The security and economic well-being of the United States are firmly linked to our free access to the seas of the world. The entire history of America demonstrates this truth. Our growth into the preeminent world power coincides with our emergence as the planet's foremost naval power.

This congruence of U.S. national power and mastery of the seas explains why the United States took the lead in 1958 when the United Nations convened a conference to draft a Convention on the Law of the Seas. For the next 24 years United States' representatives were in the forefront of deliberations on this critical effort so that, in its final form, the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) would give full recognition to America's vital interests across the seas of the world.

From day one the U.S. Navy provided important members of the American delegation to lead in framing provisions to meet our security needs. Primary attention was given to the definition of territorial seas, freedom of navigation, the right of innocent passage, and overflight rights in order to insure the ability of our naval and air forces to move when and where required for defense purposes. Without exception, every U.S. requirement was met, and to this day the Department of Defense and the U.S. Navy are fully supportive of UNCLOS.

Somewhat less successful were efforts to promote U.S. positions with respect to commercial interests, particularly in the deep seabed. UNCLOS did strengthen national rights in territorial seas, extended areas of national dominion called Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ), and expanded regulatory control over national fisheries. However, the draft Convention declared the deep seabed outside of national zones to be part of "the common heritage of mankind." Under this rubric, the exploitation of the wealth of the deep seabed was to be for the benefit of all nations and all would share in the profits from such activity.

When UNCLOS was opened for signature in 1982, the major developed nations led by the United States refused to sign because they were unwilling to share with other nations either the technology needed for deep seabed exploitation or their profits. The Convention languished until 1990 when negotiations resumed to modify the seabed provisions (Article 11).

In July, 1994 all U.S. reservations had been met and the U.S. led the rush to sign the revised Convention. President Clinton promptly submitted the document to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification. Regrettably, UNCLOS was totally ignored by the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. While the U.S. Senate dawdled, 60 other nations formally acceded and on November 16, 1994 UNCLOS came into force provisionally as the primary international law governing 70% of the earth's surface.

Even though declining to ratify the Convention, the United States continued to exercise certain provisional rights in its administration from 1994 to 1998. However, on November 15, 1998 those rights were lost and the United States now is barred from membership on the LOS Tribunal and the Continental Shelf Commission as well as the right to name members to special arbitration panels where interstate disputes will be settled. Furthermore, we are barred from membership in the International Seabed Authority where parties to the Convention organize and direct ventures to exploit the mineral resources of the deep seabed.

In short, the Senate's position has isolated America from participating in the development and application of a body of international law which covers 70% of the earth's surface and protects freedom of navigation, fisheries, the oceanic environment and the wealth of the global seabed. Worse, we have done this even though the provisions of the Convention were shaped through strong U.S. leadership to protect all of America's political, economic and security interests. It is difficult to conceive of a more foolish, shortsighted failure to advance the rule of law in the world order, nor one more certain to generate unnecessary confrontations with other nations.

What seems to be at work is a strong chauvinistic spirit that refuses to recognize or appreciate the long term strategic benefits of establishing global norms to govern the behavior of the nations of the world. Since the United States spends hundreds of billions of dollars every year to maintain the most powerful military forces on earth, there is a willingness, almost an obsession, to rely on military power to extend and enforce American judgments rather than to rely on non-violent resolution of disputes under procedures now agreed to by more than 130 nations. President George Bush once succinctly summed up this spirit with the arrogant statement that "we call the shots." Jingoism and gun boat diplomacy at sea guarantee stormy relationships with other nations across the world's oceans.

Unfortunately, this is only one egregious example of America rejecting the concept of the rule of law in a peaceful world order. Others include failure to ratify (or even to sign) such progressive measures as the Statute for an International Criminal Court, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Ottawa Anti-Personnel Land Mine Treaty and the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. By rejecting these constructive efforts to establish and enforce global norms, the United States, as the world's preeminent power, is deliberately isolating itself behind a shield of military force in the mistaken belief that this will advance our agenda and allow us to impose our decisions on other nations.

The ink was not yet dry on the President's budget before Congressional "hawks" were voicing their dissatisfaction with the Pentagon funding levels, which they considered inadequate. For example, Representative John Kasich (R-OH), chairman of the House Budget Committee, said: "We are going to have to put more money in the military–there is no question." This sentiment was echoed by the heads of the four military services. Asked by Congress to provide information on unfunded programs which they consider to be high priorities, the Chiefs submitted "wish lists" that totaled over $15 billion in FY'01 alone.

Today it is true that we can exercise unchallenged military power around the globe. If a dispute arises at sea we can dispatch carrier battlegroups to rout any adversary. Who needs a Law of the Sea? But what about the future? How long will American taxpayers accept annual increases in money for the Pentagon to sustain the aggressive projection of U.S. military power around the globe? How long will the world's nations, even those who are now our closest friends and allies, accept U.S. military presence and dominion over events everywhere?

It is clearly in the security interests of all Americans for the U.S. to ratify the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea and to become an active supporter and participant in a cooperative process to extend the rule of law over 70% of the earth's surface. Our leadership in this process will do more to promote and protect the security and well being of our children in the new millennium than building the greatest armada the world has ever seen could possibly do.

For more information on the Navy, visit our Naval Power and Strategy Page..
 

1972-1996    1997    1998    1999    2000