The event—a roundtable hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations—was on Arctic policy, a predictably important topic that’s been dragged endlessly through the news recently, and will only continue to be as a warming climate alters the circumpolar North faster than anywhere else.
Transcripts of the roundtable aren’t yet up on the CFR website, but the immediate impression left by the scant coverage was that of familiar old platitudes.
 |
If you’re like me, you’ve maybe heard of the Law of the Sea Treaty, but that’s about it. It’s one of those things—like the intricacies of Medicare Part D, or the minutiae of zoning ordinances—that are daunting just to think about. They’re hopelessly bureaucratic on their face, and though you understand them to be important, they’re simply too abstract to deal with—at least until they affect you, or someone you know.
As it turns out, this appears to be one of those times.
“Geographically, [the ocean] is not the exception to our planet, but by far its greatest defining feature. By political and social measures it is important too—not merely as a wilderness that has always existed or as a reminder of the world as it was before, but also quite possibly as a harbinger of a larger chaos to come,” writes William Langewiesche, in the opening of his 2004 book The Outlaw Sea. “At a time when every last patch of land is claimed by one government or another, and when citizenship is treated as an absolute condition of human existence, the ocean is a realm that remains radically free.”
It’s hard to imagine anything more quixotic than trying to apply a legal framework to that “radically free,” not-quite-within-the-scope-of-human-comprehension wilderness.
Nor is it easy to imagine something more sleep-inducing than reading about it, which is one reason why I won’t bore you with a discussion about what I managed to learn about the treaty. (Another is that, like the subject it attempts to embrace, the conventions are sweeping, and a discussion of them could easily absorb far more space than is available in this paper.)
Most of what you need to know can be boiled down into a couple of quick facts. First, the United States has signed the conventions, but has not ratified them—the final step that would cause them to have the effect of law; we’re one of only a handful of nations not to, including (as Begich pointed out) Iran and North Korea. Second, there are a handful of arguments opposing ratification, but most spring from the point of view that nearly any treaty is an unnecessary and unwarranted impingement on American sovereignty. (One notable exception is an argument that a provision that allows fishing within some territorial waters if that nation doesn’t use up all of its allowable catch could be catastrophic from an environmental perspective.)
Third, whatever claims the United States might make to the Outer Continental Shelf waters (or more precisely, the minerals beneath them) in the Arctic—and how those claims are decided—will hinge in large measure on whether we eventually ratify the treaty.
It’s that last bit that makes this a matter of growing importance, especially to Alaskans. And it has to do with more than just oil from OCS leases that might find its way into state coffers. So much of our state’s economy, from the fisheries to the U.S. Coast Guard installations, is linked to the sea. As the Arctic Ocean becomes navigable, that will only increase.
The ocean is the last great wilderness. Now, faster than ever, it’s being divvied up by powerful interests. Not long ago, Alaska was a last great wilderness, and there are still hard feelings in some quarters about how our land got divvied up.
Ratifying the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea won’t guarantee that any particular groups will be any happier with the results we get this time around. But the framework under which it will happen has already been constructed (in large measure by the U.S., in fact). The choice before us is whether we accept that framework and work within it as best we can, or simply drag our feet.
krestia.degeorge@anchoragepress.com
Comments
Caitlyn Antrim wrote on Mar 15, 2010 9:05 AM:
While the Heritage Foundation may argue that Reagan would object to the revised convention, they are in disagreement with Reagan himself and with Reagan's very conservative secretary of state, George Shultz. "
Robert McManus wrote on Mar 15, 2010 7:11 AM:
The UN has NO substantive authority under the LOS Convention. I repeat: none. I challenge Mr. Kayaker (or anyone else) to identify a single article of this treaty (readily available online) that grants the UN any power whatever, let alone the power to assess licensing fees or taxes on oceanic activities.
Typical of the dishonesty and/or ignorance that characterize current opposition to this treaty, Mr. Kayaker cites Ronald Reagan’s decision to “torpedo” the treaty in 1982. But he omits crucial facts: President Reagan’s Oceans Policy Statement of March 10, 1983, disapproved the treaty on the express basis of its cumbersome provisions (Part XI) governing seabed mining BEYOND national jursidiction, while concluding that the remainder of the treaty served US interests on balance, and announcing that the US would act conformably with those provisions. (Subsequently, Reagan declared a 200-mile US “Exclusive Economic Zone” as permitted by the treaty.) Second, Mr. Kayaker neglects to mention that even Part XI was completetly renegotiated during the ensuing decade in order to meet Reagan’s valid concerns (shared by other important developed countries); hence, the treaty now pending US accession is fundamentally different from the one Reagan “torpedoed.” Yes, Ed Meese disagrees, predictably; George Shultz (Reagan’s secretary of state), however, does not.
And on the subject of supporters and opponents, here’s a partial list of those who have supported US accession to the modifed treaty: our last three presidents, the current and all former living Chiefs of Naval Operations, the secretary of state, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (twice!), the Bush-appointed U.S. Oceans Policy Commission (unanimously!), the American Petroleum Institute, all living former chief counsels of the State Dept., and the Commandant of the Coast Guard -- plus Sarah Palin (no UN-loving liberal), who was apparently briefed on the importance to Alaska of a US claim to extended North Slope seabed under the treaty. Most of these people have indeed read the treaty, as Mr. Kayaker suggests; unlike him, most of them know WTF they are talking about.
Finally, I wish to correct a suggestion in Ms. DeGeorge’s article. She mentions uncritically, if in passing, “…an argument that a provision that allows fishing within some territorial waters if that nation doesn’t use up all of its allowable catch could be catastrophic from an environmental perspective.” The argument to which she refers is yet another lie by treaty opponents, who maintain that coastal nations would be required by the treaty to permit “catastophic” overfishing. Nonsense! Coastal states will establish “allowable catch” under Article 61, which may well be set at less than “maximum sustainable yield,” as provided in Art. 61(b)(3). If someone else doesn’t like it – that’s just tough darts, because by virtue of Art. 297.3(a), the treaty’s compulsory dispute settlement provisions are inapplicable to a coastal state’s determination of “allowable catch.”
Yes, some of this debate is academic and tedious, and I regret it takes a paragraph or so to rebut each simplistic lie. But it borders on disloyalty to misstate publicly the substantive provisions of a major international agreement supported on national security grounds by virtually the entire national security and military establishment. "
Scott Sea Kayaker wrote on Mar 12, 2010 2:41 PM:
If you liked how the Federal Government decided for you how your State lands got divied up, you are going to LOVE how a World Goverment divies up your ocean resources to the rest of the world!!! "
Scott Sea Kayaker wrote on Mar 12, 2010 2:09 PM:
How about a third option, not just "no" but "Hell No! Not now, not ever!"
If there is any country that should stand up for Freedom of the Sea, is should be the US!
This treaty is a big power/funding scheme for the United Nations, so it will no longer have to come hat in hand to the member nations for funding. The UN will become the goverment of the oceans. You want to mine the ocean, or fish the waters, be prepared to pay the UN their share once this treaty is signed. No good can come of this treaty!
The author saids you don't want to read it, it is boring. READ the LAW, then you will know the truth, and know we need to fight this. We are the last hope for Freedom for the world.
Ronald Reagan was right to torpedo the Law of the Sea Treaty two decades ago. Creating a new oceans bureaucracy is no more attractive today.
Check out:
Why Reagon would still reject the Treaty of the Sea http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/wm1676.cfm "
The Palmer Bookmonger wrote on Mar 7, 2010 4:43 AM: