By Max Bergmann

The U.S. Senate has an opportunity to strengthen America’s national security, support U.S. business interests, and protect the environment by simply ratifying a convention to which the United States already adheres. Yet, right wing extremists, insistent on pursuing an ideological foreign policy agenda, are scrambling to torpedo the convention.

Fortunately, they are opposed by almost everyone. The Bush administration, large majorities in Congress, the United States’ military, the business community, and environmental groups are all overwhelmingly in favor of ratifying the Law of the Sea convention. The convention, which would regulate the use of the world’s seas, was agreed to in 1982 and has been signed by 155 countries and the European Commission. Yet what should be a rare act of common sense bipartisanship may be in doubt, as the tight Senate calendar and the mobilization of the radical right may soften the momentum behind ratifying the convention.

When the Senate Foreign Relations Committee meets on Wednesday it must soundly reject this extremist agenda and vote to ratify the convention. As George H.W. Bush’s Secretary of State, Lawrence Eagleburger and John Norton Moore who served under President’s Nixon, Ford and Reagan explain, “If the Senate misses this opportunity, our allies and adversaries alike will note that U.S. foreign policy has been diminished by an ideological extreme.”

LAW OF THE SEA IS IN U.S. NATIONAL INTERESTS

The U.S. has a “compelling national interest” to ratify convention. As Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte and Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England explain, “The United States has a compelling national interest in a stable international legal regime for the oceans.” Retired Admiral and former Chief of Naval Operations Vern Clark and Ambassador Thomas Pickering explain that the convention, “would enable our armed forces to defend us at home and abroad with legal certainty, and would vastly increase our sovereign rights off the coasts of the United States.” [Washington Times, 6/13/07. New York Times, 7/14/07.]

The U.S. military needs this convention to fight terrorism and better confront global challenges. The convention strengthens the right of navigation by sea and by air, meaning that the U.S. Navy will not need to ask each country for a “permission slip” each time it passes by another country. Importantly the convention allows the U.S. to board private vessels on the high seas, which would allow the U.S. and its allies to more effectively combat illicit smuggling. As Negroponte and England explain, “This is a critical time for America and our friends and allies -- faced with a wider and more complex array of global and transnational security challenges than ever before. Effectively meeting those challenges requires unimpeded maritime mobility -- the ability of our forces to respond any time, anywhere, if so required.” The U.S. Coast Guard also wants the convention ratified, because it would greatly expand U.S. territorial sovereignty from three miles off the coast to twelve miles. This would empower the Coast Guard to better protect the homeland and monitor U.S. costal waters. [New York Times, 7/14/07. Washington Times, 6/13/07.]

U.S. businesses want the convention ratified, because it will be the “greatest expansion of resource jurisdiction in U.S. history.” The convention grants sovereign coastal nations the right of an “exclusive economic zone” that extends sovereign authority out to sea by 200 nautical miles. The United States will gain considerably, as our economic zone may extend out to as much as 600 miles because of the Arctic shelf. As Eagleburger and Moore note this would represent, “the greatest expansion of resource jurisdiction in U.S. history, greater in area than that of the Louisiana Purchase and the acquisition of Alaska combined.” This would be a huge boon to U.S. companies that work in oil, gas, and minerals, such as nickel, copper, and cobalt. [Washington Times, 6/13/07. Washington Post, 7/30/07.]

The convention is good for the environment. Apart from the substantial security and economic benefits, the convention is also a win for the environment. The Law of the Sea convention enables sovereign states to better regulate fishing stocks and ocean pollution. Spencer Boyer explains that, “All parties to the treaty must cooperate in marine conservation efforts through monitoring, technical assistance, and other measures. Furthermore, the treaty promotes and protects scientific research.” [Center for American Progress, 10/29/07.]

LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION WILL ENHANCE AMERICAN SOVERIGNTY

The radical right opposition is rooted in unfounded conspiratorial fears. Ideologues on the right have made unfounded conspiratorial arguments that ratifying the Law of the Sea Convention will erode U.S. sovereignty and will lead to the creation of world government. As Eagleburger and Moore sarcastically explain about convention opponents, “They assert that the convention would give our sovereignty away… They assert that the International Seabed Authority, which after a quarter-century of operation has 35 employees and a budget of less than $12 million, is both a U.N. agency (it's not) and a stalking horse for world government. The agency also has no power to tax Americans.” [Washington Post, 7/30/07.]

The Senate must not cower in the face of ideological extremists. Failure to ratify the Law of the Sea convention would not only be a victory for the radical right, but would represent a defeat to those arguing for a pragmatic, common sense, multilateral approach to national security. Don Kraus and Spencer Boyer explain that passage of the convention is crucial, “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 convention 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?” [Huffington Post, 10/30/07.]