Файл:Ltotf21 game.jpg

Law Of The Sea Treaty Ratification

In current times, leading U.S. cupboard officers have traveled across the world on high profile diplomatic missions. Ironically, in the procedure of Secretary of State Hillary Clintons visit towards the Arctic Circle and Secretary of Defense Leon Panettas travels in Asia, they both undercut the case for that U . N . controversial Legislation of the Sea Treaty Lost a case they had jointly made before departing in testimony before the Senate Overseas Relations Committee.

Mrs. Clinton took component in a meeting from the Arctic Council, whose 8 members have territory in that region. Of those, just five Russia, Canada, Norway, Denmarks Greenland and also the United states actually have coasts on the Arctic Ocean, and therefore are able to declare rights to the resources offshore.

To be sure, the secretary of State utilized the occasion of her joining another Arctic nations for that objective of forging a brand new region wide search and rescue SandR agreement to express the Obama administrations commitment to Lost. She assured her colleagues that the president is determined to overcome opposition in the Senate and also the country in order to get the treaty ratified.

Still, this SandR agreement suggests the most obvious: It is far easier to achieve understandings in a group of 8 or, in addition to this, five nations that have similar, if not identical, interests and a shared understanding of the stakes, than among a group of 150 plus nations, most of whom do not.

If that is true for an accord governing assistance to downed planes and ships Dropped at sea, it surely is the situation when it comes to the disposition of potentially many trillions of dollars worth of undersea coal and oil deposits.

Meanwhile, our Defense secretary was off in Asia trying to shore up Americas alliances in the region without really saying that China is a threat that needs to become countered there. So he eschewed the presidents much touted strategic pivot from the Middle East and South Asia to the South China Sea supposedly involving a move in force to parry the PRCs aspirations for hegemony.

Instead, Mr. Panetta employed less offensive terms like rebalancing and made commitments about a future U.S. presence in the theater that have been deeply discounted in light of ongoing, and forthcoming, sharp cuts in defense spending.

It happens that Secretary Panettas enthusiasm for the Law of the Sea Treaty tracks with Team Obamas public efforts to low ball the hazards posed by Chinas increasingly aggressive behavior toward our Asian friends and allies, and its growing capability to act coercively due to its growing military capabilities.

Panetta and, surprisingly, even senior Navy and other military officers who should know better seem to think that if only the united states were a party to Misplaced, international law would tame the Chinese dragon.

As one from the nations most astute China hands, Gordon Chang, noted recently in his column at Globe Affairs Journal: Although Beijing ratified the [LOST] pact in June 1996, it continues to issue maps claiming the entire South China Sea. That declare is, among other things, incompatible with the treatys rules. Its no wonder Beijing notified the U.N. in 2006 that it would not accept international arbitration of its sovereignty claims.

Just as common sense argues for using bilateral or, at most, five party forums to establish arrangements governing the Arctic Oceans sources, it strongly militates against the united states allowing itself to be bound to a treaty whose core provisions i.e., these governing limitations on territorial claims and mandatory dispute resolutions are already being serially violated by Communist China.

On May 9, Secretary Panetta nonetheless asserted that By moving off the sidelines, by sitting at the table of nations that have acceded to this treaty, we can defend our interests, we can lead the discussions, we will be in a position to influence these treaty bodies that develop and interpret the Law of the Sea.

That is not really so if, as is true of the LOSTs various institutions, we would have but one seat among many, and no certainty that we can decisively influence bodies that develop and interpret the Law of the sea.

In fact, thanks to the rigged game nature of these institutions, such bodies can be relied upon to hamstring us by, for example, applying environmental regulations over which we have no control to our Navys anti submarine warfare exercises and our domestic emissions into inland air and water that migrates towards the international oceans.

Meanwhile, china will get away with deciding on which rules they might abide by and which they wont.

Mr. Chang puts it this way: China is . . . a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, but remains a notorious nuclear proliferator, and it is a member of the Globe Trade Organization, yet brazenly disregards its trade obligations. And U.N. sanctions? China openly violates these too, even though it is one from the five permanent members from the Security Council.

In short, the Federal Government wants senators to suspend common sense and ignore real and legitimate concerns about the deleterious impact of the UNCLOS on our sovereignty, economic interests and potentially even the national security. Will 34 Senators have enough common sense to just say No?