Print 
Single Page
Enlarge This Image
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time to ratify Law of the Sea?Even when referring to it by its more colloquial name, the Law of the Sea treaty evokes pirates, planks and scurvy. It sounds like something that might have been fought for in another century, the subject of a Joseph Conrad novel, perhaps, when imperial nations were plotting to dominate trade in ivory and cocoa beans, gold and human labor. The full name, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, sounds even more anachronistic, and to some who bristle at anything to do with the U.N., even nefarious. But no matter the name, it's at the heart of the very modern-day scramble over modern-day resources; namely, minerals, oil and gas. Lots of oil and gas, particularly in Arctic waters. The treaty, which sets the rules for ownership of the ocean and all of its bounty both above and below the seabed floor, has the potential to affect United States interests in the Gulf of Mexico, areas off the Pacific Northwest, and California. But the largest spoils are guessed to be in the Arctic, where the U.S. Geological Survey estimates as much as a third of the world's undiscovered natural gas and 13 percent of the world’s undiscovered oil, billions of barrels, may be in the offshore Arctic. Supporters from all sides, from environmentalists to industry, say that if the U.S. doesn’t ratify the Law of the Sea -- which is easier said than done given that ratifying a treaty requires a supermajority vote of 67 senators -- the country stands to lose out on both potential riches and environmental protections. So far, the European Union and 160 nation states have ratified treaty. The U.S. is one of 18 countries that have not done so. Law of the Sea: A political hot potatoFor years, critics of this and other treaties warn that in signing it, the U.S. effectively cedes its sovereignty. In the words of former Ronald Reagan aide James L. Malone, ratifying the Law of the Sea would be to succumb to "collectivist ideologies of a new repudiated system of global central planning." Such arguments have been raging since the 1970s, since the treaty was first being debated among ambassadors to the United Nations. Its death knell came in 1982, when President Reagan refused to sign it because of objections to seabed mining issues. Despite efforts by President Bill Clinton in 1994 to address Reagan's concerns, that bell has reverberated. Both Presidents George H.W. and George W. Bush also sought ratification of the Law of the Sea during their administrations. It looked as promising as ever when, shortly after re-election, new Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said she'd like to see it ratified "as soon as possible." The environmental community, the military, the oil, shipping and fishing industries and the top Democratic and Republican members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee all converged to get it done. But opponents again portrayed the treaty as a means for the U.N. to regulate undiscovered resources, "restrict mineral development" and redistribute approved production in "economic zones" managed by an International Seabed Authority, headquartered in Jamaica. Signing on, these opponents said, would be akin to a "new global order." Enter a supportive Obama administration, along with Alaska U.S. Sens. Lisa Murkowski, Mark Begich and now Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who announced her steadfast support in a meeting of Arctic states in Greenland in March. She said ratification was "way overdue."
Oldhaines - did you catch the part about: "Opponents again portrayed the treaty as a means for the U.N. to regulate undiscovered resources, "restrict mineral development" and redistribute approved production in "economic zones" managed by an International Seabed Authority, headquartered in Jamaica. Signing on, these opponents said, would be akin to a "new global order." There's also a link there I clicked on to a Cato Institute white paper on why conservatives/libertarians oppose LOST. Ok Amanda that is one side. Perhaps you could be troubled to enlighten use poor slobs and report the other side of the issue. Why would most conservative thinkers believe that this treaty would seriously erode our national sovereignty? Could it be that even though under the terms of this treaty we could claim these submerged resources our use of them would be bound to and regulated by an outside interest that we would have little or no control over? I really don't know what the thinking on the right regarding this issue is but if I were writing this article I would have found out and reported it rather than be guilty of looking like a reporter for the ADN. Oldhaines: Thanks for writing. I called a number of conservative groups opposed to the treaty and didn't hear back. What I did was read a host of objections to it, some of which I linked to. The main objection was the United Nations global governance issue. When I posed versions of your question to supporters (Could it be that even though under the terms of this treaty we could claim these submerged resources our use of them would be bound to and regulated by an outside interest that we would have little or no control over?), they all said that we stand to lose more than we would ever gain by not signing onto the treaty. Canada, for instance, could claim our seabed, and barring threat of military action, we wouldn't be able to challenge those claims. I guess the real question is whether or not it's worth going to war over 200 miles of seabed floor. Best, |
Comments