Sovereignty, Commerce, Energy at Stake

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK)
Vice Chair, Cmte. on Commerce, Science, and Trans.

At a time when the United States seeks to strengthen economic and national security interests, it is unfathomable that we delay participation in the Law of the Sea Convention. President Bush, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the secretaries of Defense, State, Homeland Security, Commerce, and the Interior have asked the Senate to approve this treaty. Having worked on the convention since 1969, I support ratification.

Military, business, and environmental leaders agree that the convention will greatly benefit our country. Reagan-era concerns about deep seabed mining, which I shared, have been resolved. This convention will give the United States access to significant oil and gas resources beyond our 200-mile exclusive economic zone. In this era of growing energy vulnerability, ratification will enable the United States to compete for strategic minerals on the seabed in international waters, conserve vulnerable fish stocks, and protect the navigational rights of commercial and military vessels. Most important, ratification will keep Americans safe and minimize risk to our men and women in uniform.

Our failure to approve the convention will result in a strategic disadvantage and force the United States to rely on other nations to protect our interests. Unlike most other treaties, the Law of the Sea Convention will form the basis of maritime law regardless of America's participation. The cost of nonparticipation is simply too high. 

In Senate hearings and in the media, respected national security leaders and industry professionals have voiced overwhelming support for the convention, reinforcing President Bush's call for Senate approval. The Senate should heed this call and act immediately to ratify this convention.

Sen. David Vitter (R-LA)
Member, Cmte. on Commerce, Science, and Trans.

I support many provisions in the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), which codifies widely recognized rites of passage on the seas that are important to the U.S. Navy and U.S. commerce. I also applaud the goal of creating a system to determine natural resource development rights in deep waters, although I disagree with inserting nations into that process that have no legitimate stake or claim at issue.

All of these priorities are far outweighed, however, by very serious negatives with LOST. The biggest of these problems, for me, is that LOST would subject the United States, if we move to ratify the treaty, to the new international arbitral tribunals-U.N. courts for short-with binding authority over the United States.

Under this system, another country could sue the United States over its intelligence operations, and a U.N. court with binding authority to settle the matter would have the final word. That's crazy.

The same could happen over disputes regarding pollution from land-based sources well within the United States. In fact, LOST has specific provisions titled "pollution from land-based sources" and "enforcement with respect to pollution from land-based sources."

Although military activities are excluded from this provision, there's also a very serious problem here. "Military activities" aren't defined in LOST. So who would decide what is and is not such an excluded military activity? The same U.N. court.

We need to work with other countries to protect freedom of the seas and the fair development of underwater resources. But we don't need to cede U.S. national security and sovereignty in the process.