State Department Legal Advisor John Bellinger is no stranger to tough crowds. Last summer in The Hague, Mr. Bellinger set out to accomplish his most ambitious task yet: to convince a group of Europeans that the United States is committed to international law. His audience was skeptical on a variety of grounds, but among the most surprising – and the most challenging for Bellinger– was the US’s absence from the community of nations that are party to the Law of the Sea Convention.
Why would a treaty intended to codify rules for use of the world’s oceans challenge America’s commitment to international law? Simply, the Law of the Sea Convention represents a coup for American negotiators, who ultimately got their way on every meaningful point of contention. In fact, US policy and law are already consistent with the terms of the treaty.
The delicate balance of interests that the Law of the Sea strikes is reflected in the amazing diversity of its supporters. President Bush, no member of the international agreements fan club, is the latest in a long line of presidents dating back to Richard Nixon to support the treaty. As Commander-in-Chief, Bush’s position reflects the military’s belief that ratification is the best way to protect its navigational and overflight rights at sea.
Every major ocean industry also favors ratifying the treaty. America’s absence from the convention handicaps its ability to exploit (or conserve) precious marine resources and protect investments in mining sites, undersea telecommunications cables, shipping cargo and other valuables. The US is already far behind in the race to stake claims in the resource-rich Arctic seabed. Joining would expand our control over an area larger than the continental US and give American extractive industries access to resources in the deep seabed.
Environmental organizations believe that US ratification can also contribute to responsible stewardship of the oceans. Joining the convention would put the US in a position to further global efforts to protect marine life, conduct research and prevent marine pollution. Peace groups and religious organizations, which prefer peaceful resolution of disputes to the threat of force and war, are also on board.
International law usually requires give-and-take. So if this picture-perfect reflection of US security, commercial and environmental interests that requires zero compromise can’t get through the US Senate, poor Mr. Bellinger will have a tough time convincing his European counterparts that the US really believes any legal framework to be in its interest.
Indeed, opposition to the convention is based on a deep distrust of international law and institutions. Treaty opponents believe instead that the US military should be the sole guarantor of rights and freedoms at sea. There’s one problem: the US military, already stretched thin, doesn’t want the job. Military commanders and peace activists alike understand that even a navy of a thousand ships would be unable to accomplish the task, and more fundamentally, that no one nation alone can impose its will on the high seas.
But substance matters little to the convention’s opponents. “The Senate won’t ratify the convention if it is controversial,” said anti-Law of the Sea antagonist Jeremy Rabkin, “and I’m doing everything I can to make a controversy.”
Politics is all that stands in the way of US ratification of the Law of the Sea convention. US civilian and military national security leaders have asked for this tool to keep Americans safe. Business leaders are chomping at the bit for access to the economic opportunities that the treaty affords its members. And conservationists across the country want the US to use the full measure of its power to keep the oceans clean and safe. If politics really does stop at the water’s edge, as the saying goes, the Senate must accede immediately to the Law of the Sea convention.
Scott T. Paul is Deputy Director of External Relations at Citizens for Global Solutions
Related Materials from the Atlantic Community:
- 4
