Op-eds & Editorials

The Obama Administration and some senators are making a strong new push to bring the United States into line with most of the rest of the world by ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. ... The United States needs a voice and a role in agreements that maintain orderly relations among nations. Roughly two-thirds of Earth's surface is covered by waters included in the Law of the Sea. Obama Administration officials argue correctly that America's national strategic, political, economic, and commercial interests are adversely affected by the absence of U.S. participation in Law of the Sea deliberations. That's especially true of jurisdiction and use of the Arctic Ocean. The melting of Arctic ice makes access to mineral resources in the region, including oil and gas, and passage through it areas of intense U.S. interest. Other sensitive ocean areas include the South China Sea, where the United States competes with China, and the Straits of Hormuz, which is critical to the passage of oil out of the Middle East. Businesses and trade lobbies, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, support the Law of the Sea agreement. Top military leaders say that participation will strengthen U.S. naval power and provide greater navigational rights.

Some senators and the administration of President Barack Obama are making a strong new push to bring the United States in line with most of the world in signing and ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. ... Perhaps the most pressing and most challenging issue in which the U.S. government is hampered in defending its political, economic and commercial interests by the lack of participation in Law of the Sea deliberations is the jurisdiction and use of the Arctic Ocean. The melting of the arctic ice makes access to its mineral resources, including oil and gas, and passage through it an area of intense U.S. interest. Other sensitive ocean areas include the South China Sea, where the United States is involved in arm-wrestling with the Chinese, and the Straits of Hormuz, which is critical to the passage of oil out of the Middle East. It's no wonder that businesses and trade groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, support the pact. Top military leaders say being part of the accord will strengthen the nation's naval power and give it greater navigational rights.

There are few things the environmental community and the oil and gas industry agree on. But here is one: the need for the United States to join the Law of the Sea Convention, a worthy global agreement that the Senate has stubbornly refused to ratify for nearly 30 years. ... The treaty is as sensible a document as one can imagine. Written under United Nations auspices in 1982, and since ratified by 162 countries and the European Union, it gives each nation control over its coastal waters — a 200-mile “exclusive economic zone” — and then sets up rules governing everything from navigation to deep-sea mining. ... On Wednesday, in the first of a series of committee hearings designed to rally support, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all pressed the case for ratification. Mrs. Clinton made the economic case, one also made by petroleum and mining interests. ... Mr. Panetta and General Dempsey emphasized the security benefits, arguing that the treaty provides a mechanism for resolving disputes over strategically important waterways like the Strait of Hormuz. “Frankly,” Mr. Panetta said, “I don’t think this is a close call.” It really never has been.

When Pentagon chiefs agree with leading business groups, the US establishment has reached consensus. ... Both the US Chamber of Commerce and the military chiefs want it. ... Indeed, Leon Panetta, the US defence secretary, says the law’s maritime exclusion rights would facilitate the biggest increase of US sovereignty since it acquired Alaska. In addition to the benefits that legal certainty would give US mineral and telecoms companies, it would also strengthen naval security, according to the US Navy. That is why George W. Bush tried and failed to ratify the treaty in 2007. The same went for Bill Clinton and George Bush senior before that. The case has only grown stronger over time. ... The time is long past due to ratify this treaty in the US national interest.