Matt asks if he's out of touch with mainstream sentiments because the Law of the Sea seems sensible. He's not – not at all, actually – unless Dick Lugar, John Negroponte, several old Reagan appointees, and George W. Bush are, too. Certain portions of the right-wing are also concerned that Mitch McConnell, who has been waffling on the issue, might slide toward endorsing it as well.
The ridiculously-over-simplified basics: The Law of the Sea (LOS) creates rules about the use of oceans. They were first created back in 1982 to replace out-of-date treaties, Reagan refused to support it, but then the parts he objected to were amended in 1994. It creates guidelines about how businesses can use oceans, ensures that the military can navigate the oceans freely, and establishes environmental protections for oceans, which cover 70 percent of the planet. To date, 152 countries and the EU have signed on, and the United States isn't one of them. We do, however, generally abide by the rules contained therein already, and have since '83. Way, way more on the treaty here. Why bother signing on? Well, if we join, we actually get to take part in the decision-making process, and it tells the rest of the world that we don't uniformly hate all world pacts.
Said Negroponte, testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month:
Since my first involvement with the Law of the Sea Convention, I have had the privilege to serve the United States in other assignments that have only strengthened my support for this treaty. As Ambassador to the United Nations, I learned that other countries look to the United States for leadership on oceans issues such as maritime security – a role that is lessened without U.S. accession to the Convention. As Ambassador to Iraq, I saw first-hand the importance of navigational freedoms for deploying and sustaining our forces in combat zones, and how the Convention serves as a foundation for our partnerships in the Proliferation Security Initiative. Most recently, as Director of National Intelligence, I was reminded how the Convention strengthens our ability to carry out intelligence activities that other countries might seek to restrain.
Mr. Chairman, these experiences compel me to endorse – most enthusiastically and emphatically – the President's urgent request that the Senate approve the Convention, as modified by the 1994 Agreement. As the President said in his May 15 statement, joining will serve the national security interests of the United States, secure U.S. sovereign rights over extensive marine areas, promote U.S. interests in the environmental health of the oceans, and give the United States a seat at the table when the rights essential to our interests are debated and interpreted.
And Bush, in a statement last May:
Joining will serve the national security interests of the United States, including the maritime mobility of our armed forces worldwide. It will secure U.S. sovereign rights over extensive marine areas, including the valuable natural resources they contain. Accession will promote U.S. interests in the environmental health of the oceans. And it will give the United States a seat at the table when the rights that are vital to our interests are debated and interpreted.
The Washington Note has been following this much more closely, and Don Kraus offers some insight into why the issue is important for progressives:
Think about it. If a Senate with a Democratic majority can not muster the 66 votes to pass a treaty supported by a Republican president, what is the possibility of doing so under a potential Democratic president who will face much stiffer Republican opposition?
If the U.S, cannot join an agreement supported by environmental groups, petroleum trade associations, peace groups, the Coast Guard, Navy, departments of State, Commerce, and the Interior (just to name a few) -- what is the chance that we engage on other agreements?
It's true. Other than at the fringes, there's pretty wide support on this one. Now it just needs to get out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and onto the Senate floor, and as progressives who care about the fate of other pending world pacts (like … a post-Kyoto plan), we should be pushing for it.
--Kate Sheppard
