's Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), who thinks approval of the treaty may damage the Republican Party with some members of its political base. Were the treaty to come up for a vote, insiders say, it would pass overwhelmingly. But some conservatives who are uncomfortable with any multilateral agreements have raised unwarranted fears about the consequences if the United States signs on to the treaty. Frist doesn't want to offend those folks, so he's allowing the treaty to languish. That's a mistake for U.S. economic, maritime and security interests.

Here's what one of Frist's fellow Republicans, Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, has to say about the treaty: "It can help ensure that our Navy ships and submarines can navigate freely to defend America's national security, that our cargo vessels and tankers have access to all the world's sea lanes and that we can control the vast riches up to 200 miles off our shores - and in some cases beyond - including the huge schools of fish in the ocean and the oil and gas that lie underneath it."

Lugar is right. Contrary to what its critics claim, the treaty would enshrine - not disrupt - long-standing sea protocols and customs. It guarantees, for example, current custom on freedom of navigation of straits such as the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, which has become critical for U.S. troop transport. It would also guarantee the U.S. rights to fish and mine the seabed off its coasts, and it would provide environmental protection of rare resources. In no instance would it hand over U.S. security or economic interests to the United Nations, as its critics charge.

Beyond that, the treaty will play a key role in shaping the future of international agreements governing the seas. If the U.S. is not part of the convention, the result could be a diminished - and diminishing - voice in what shape that future will take. That's clearly something the U.S. can't afford to allow.

Avoiding such a result is in the hands of the Senate and, specifically, Frist, who can schedule a vote on the treaty any time. The Republican majority leader needs to get on board with his president and see to it that U.S. rights on the seas are maintained.

All nations have a stake in the passage of the Law of the Sea treaty, but no nation's stake is as great as that of the United States.

The 1982 Law of the Sea treaty would govern the use of oceans for fishing, shipping, exploration, navigating and mining. The United States had a major hand in drafting it, and signed it in 1994 after some modifications. The treaty has been ratified by 145 other nations, including all other permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. But not the United States.

For years, the problem was Jesse Helms, the North Carolina senator and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Helms opposed almost all multinational treaties. But when Helms retired and Sen. Richard Lugar assumed the committee's leadership, the treaty's chances brightened. Lugar enthusiastically supports the treaty: The Foreign Relations Committee unanimously passed it last February.

Yet those who share Helms' distaste for international cooperation have been urging that the treaty be quietly shelved. A 10-year ratification deadline for the treaty comes this fall: If the United States has not ratified it by then, the nation will not be able to participate in the implementation plans.

It defies common sense that the world's largest economic and military power would miss the opportunity to serve its own long-term interests. The treaty would protect this nation's rights to navigate and fly over oceans, which is crucial to the U.S. military. It would protect the nation's right to explore and exploit natural resources, to fish and to research the oceans. Becoming a party to the treaty would also give the United States the right to participate and lead in subsequent international debate of oceanic issues.

The shipping industry, the oil industry, environmentalists, the State Department and the Pentagon all support the treaty. President Bush and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist should not let the Senate miss this crucial historic opportunity.

It's a rare day when the oil and gas industries and environmental groups join forces to advocate for something, but that's exactly the case with their support for Senate ratification of the U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty. But despite the Bush administration's support for the treaty's approval, it is being held up by hard-line conservative senators who oppose any agreement with the United Nations.

The treaty has been in the works since 1973 with full U.S. participation. It covers navigation and overflight of the world's oceans, as well as territorial rights and oversight of research, exploitation and conservation of ocean resources.

When the United States and other industrialized nations objected in 1982 to provisions covering deep-seabed mining, negotiations were resumed. As a result, an implementing agreement with changes agreeable to the objecting countries was formalized in 1994. Satisfied with the treaty's terms, the United States signed that agreement, at which point the treaty was submitted to the Senate for ratification. It was stalled until 2003, when the Bush administration and other interests began nudging it forward.

The reason for the push is that a crucial deadline on this agreement is set for a 10-year review this fall. If the United States isn't a part of the treaty by then, it will have no say in any revisions made to the agreement. At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in April 2004, Adm. Vern Clark, chief of naval operations, testified that the treaty ''will support both the worldwide mobility of our forces and our traditional leadership role in maritime matters. . . . Our participation in the [treaty] will better position us to initiate and influence future developments in the law of the sea.'' The treaty guarantees freedom of navigation rights, which the United States now relies on for troop passage through the Persian Gulf.

Admiral Clark said the treaty supports U.S. efforts in the war on terrorism: It ''ensures the freedom to get to the fight, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, without a permission slip.''

The treaty would allow the United States to opt out of its dispute-resolution provisions on issues related to the military and other law-enforcement areas. This means the United States would not be subject to the International Court of Justice, except on issues of deep-seabed mining. The administration, which opposes the international court, finds this acceptable.

After hearing from the State, Defense and Homeland Security departments, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 19-0 for ratification. The Senate has done its homework on the Law of the Sea Treaty and finds it beneficial to the nation's interests. Thus Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist should bring it to a full floor vote in June.

Last month, a blue-ribbon panel created by Congress and the Bush administration proposed a series of valuable measures to combat threats to the nation's coastlines and the world's seas. Just how serious the White House is about the panel's report can be assessed by its response to a key recommendation: that the Senate ratify the Law of the Sea treaty, which is already in effect globally, having been approved by 145 countries.

The Commission on Ocean Policy's report is being circulated to state governors before further action. But President George W. Bush need not - indeed, must not - wait. He should press fellow Republicans who control the Senate to promptly ratify the treaty.

If the Senate does not, the United States will miss its best chance to influence the next talks, scheduled for November, on implementing the treaty's provisions.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously backed ratification last month and the White House says it is squarely in support of the treaty. But a few far-right- wing Republicans oppose it, and Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), the Senate majority leader - who has close White House ties - shows no sign of moving for a vote.

There's not enough opposition to prevent ratification or even to tie up the legislative process, though. What Frist seems to be doing is pandering to a few conservative senators. So it's up to Bush to give the push needed to get the measure through.

The treaty was negotiated two decades ago, but President Ronald Reagan declined to support it because of provisions over future seabed mining. Those details were renegotiated at this country's behest in 1994, however, and now the treaty has broad support from industry, marine interests and environmentalists, among others. But conservatives say the treaty's early defects have not been corrected and that it would turn over too much authority to unresponsive United Nations control. Besides, they say, the U.S. Navy rules the waves anyway.

That's absurdly pugnacious: The Navy itself supports the treaty, which retired Adm. James Watkins calls "the foundation of public order of the oceans." Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), who chairs the Foreign Relations Committee, says it's only misguided discomfort with multilaterialism that is standing in the way of ratification.

In fact, the United States has voluntarily abided by the treaty's provisions, out of self-interest, for 20 years - but will have no say in its future unless it officially ratifies it. Now's the time to correct that, and only Bush can make sure it gets done.

U.S. would lose control over international ocean decisions if the pact isn't approved soon.

What do George Bush, Big Oil, the Navy and environmentalists all agree on, besides the fact that the sun will come up tomorrow? And why is that issue stuck in the Senate, held up by a small handful of lawmakers?

The first answer: LOST - The Law of the Sea Treaty. It's the U.N. Convention that will (with the U.S. or without it) establish countries' jurisdiction over their coasts and ocean. It will formalize territorial boundaries for exploring and exploiting natural resources, as well as, among other things, ensure the freedom of navigation and set regulations for deep seabed mining.

This time it was Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., who spoke to the issue. "In fact," he said, "the convention does not make any U.S. military activities or, with one exception, any U.S. economic activities subject to the control of a bureaucracy of any kind. Rather, it establishes a set of rules highly favorable to U.S. freedom of action in the oceans." The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which Lugar chairs, has given the treaty its unanimous support.

Backers believe that if the treaty is allowed to reach the Senate floor (Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., is considering the political implications of passage and hasn't scheduled a vote), it will pass easily.

It's key that the Senate act soon. A review conference is set for this fall. If the United States hasn't ratified the treaty, it can't participate. Then, as one supporter noted, other nations could get together and roll back the protections U.S. negotiators worked so hard to insert into the treaty.

In addition, proponents have said that accepting the treaty is essential to getting U.S. allies' backing of Bush's Proliferation Security Initiative for interdicting weapons of mass destruction at sea.

So many good reasons to pass it. So few weak and questionable reasons against. President Bush and his powerful allies on this issue shouldn't let a few knee-jerk U.N. haters sink this vital treaty. Let us hope that its acronym, LOST, isn't a prediction.

Sen. Dick Lugar, Indiana Republican, displayed his trademark patience at the Brookings Institution May 4, carefully laying out the case for Senate action on the Law of the Sea treaty and taking questions from even his harshest critics.

Columnist Frank Gaffney, who has stirred opposition to the treaty since it was approved unanimously by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in February, asked Mr. Lugar if the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would hold yet another hearing on the treaty.

Mr. Lugar, whose chairmanship of Foreign Relations wins the sort of bipartisan praise all too rare on Capitol Hill these days, characteristically refused to rule out even this unusual suggestion (how often has Foreign Relations held a hearing on a treaty after recommending Senate approval?). But Mr. Lugar noted Mr. Gaffney can state his views before a number of congressional committees.

I monitored the following dialogue that left the impression that the mini-debate over the last month about the Law of the Sea treaty reflects a generalized concern about multilateral organizations far more than a considered view of whether this agreement serves U.S. interests.

Mr. Gaffney said he is "no expert" on the Law of the Sea treaty and that "common sense" leads him to oppose it. Repeating arguments he made in an article on the Commentary pages of The Washington Times ("LOST at Sea," May 4), he argued the treaty is a troubling step toward world government.

While Mr. Gaffney's general comments on multilateral organizations could (and do) provoke lengthy dialogue among foreign policy specialists, it is difficult to seriously credit his specific critique of the Law of the Sea treaty.

Mr. Gaffney argues, for example, that Articles 19 and 20 of the treaty prohibit intelligence-gathering and require submarines to navigate on the surface in coastal waters.

This argument is based on a simple misreading of the relevant provisions, which neither prohibit nor require any activities but simply establish conditions for invoking the "right of innocent passage." As Adm. Vern Clark, chief of naval operations, said March 18, the Law of the Sea treaty "supports U.S. efforts in the war on terrorism by providing important stability and codifying navigational and overflight freedoms, while leaving unaffected intelligence collection activities."

The treaty protects our national security. By improving access and transit rights for our ships, aircraft and submarines, the Law of the Sea treaty facilitates timely movement of U.S. forces throughout the world. Adm. Clark and all living former chiefs of naval operations have endorsed the treaty. Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote last month the treaty "remains a top national security priority."
The treaty protects our commercial interests. Provisions on coastal state control of the continental shelf, for example, help provide the certainty crucial to capital-intensive deepwater projects. The American Petroleum Institute, the International Association of Drilling Contractors and the National Ocean Industries Association have all called for treaty approval.
The treaty protects the ocean environment. Provisions addressing marine pollution and fisheries help promote conservation of scarce marine resources. The World Wildlife Fund, National Environmental Trust and Oceans Conservancy, among others, support the agreement.

These factors have led the Bush administration not only to support the Law of the Sea treaty, but to identify it as one of only five treaties for which Senate approval is "urgent." Officials from the Navy, Coast Guard, Office of the Secretary of Defense, State Department and Commerce Department have all testified in support of ratification.

(While the Bush-Cheney campaign criticizes Sen. John Kerry for equivocating and changing positions, anything less than continued and tightly disciplined support for the agreement by the Bush administration in the months ahead would open the president to similar criticism, for uncertain political gain.)

Why is Senate approval "urgent"? In part because the treaty is open for amendment for the first time this November. Nations will then be able to propose amendments that weaken provisions important to the U.S.

As Mr. Lugar said May 4, the Law of the Sea treaty would prohibit countries from excluding nuclear-powered submarines from their territorial waters. The U.S. will be much better able to keep it that way as a treaty party instead of an outsider.

Retired Adm. James Watkins, appointed by President Bush as chairman of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, recently explained why the commission unanimously supports U.S. ratification of the Law of Sea treaty. "There are many important decisions being made right now within the framework of the convention," he wrote. "Until we are a party to the convention, we cannot participate in the many bodies established under the convention that are making decisions critical to our interests."

Mr. Gaffney -- always an articulate advocate -- closes his recent opinion piece on the Law of the Sea treaty with references to the oil-for-food scandal and recent comments by Lakhdar Brahimi on using force, issues no more than loosely related to the Law of the Sea.

As tempting as it may be to make this agreement a Rorschach test for broader debates on multilateral organizations, senators should resist. In exercising their solemn constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent to U.S. ratification of the Law of the Sea treaty, senators should ask a simple question: Does this treaty serve the national interest? The answer is yes.

DAVID B. SANDALOW
Guest scholar
The Brookings Institution.

Treaty's foes could scuttle U.S. interests
Philadelphia Inquirer
May 5, 2004

The Law of the Sea treaty has a little something for everyone - exploration rights for oil and gas drillers, protection of commercial shipping lanes, safe passage for U.S. troops, environmental provisions to protect habitat and to fight pollution.

That's why ocean industries, environmentalists and the Department of Defense all are lobbying the Senate to make the United States the 146th country to ratify the international "constitution" of the sea.

Yesterday, an unprecedented alliance in defense of the treaty formed between the World Wildlife Fund and the American Petroleum Institute - groups generally on opposite sides of issues.

The stakes are that high. The treaty is needed to ensure safe passage, commercial viability and ultimately, the very survival of world's oceans. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, appointed in 2001 by President Bush, and the privately funded Pew Oceans Commission, both diagnosed oceans as dangerously sick, largely due to human activity. The treaty is seen as an important step to restoring ocean health.

The Bush administration - generally no fan of international entanglements - picked the Law of the Sea as one of only five "urgent" treaty priorities. Representatives of the Departments of State and Defense and the Navy and Coast Guard have testified in its favor at congressional hearings.

Yet, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R., Tenn.) has put the treaty on a back burner. Why? A group of hard-core anti-internationalists claims it would compromise U.S. sovereignty and surrender too much power to international organizations in a post-Sept. 11 world.

The Bush administration argues otherwise, and it's right.
As the world's maritime superpower - the nation with the most underwater natural resources, largest exclusive offshore economic zone and strongest Navy - the United States has more to gain than any other country from predictability and order on the world's oceans.

Both Gen. Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Adm. Vern Clark, the chief of naval operations, say the treaty will aid, not impede, the war on terrorism, primarily by easing troop movement through strategic points such as the Straits of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf or the narrow islands of Indonesia, where terrorists could pose a threat. They say the treaty would not jeopardize intelligence gathering or weapons inspection.

The treaty will ensure U.S. participation in negotiations over access to key energy resources of the future, such as the floor of the Arctic Ocean. In 2002, Russia submitted a claim to 45 percent of the Arctic's bounty. The United States must protect its national interests.

Unlike other treaties that collapse when the United States declines to participate, the Law of the Sea will form the basis of maritime law whether the United States accepts it or not.

Further, this fall, key provisions, including some President Reagan fought hard for, will come up for amendment. The United States needs to be at that negotiating table.

The White House shouldn't bow now to election-year pressure from the isolationist wing of its party. President Bush should push the Senate to ratify the Law of the Sea.

There's no good reason why the "Law of the Sea" -- a set of global rules for navigating, mining and conserving the oceans -- shouldn't sail through the Senate, past the president and into law.

After all, the treaty, signed by 145 nations, counts among its supporters environmental, military and diplomatic officials in the Bush administration and oil industry groups such as the American Petroleum Institute, as well as environmental organizations such as the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Those unlikely partners came together because they believe the agreement would protect marine life below the waves while ensuring U.S. freedom of navigation on top of them. More than 28% of all U.S. exports and 48% of all U.S. imports depend on such transport rights.

So too does the nation's security. Under current law, U.S. warships have no right to patrol such waterways as the Malacca Strait, an area in Southeast Asia where piracy is common and terrorists affiliated with Al Qaeda sometimes traffic. The treaty would give U.S. military officials a legal basis for intervention.

The treaty has been in effect for 10 years without U.S. involvement. The big push to join came this year -- and was labeled an urgent priority by Bush officials -- because for the first time, in November, the document will be open for amendment.

Several dozen nations propose changes that could hurt U.S. interests, such as giving more rights to drill or mine in the Arctic seabed. If the U.S. doesn't sign, it will have no voice in any such changes.

Moderate, expert consensus alone, however, isn't enough to move international legislation through Congress. Just days after the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed the treaty 19 to 0 on Feb. 25, anti-internationalists took to conservative platforms such as Rush Limbaugh's radio show and denounced it as a scheme to, as one opponent put it, "dissolve or diminish U.S. sovereignty and replace it with global governance."

Playing to this chorus, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) now says the Senate may not have time to consider the document this legislative year.

Opponents of the treaty complain that signing nations agree to pay into an international "Seabed Authority" that would be able to tax oil and petroleum explorers up to 7% after 10 years. Many oil company experts, however, consider such taxes a minor expense of doing business.

By supporting U.S. membership, Frist can be a master and commander of domestic policy, advancing U.S. maritime interests as well as fostering a more positive foreign image of this nation.

An opportunity for the United States to participate in international decisions concerning ocean management is in serious danger of being squandered. Our oceans are too important to neglect. Our U.S. senators should have the opportunity to vote on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and to enable the United States to be an active participant in setting international ocean policies. Oregonians -with our long tradition of appreciating the bounty and beauty of oceans -have strong reasons to support effective international mechanisms to address global ocean challenges.

The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, commonly known as the "Law of the Sea," is the treaty defining the rights and responsibilities of the world's nations. It confirms traditional freedoms of navigation and overflight and establishes protocols for the setting of maritime boundaries, allowing the U.S. to meet national security requirements and conduct humanitarian and law enforcement operations in distant waters. It codifies exclusive U.S. economic rights to explore and use resources of the ocean and its seabed within 200 nautical miles of the shoreline. It establishes a stewardship framework for the marine environment, encouraging cooperative agreements among nations f or conservation and management of fisheries and cetaceans, creating dispute resolution procedures, and providing for prevention, reduction, and control of various sorts of pollution, including invasive species. The Law of the Sea also facilitates marine scientific research, crucial to understanding the oceans and their role in weather and climate.

Called the "the foundation of public order of the oceans" by Admiral James Watkins, former Chief of Naval Operations and current Chairman of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, the treaty has now been ratified by 145 nations. Incredibly, however, the U.S. has not ratified the Law of the Sea. Despite the hard work of the U.S. delegates and support of the Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations, the treaty was not ratified due to objections raised during the Reagan Administration that related to deep seabed mining. In 1994, when the Law of the Sea entered into force for ratifying nations, those problems were resolved with an implementation agreement.

This spring, under the leadership of Senator Richard Lugar, Chair of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, the Law of the Sea was expected to sail through the Senate. Ratification had the strong support of the Bush Administration, the Pew Oceans Commission, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, and the Departments of Defense, State, and Commerce. Recently however, vague and unfounded concerns about national security and deep-sea mining have stalled a Senate vote. If the U.S. neglects this long-awaited opportunity to ratify the Law of the Sea, our scientists and policymakers will be left out of important international ocean management decisions, such as the decisions of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, and the International Seabed Authority., to the detriment of U.S. security, economics, and the environment.

No important U.S. interest is served by continued nonadherence to the Law of the Sea. As concerned Oregonians, U.S. citizens, and ocean conservationists, we urge Senator Frist to schedule a vote and the Senate to immediately ratify the Law of the Sea treaty.

Jane Lubchenco is Valley Professor of Marine Biology at Oregon State University and a member of the Pew Oceans Commission. Richard Hildreth is director of the University of Oregon Ocean and Coastal Law Center.

The Law of the Sea Convention has a 19th-century-sounding name and a crucial role in the 21st. If the Bush administration had its way, the United States would have passed this important agreement by now, including this nation in the international discussions and debates over ocean navigation, use of the seabed, conservation and research.

Instead, after Republican senators, most prominently Richard Lugar of Indiana, had navigated it through the Foreign Relations Committee, it ran into opposition from those who believed the United Nations' convention would undermine U.S. sovereignty. Though a wide range of conservative lawmakers have disputed this, opponents seem unmoved. Since then a hearing before the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee produced more favorable testimony.

John F. Turner, assistant secretary of state for oceans and international environmental and scientific affairs, affirmed the convention's advantages to the United States there, saying, "U.S. mobility and access have been preserved and enjoyed over the past 20 years largely due to the convention's stable, widely accepted legal framework. It would be risky to assume that it is possible to preserve indefinitely the stable situation that the United States currently enjoys."

Indeed, if the United States does not ratify the pact this year, it could be cut out of the rewriting of the convention's rules on navigation, fishing and seabed mining, according to news reports.

The pact includes 145 parties and is the accepted standard of ocean law. In the United States, it is supported by the Navy, the congressionally chartered U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, environmental groups and, Sen. Lugar notes, many ocean industries, including oil, natural gas, shipping, fishing and underwater communication cables.

Even the one area of previous conflict, over seabed mining in areas more than 200 miles from shore, have been addressed. The convention has been around since 1982, but was objected to then by President Ronald Reagan, who was concerned about provisions concerning deep-sea mining, but he supported it otherwise, according to William Howard Taft IV, legal advisor to the State Department. Those provisions have since been improved, and Mr. Taft pointed out the treaty was considered so favorable to U.S. interests that President Reagan in 1983 ordered the government to abide by the non-deep seabed provisions of the convention.

The opposition that remains seems to distrust all international agreements. That is not only a minority stance it is also an impossible one. As long as boats cross oceans and airplanes fly, isolationist policies do not help this nation's security and they unnecessarily impede its industry.

President Bush has been patient in allowing the objections of a small number of people to be heard, but now should urge the Senate to vote on and pass the convention. A wide range of senators would support ratification of the convention; the country should not be excluded from participating in this vital agreement because of the fears of a few.

THE DEFENSE Department, environmentalists, and industry all support the long-delayed US ratification of the international Law of the Sea treaty. But there is a danger that Senate conservatives opposed to any multilateral agreements will keep the chamber from voting on it, at least until after November's election.

This would leave the United States an outsider on the globe's most comprehensive environmental accord and hurt a US effort to rally the support of allies for its own security initiative to stop the shipment by sea of weapons of mass destruction. Since other signatory countries to the treaty can begin amending it in November, failure of the Senate to ratify by then would also mean the United States could not fight to preserve features hard won by previous administrations' negotiators.

Twenty years ago the United States and other industrial nations recoiled at the original draft of the treaty because of its restrictive provisions on deep seabed mining. By 1994, those concerns had been resolved by an extra agreement, and the treaty quickly won enough support in other capitals to take effect. It has since been ratified by more than 140 nations.

President Bush submitted the treaty and the amended section on seabed mining for approval in 2002, and last October the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held hearings. In February the committee voted 19-0 to approve it for ratification. The holdup now is Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, who in March conducted additional hearings.

Inhofe said he is concerned about "national security problems" that adoption of the treaty could create. But even at his hearing, Assistant Secretary of State John F. Turner was emphatic in stating the support of the administration, including the Defense Department: "Last October, five administration witnesses testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in strong support of the Law of the Sea Convention. . . . There are important reasons for the US to become a party to the convention."

At a time when the Bush administration is trying to gather support for its antiproliferation initiative to interdict ships that are suspected of carrying weapons of mass destruction or their parts, the Senate should not put the country once again in the position of rejecting an international agreement. The Defense Department, especially the Navy, also seeks Senate approval for the enhanced protection the treaty provides for naval movements through international waters, especially at chokepoint straits. The Bush administration should make approval a priority, even if that upsets supporters who reflexively oppose every international accord.

Don't Cut The Hawsers On Law Of Sea Treaty
Wall Street Journal
April 1, 2004

Your March 29 editorial on the Law of the Sea Convention fails to comprehend the damage to U.S. interests that could occur if we choose not to ratify it.

The core of your argument is that the treaty subjects U.S. maritime interests to "a highly politicized U.N. bureaucracy." In fact, the convention does not make any U.S. military activities or, with one exception, any U.S. economic activities subject to the control of a bureaucracy of any kind. Rather, it establishes a set of rules highly favorable to U.S. freedom of action in the oceans. As U.S. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Vern Clark has written, the convention "supports U.S. efforts in the war on terrorism," and ensures "the freedom to get to the fight, twenty-four hours a day and seven days a week, without a permission slip."

The treaty also codifies exclusive U.S. rights to explore and exploit the resources of the oceans out to 200 miles from our coastline, as well as the broad continental margin. The ocean industries you seem to want to protect -- oil, natural gas, shipping, fishing, boating and underwater communication cables -- are unanimously in favor of the treaty.

The one economic activity where the convention does afford a role for an international body is mining of the ocean's deep seabed in areas more than 200 miles from our shore and beyond the jurisdiction of any country. Such mining is administered by a body called the International Seabed Authority (ISA).

We need the ISA because without the ability to secure property rights to mining sites, companies will be unlikely to invest the substantial capital necessary to conduct such mining. They would not want to risk having their claims disputed or having competitors free ride off their exploration investments. Given that no nation has sovereignty beyond their national jurisdiction, the only way to establish property rights in the open ocean is through an international regime.

Contrary to your characterization, the ISA is not a highly politicized bureaucracy, nor would it be disposed to act against U.S. interests. If the U.S. joined the convention, it would be able to veto the ISA's adoption of any rules or regulations relating to the deep seabed mining regime. Nor does the ISA, or anything else about the convention give a decision-making role to the U.N.

Failing to ratify the Law of the Sea does not make it go away or insulate our industries from it. With 145 parties, it is the accepted standard in ocean law. Failing to ratify it simply removes the U.S. from discussions about amendments to the treaty and economic claims in the open ocean.

Senator Richard G. Lugar (R., Ind.), Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee

A recent Commentary article in The Washington Times about the U.N. Law of the Sea (LOS) Convention (Commentary, February 24), is inaccurate and misleading. As a former member of the U.S. delegation to the LOS Convention negotiations when Ronald Reagan was our president, a former Defense Department representative for ccean policy affairs, and one who recently testified as a private citizen before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I could not let this article pass without comment.

Military planners have long sought international respect for the freedoms of navigation and overflight as set forth in the LOS Convention. U.S. forces have recently experienced serious threats and challenges that differ greatly from those in the past. However, nothing new has changed the fact that many of our economic, political and military interests are located far away from the U.S.

We must have substantial air and sealift capabilities to enable our forces to be where needed, when needed. The Convention preserves the right of the U.S. military to use the world's oceans to meet national security requirements. It is essential key sea and air lines remain open as an international legal right, and not be contingent upon approval by nations along the routes. A stable legal regime for the world's oceans will help guarantee global mobility for our Armed Forces.

Contrary to the contention in the Feb. 24 opinion piece, the Reagan administration accepted all provisions of the Treaty except for Part XI dealing with deep seabed mining. In fact, President Reagan instructed the Executive branch in 1983 to act in accordance with all provisions as if the United States were a party, except for Part XI.

Work later began on a subsequent agreement to change the provisions of Part XI and overcome all U.S. objections to the earlier regime. This international Agreement, fundamentally changing Part XI, was signed by the United States in 1994.

The article also claims transfer of technology and scientific knowledge would be mandatory. However, that requirement was eliminated in the 1994 agreement. The Convention clearly does not require the United States to transfer any technology or scientific knowledge. After obtaining these legally binding changes to the deep seabed regime, the LOS Convention was sent to the Senate for its advice and consent.

The Feb. 24 article was also erroneous in stating that Articles 19 and 20 attempt to regulate intelligence and submarine activities in territorial seas. The LOS Convention is, if anything, more favorable to our navigation and security interests than the rules embodied in the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea, to which the United States is a party. Article 19 defines innocent passage through territorial seas in ways that more clearly protect our interests than the more general language of the 1958 Convention. Intelligence activities are not prohibited by this provision.

As under the 1958 Convention, a vessel engaged in certain intelligence activities simply does not have the benefit of claiming innocent passage. Article 20 merely repeats the rule from the 1958 Convention (and the consistent position of nations for more than 70 years) that submarines are to navigate on the surface in foreign territorial seas to enjoy the right of innocent passage.

Moreover, we achieved an important exception to this rule in the LOS Convention for submerged passage through straits that is not contained in the 1958 Convention.

Despite the article's claim, the Treaty does not give the United Nations authority to levy taxes. The LOS Convention does not authorize taxation of individuals or corporations. There are revenue provisions for deep seabed mining operations and for oil and gas activities on the continental shelf beyond 200 miles. Under the terms of the LOS Convention, none of the revenues go to the United Nations or are subject to its control.

The article further criticizes the Convention's provisions on dispute settlement. While the Convention does establish the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, parties may choose other methods of dispute resolution. The United States has determined to elect two forms of arbitration rather than the Tribunal or the International Court of Justice, should it become a party.

Concerning seabed mining, the United States and all parties to the 1994 Agreement would be subject to the Seabed Disputes Chamber. The United States helped shape the drafting of this provision so its companies will have access to the system and may elect commercial arbitration, and its interests are well-protected by the 1994 Agreement.

Further, the United States has excepted out certain categories of disputes, e.g., military activities, in accordance with Article 298 of the Convention.
Finally, the Article speculates other parties will oppose the U.S. declaration that parties have the exclusive right to determine which of their activities are "military activities." This claim is without foundation; the right to which the declaration refers is a right of every nation.

There is now almost universal adherence to the LOS Convention, with 145 parties. The Convention establishes a stable and predictable legal framework for uses of the oceans. As a matter of substance, all his successors have agreed with President Reagan that the Convention sets forth the appropriate balance between the rights of coastal nations and the rights of maritime nations. The United States is both. The LOS Convention is a comprehensive agreement reflecting widely accepted positions on the uses of the oceans as well as longstanding and bipartisan U.S. oceans policy.

The Convention is good for America. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has made an important contribution to our national security, prosperity and well-being in recommending we take our rightful place as a party.

ADM. W.L. SCHACHTE JR.
Adm. Schachte is a decorated combat veteran who served for 30 years as a line officer and lawyer.

Imagine if a U.S. naval task force, rushing from the Persian Gulf to a crisis on the Korean peninsula, had to take a 3,000-mile detour around Indonesia. Imagine if Iran barred all foreign tankers from the Straits of Hormuz, through which passes much of America’s foreign oil. Or think of the consequences if Russian fishing trawlers lingered off the Alaskan coast and plundered millions of tons of salmon swimming home to American waters.

The good news is there is a treaty, the Convention on the Law of the Sea, that can provide the United States with legal protections against such events. This wide-ranging treaty, ratified by 143 countries, has been called by the former Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral James Watkins, “the foundation of public order of the oceans.” It can help ensure that our Navy ships and submarines can navigate freely to defend America’s national security, that our cargo vessels and tankers have access to all the world’s sea lanes, and that we can control the vast riches up to 200 miles off our shores—and in some cases beyond--including the huge schools of fish in the ocean and the oil and gas that lie underneath it.

The bad news is that the United States cannot currently rely on these protections because it isn’t a party to the treaty. Even though it was negotiated with U.S. leadership and signed nine years ago, the United States has not yet ratified it. This could put some of our hard-won guarantees at risk in the future. That’s why the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which I chair, plans soon to forward the Law of Sea treaty to the full Senate for ratification.

This step is long overdue. Even though the United States obeys the treaty, which came into force in 1994, and receives benefits from it, we have been shut out of commissions and other policy-making bodies set up by the treaty. In a larger sense, we have forfeited our unchallenged world leadership in oceans policy. As University of Virginia law professor John Norton Moore, a leading expert on national security law, told the committee, “Our critical security interests are being injured—and will continue to be injured—until the United States ratifies the convention.”

Two developments make ratification even more urgent. First, Russia has, under terms of the treaty, recently laid claim to vast stretches of the Arctic Ocean seabed well beyond the standard 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone—even as far as the North Pole--hoping to lock up possible oil and gas reserves. Unless we ratify the treaty, Moscow will be able to press its claims before the treaty’s Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf without an American at the table.

Second, the treaty becomes open for amendment for the first time this year. With America outside looking in, other countries could propose changes unfavorable to U.S. interests, and we wouldn’t have a vote.

The irony of U.S. non-participation in the treaty is that the document represents a triumph of American diplomacy. When negotiations began in the 1970s, a top concern was the creeping encroachment on freedom of the seas by Cold War rivals and other nations. Our negotiators succeeded brilliantly, winning guarantees that U.S. warships and merchant vessels can pass freely off any coast, through all the oceans’ strategic chokepoints and even through the sea lanes of foreign archipelagos, like Indonesia and The Philippines. These guarantees, which in most cases include over-flight rights as well, are vital to our national defense, and the U.S. Navy strongly backs speedy ratification.

Completed in 1982, the treaty had one problem outstanding, relating to deep-sea mining. The U.S. hung tough for several years of renegotiations until all our demands on the issue were met.

The treaty has the support of the military, industry, environmentalists and the Bush administration. Only ideological distrust of treaties in general, and a misguided belief that we might do better as a free-rider than as an active leader in oceans policy, have kept us out of an agreement that serves our national interest and improves our security. The Senate should take yes for an answer and move speedily to ratify this treaty.

Senator Richard G. Lugar (R., Ind.), Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee

It's Time to ratify Law of the Sea Treaty
Anchorage Daily News
January 14, 2004

In 1982, the United Nations completed work on a treaty called U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. The United States objected to the original treaty and during renegotiation in 1994 gained agreement on changes to those parts to which we objected.

As with all treaties, after negotiation and signing the treaty was submitted to the Senate for its "advice and consent." The Law of the Sea treaty went to the Senate nine years ago, where for several reasons nothing happened.

Now it appears that things are about to change. Sen. Richard Lugar, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, held two hearings in October, then stated his goal was to present a letter of advice and consent to the president early in 2004.

More than 140 nations have ratified the treaty. The treaty is wide-ranging, and it is clearly in the interests of the United States to ratify. Our nation is surrounded by three oceans. The oceans are an integral part of the lives of every American.

Alaska, with more than half the coastline of the United States, could well be profoundly affected by ratification in the generations ahead. But the time is now for Alaskans to start thinking about changes that will be facilitated by the treaty.

The first witness to testify before the Foreign Relations Committee last October was Sen. Ted Stevens, who testified in favor of ratification.

What are the challenges and opportunities that may well be presented Alaskans in the later years of the 21st century?

They all center about the changing climate and the extended periods of access to the Arctic Ocean and the Bering Sea. With less ice come both concerns and opportunities. They center around international security, national security, marine transportation, economic development and diplomacy.

International security is a growing concern everywhere. Alaska has the only U.S. coastline on the Arctic Ocean. It is more than 1,000 miles long and sparsely populated. This provides numerous locations for illegal entry, drug trafficking and other terrorist activity. Counters to this vulnerability might come in several forms: increased presence, increased surveillance.

As the Arctic Ocean becomes more accessible by non-ice-strengthened ships, it becomes another ocean that must be protected. The United States, as the world's last superpower, must assume that role. That means the Navy must build ships that can operate in free-floating ice and extreme cold weather. That means the Coast Guard should establish a real Arctic Ocean presence. Failure to take such steps will cede control of the Arctic to whichever nation chooses to assume it.

Naturally, a more accessible Arctic will mean increased intercontinental maritime shipping. The journey between Seattle and Hamburg, using the Arctic Ocean route, is 40 percent shorter than the routes through either of the canals. Extending the shipping season using ice-strengthened ships could demand conventional cargo exchange facilities, where cargo can be transferred between ice-strengthened and conventional ships. Ports such as Adak or Dutch Harbor come to mind.

Ratification of the Law of the Sea treaty will have the greatest effect on economic development in Alaska. After conducting the required ocean bottom surveys, the United States will be able to extend the outer limits of its continental shelf and claim the resources on or under the sea floor on the Chukchi Cap in the Arctic and the "doughnut hole" in the Bering Sea. Some estimate that the area gained will be as much as one-half the size of Alaska. The fossil fuel potential of these areas is unknown but will be evaluated carefully.

On the diplomatic front, completing the surveys with Canada could also provide data for creation of an agreed Arctic Ocean maritime boundary between our countries.

Ratification of the Law of Sea treaty will create opportunity for Alaska. It will require research and stimulate new education needs. Most importantly, it will demand that we all think of the future, well beyond the horizon of two to six years normally used in our country. Though changes in the Arctic may occur over generations, properly preparing will take decades. Truly, the future is now.

George Newton is serving his second term as chair of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission. He is a retired Navy captain and a former nuclear submarine commander and has long been a supporter of research in Alaska. He lives in McLean, Va.