- ISIL creates all-female brigade to terrorize women into following Sharia law
- ISTOOK: Obama wants to be impeached
- Obama to Latin leaders: Help with border
- Military bans troops from Baptist church event honoring ‘God’s Rescue Squad’
- ‘Pocket drones’: U.S. Army developing tiny surveillance tools for the next big war
- Belgian cafe posts sign: Dogs allowed, but Jews stay out
- Gen. Dempsey: Pentagon studying Russian readiness plans not viewed ‘for 20 years’
- John McCain: Botched, two-hour execution of murderer is ‘torture’
- House GOP ready to move border bill
- Bomb squad called after live WWII artillery washes on Cape Cod beach
HOLMES: U.N. sea treaty still a bad deal for U.S.
Question of the Day
UNCLOS is back. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (aka, the Law of the Sea Treaty) was first hammered out in 1982. Twelve years later, U.S. negotiators signed an amended agreement, but it was never ratified. Now Sen. John F. Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, is pressing for Senate approval, claiming the treaty would give the United States new rights and advantages.
Unfortunately, it does not. What “rights” it recognizes already exist in customary international law. Treaty supporters claim ratification will give the U.S. additional rights to oil, gas and minerals in the deep seabed of its extended continental shelf. But the U.S. already has clear legal title and rights to the resources of its continental shelf (even though the current administration bans drilling there).
Similarly, the treaty’s navigational provisions offer nothing new. Yes, the U.S. Navy says UNCLOS might improve the “predictability” of these rights, but does the Navy’s access to international waters really depend upon a treaty to which we are not even a member? The last time I checked, the U.S. Navy could go anywhere it wanted in international waters.
Though redundant, the navigational provisions of UNCLOS are actually pretty good. That’s why President Ronald Reagan supported them. But Reagan and others objected to the unaccountable international bureaucracy created by the treaty.
UNCLOS reflects the 1970’s “new economic order” ideology that viewed ocean riches as the “common heritage of mankind.” Consequently, it establishes a bureaucracy to redistribute the wealth of the deep seabed and the extended continental shelf.
Were the U.S. to join, it would have to share with “developing” nations any royalty revenue generated on its continental shelf beyond the 200 nautical mile mark. The International Seabed Authority would decide just how these revenues are distributed. The U.S. by itself would have no veto over its decisions.
Consensus often works against U.S. interests in the U.N. General Assembly, and it would do so in this international body. Imagine how a U.N.-like body with a “right” to distribute U.S. revenues would behave.
The convention would also force the U.S. to settle any claim brought against it by another treaty member through a dispute resolution process. This process would be bound by American law, but be buffeted by the fancies of international politics. Corrupt nations game the U.N. for selfish gain. Given the chance, they would do so here.
Opportunistic nations would lodge any number of specious allegations, charging anything from environmental degradation to poisoning the ocean with carbon emissions. The U.S. would be treaty-bound to adhere to whatever decisions are handed down.
Treaty supporters like to claim that, were he alive today, Reagan would support the treaty. It’s hard to see how they can divine this conclusion. In June 1982, Reagan noted in his diary that he would oppose ratification of this treaty even if the deep seabed mining provisions did not exist.
Former Attorney General Ed Meese, Reagan’s friend and confidant, says Reagan’s objection to the convention was largely philosophical. He didn’t like the idea of establishing an international bureaucracy that would supersede U.S. rights of sovereignty. He knew that other nations would use this treaty to work against U.S. interests in ways not imagined in the benign scenarios painted by its supporters.
It is painful to read early accounts by enthusiasts of the United Nations. They could scarcely have imagined that Turtle Bay could produce such abominations as the resolution that once equated Zionism with racism. Nor could they contemplate that abusive regimes like those of Libya, Cuba, the former Soviet Union and China would one day sit on the U.N. Commission on Human Rights and pass judgment on the U.S.
Reagan, however, was well aware of this potential. He had seen it happen repeatedly. That’s why he opposed the Law of the Sea Treaty.
• Kim R. Holmes, a former assistant secretary of state, is a vice president at the Heritage Foundation (www.heritage.org). Follow him on Twitter @kimsmithholmes.
About the Author
TWT Video Picks
By Mark Davis
The nation founders, the Lone Star State thrives
- 'Pocket drones': U.S. Army developing tiny spies for the next big war
- Rahm Emanuel: Send illegal immigrant shelter kids to Chicago
- Washington Times strikes content and marketing partnership with Redskins
- CURL: Obama, staffers not even pretending any more
- NAPOLITANO: What if our democracy is a fraud?
- DCCC raising money on suggestion Obama impeachment is imminent
- ISTOOK: Obama wants to be impeached
- Tactical advantage: Russian military shows off impressive new gear
- Pentagon running out of time to find mass of missing weapons in Afghanistan
- DeSean Jackson working on offensive cohesiveness with Redskins teammates
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq