Posted on 02/04/2005 6:25:09 AM PST by yoe
On February 25, 2004, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 19-0 to send the resolution of ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty to the full Senate for advice and consent. The Bush Administration said on February 7, 2002, that there is an “urgent need for Senate approval” of the Law of the Sea Treaty.
The basic tenets of the treaty have been U.S. policy since first enunciated by President Reagan in 1982. Over the next dozen years the U.S. won in negotiations on the questionable aspects of the treaty, and signed on in 1994. The details are in the President's Message transmitting the treaty to the Senate that may be viewed using Adobe Reader. In October 2003, Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Dick Lugar held two comprehensive hearings on the treaty. The full transcripts of those hearings are part of the 187-page committee report that may be viewed using Adobe Reader.
Please check back often as additional information will be added.
Lugar wrote in the March 8, 2004 issue of Navy Times: “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,” Lugar wrote.
The treaty has broad and strong support including the Bush Administration, the U.S. Navy, environmentalists, international oil and shipping industries, the fishing industry as well as ocean conservationists, and international law enforcement and antiterrorism organizations.
“Our hearings revealed broad support for U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea Convention. They also revealed the need for U.S. accession to be completed swiftly. The Convention comes open for amendment for the first time later this year. If the United States is not party to the Convention at that time, our ability to protect Convention rights that we fought hard to achieve will be significantly diminished. In addition, the Convention’s Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf will soon be making decisions on claims to continental shelf areas that could impact the United States’ own claims. Full U.S. participation in this process requires us to be party to the Convention,” said Lugar.
“Representatives from the Departments of State, Defense, and the U.S. Coast Guard expressed the Administration’s strong support for U.S. ratification of the Convention. They testified that the Convention advances U.S. national security by providing enhanced protections for the rights of navigation and overflight across the world’s oceans that our military relies on to protect U.S. interests abroad. They also noted that the Convention advances U.S. economic interests by enshrining the right of the United States to explore and exploit the living and non-living resources of the oceans out to 200 miles from our shore, as well as the resources of our continental shelf beyond 200 miles. In addition, they observed that the Convention advances U.S. interests in the protection of the environment by addressing pollution of the marine environment from a variety of sources and providing a framework for the conclusion of further agreements to protect and conserve the marine environment. Importantly, the Administration noted that the U.S. law and practice with respect to regulation of activities off our shores is already generally compatible with the Convention. Thus, acceding to the Convention should not require the United States to make any changes in this regard,” Lugar said.
“The Committee also heard from a distinguished panel of experts on oceans law and policy, and from industry representatives and other groups interested in the uses of the oceans. Our panel of oceans experts emphasized the importance of U.S. membership in the Convention to our ability to exercise leadership over global oceans policy. They noted that if we remained outside the treaty, we would forfeit our seat at the table of institutions that will make decisions about the use of the oceans, and we would increase the chance that such decisions would be contrary to our interests,” Lugar said.
“The U.S. Commission on Oceans Policy adopted a unanimous resolution supporting U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea Convention as its first policy pronouncement upon taking up its work. Representatives of the energy, commercial shipping, and fishing industries expressed their support for the Convention and the protection and legal certainty it provides for rights on which their businesses depend. Representatives of the environmental community also expressed their strong support for the Convention and the comprehensive framework it provides for the development of measures to protect the marine environment,” Lugar said.
“The Committee staff has worked closely with the Administration on a resolution of advice and consent. I am grateful to Senator Biden and his staff, as well as to the Administration team – which included representatives from the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, Commerce, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Coast Guard – for their constructive work on this resolution. In addition, Senator Stevens testified before our Committee on behalf of the Convention and helped us refine aspects of the resolution dealing with fishing. I also want to recognize the commitment and leadership of a former Chairman of this Committee, Senator Claiborne Pell. Our current examination of the treaty benefits greatly from his contributions,” Lugar said.
There must be some reasons why we haven't signed on in the past 8 years.
In your opinion, what are the downsides of the treaty?
The United Nations grabing for more power...have you researched it?
And actually, since President Reagan gave this the treaty the heave-ho, it was modified, but it's still a great big steaming pile of dung. It puts restrictions, limitations and taxes on the American people for no benefit to anyone but the UN and turd-world countries that would absolutely LOVE some socialist income redistribution. Don't get me wrong,I'm not saying not to help needy countries. But to have the UN tell us that we WIL help and how much we are going to give them? No Sir.
Now why in the world would we ratify this Bravo Sierra?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.