Law of the Sea Treaty: A Compilation of Opinion-Editorials
7 August 2012
Jeanne Shaheen / Seacostonline
The recent op-ed by Gary Lambert, Larry A. Mayer and Jim Grady on the Law of the Sea Treaty raised questions about my position on it. I am an unequivocal supporter of this treaty, which will strengthen our national security and our economy.
Gary Lambert, Larry A. Mayer and Jim Grady / The Concord Monitor
U.S. Sens. Jeanne Shaheen and Kelly Ayotte have an unprecedented opportunity to advance New Hampshire’s industry and help maintain U.S. sea power by supporting ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty. Currently under consideration in the U.S. Senate, this U.S.-initiated treaty would help drive investment, economic growth and job creation in New Hampshire and across America.
Steve Hargreaves / CNN Money
There’s an international race to divvy up the Arctic Ocean’s oil and mineral bounty, but the United States could lose out on a big chunk of it because it hasn’t signed a United Nations treaty governing the area.
Vice Adm. Robert R. Monroe (Ret.) / The Hill
Ratification of the United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) would be a giant step toward World Government. The principal purposes of LOST are to transfer technology and wealth from developed to underdeveloped nations and to increase exposure to international litigation.
Scott Borgerson, Vern Clark, Bill Cohen, Jim Loy and John Negroponte / The Washington Times
The United States joins an embarrassing short list of holdouts that includes North Korea, Syria and Iran. This is true despite the fact that a bipartisan coalition of American business, environmental and military leaders agree that it is in our national interests to formally become a state party to this lynchpin of ocean governance. Per our constitution, the Senate must give its “advice and consent” to treaties submitted by the president for its review. Of these currently in the queue, for national-security reasons, the Law of the Sea is one of the most urgent.
Ved P. Nanda / Denver Post
The 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, an international treaty to which the United States is not a party, holds a key to critical economic and national security interests of the country.
John Norton Moore / The Wall Street Journal
Mr. Rumsfeld’s mission for President Reagan was a service to the nation. His time-warp testimony, however, does a disservice to a remarkable treaty that expands U.S. sovereign rights, powerfully serves U.S. needs for the Navy and the Coast Guard, and provides American industry with the security necessary to generate jobs and growth.
John Castellaw / Stars and Stripes
I know from my own experience that the Law of the Sea Treaty is about national security, not politics — and it was deeply disappointing to see our military’s integrity questioned. There is a reason these military professionals support the Law of the Sea, and it is not attributable to partisanship or ideology. Where the Law of the Sea Treaty is concerned, it is time to listen to the commanders.
Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, James Baker III, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice/ WSJ
The Convention of the Law of the Sea is again under consideration by the U.S. Senate. If the U.S. finally becomes party to this treaty, it will be a boon for our national security and economic interests. U.S. accession will codify our maritime rights and give us new tools to advance national interests.
Walter Pincus / The Washington Post
“Everyone is entitled to his opinion, but not to his own facts,” goes the maxim popularized by Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.). Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, used it last week in introducing the latest effort to get the Senate to pass the Law of the Sea Convention.
Senator John Kerry / The Huffington Post
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it best: “Joining the convention would secure our navigational rights and our ability to challenge other countries’ behavior on the firmest and most persuasive legal footing, including in critical areas such as the South China Sea and the Arctic.
Tampa Bay Online
Any international agreement requires close scrutiny and careful monitoring. But establishing clear legal rights and protections for American interests in the world’s seas is a worthwhile objective.
Participating in even the best treaties involves some risk. But, based on a broad-based consensus, the risks of not joining the Law of the Sea are rising. Furthermore, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. It’s past time for the Senate to vote on the treaty and for senators to give their consent.
It’s no wonder that businesses and trade groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, support the pact. Top military leaders say being part of the accord will strengthen the nation’s naval power and give it greater navigational rights. Yet it is the nature of today’s Senate that a few narrow-thinking, ideological lawmakers can block passage of things that are so critical to the country as a whole. The ratification of the Law of the Sea should not continue to be one of these.
David Perera/ Fierce Homeland Security
National security is not best served from a position of unilateralism, despite our dominant position in world affairs.
New York Times
There are few things the environmental community and the oil and gas industry agree on. But here is one: the need for the United States to join the Law of the Sea Convention, a worthy global agreement that the Senate has stubbornly refused to ratify for nearly 30 year
Senator John Kerry/ Politico
Why now? We’ve effectively lived by its terms, even as a nonparty to the treaty and a holdout. But we’ve deprived ourselves of its benefits for the past 30 years. We should instead be asking why it has taken us so long to have this discussion.
Will Rogers/ FP
Washington is gearing up for another fight over the Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC) as the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee prepares to hold hearings in the coming weeks. But while the thirty year LOSC debate may start to sound like a broken record to some, the stakes of not ratifying the convention are the highest they have ever been for the United States
James Kraska/ FP
Few modern treaties have generated more domestic controversy for less reason than the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. By codifying generous rights and freedoms of navigation throughout the world’s oceans, the treaty promotes global trade, economic prosperity, and naval mobility. It is a commonsense guide to 71 percent of the Earth’s surface, and for that reason it has been accepted by 161 nations, including Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom. But not the United States
Andrew Holland/ Consumer Energy Report
Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty is a tool to expand and confirm American sovereignty without resorting to military force. The Arctic Ocean is the region in which American sovereignty is most in doubt. The Navy and Coast Guard can unilaterally protect and extend American sovereignty in that region, but joining the UNCLOS would be a better way to confirm that sovereignty in law.
Christian Science Monitor
To prevent wars, the United States needs the best tools of peace. But right now it is missing a critical one in not approving the Law of the Sea Treaty.
Stewart M. Patrick / The Internationalist
It is high time the United States joined 162 other states and the European Union in becoming party to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)—thirty years after the Reagan administration first negotiated the treaty. Acceding to the treaty is profoundly in the U.S. national interest. All of the uniformed services—and especially the U.S. Navy—are solidly behind UNCLOS. The U.S. business community is unified in its support for the treaty.
David Ross Meyers / FoxNews.com
The Convention is a low-risk opportunity to demonstrate our commitment to global leadership, international law, and multilateralism without altering many of our current practices. Joining the Convention will give us credibility when we call on other nations to follow international legal standards. And it will blunt the negative reaction we receive for taking actions opposed by the international community.
Steven Nelson / The Daily Caller
Lott said that he no longer believes the the Law of the Sea Treaty would “cede our national sovereignty, both militarily and economically,” as he said five years ago when the issue was last brought before the Senate. International disputes, including oil drilling in the Arctic and territorial claims on a cluster of islands in the South China Sea, would be more appropriately addressed if the U.S. ratified the treaty, Lott said.
John Warner and Thomas J. Donohue / Stars and Stripes
Other nations are in the process of claiming resources off their own coasts, but American industry and investors cannot pursue our opportunities without the needed international recognition of America’s legal rights to exploit seabed resources that treaty ratification would provide. Failure to approve the Law of the Sea Treaty would pose a strategic commercial and security disadvantage for the nation.
About the American Security Project: The American Security Project is a non-profit, non-partisan public policy and research organization dedicated to fostering knowledge and understanding of a range of national security issues, promoting debate about the appropriate use of American power, and cultivating strategic responses to 21st century challenges.