Critics say the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea infringes U.S. sovereignty. Actually, it would save the U.S. money, help counter China and make the Pacific safer.
China is certainly building a robust navy. Last year, its first aircraft carrier was sighted conducting sea trials, and Beijing has reportedly again upped its military spending by double digits, in this case 11.2 percent for 2012.
As the United States “pivots” to the Asia-Pacific region, U.S. defense planners are increasingly focused on China’s maritime build-up. Recent Pentagon budgeting decisions – such as expanding space-based and cyber capabilities, and making improvements to the Navy’s attack submarines – are designed to counter China’s growing military capabilities. However, an even more effective tool remains unused, and for no good reason: ratifying the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.
The treaty went into effect in 1994 and has more than 160 countries signed on, including Canada, Australia and all of Europe. The costs of not ratifying it are growing by the day. Until the U.S. Congress ratifies the treaty, we lack the international legitimacy to prevent Beijing from bullying Asia and bending economic and security laws in its favor.
The strange thing is that the treaty actually has widespread, bi-partisan support – a rarity in Washington these days. Both Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush pushed for its approval. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved it, including through a unanimous decision to recommend the treaty in March 2004. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, chiefs of naval operations, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are for it. When business interests line up with national security objectives, it signals how important and pressing the issue is.
And ratifying the treaty saves the United States boatloads of cash. Approving it would allow us to reduce our military expenditures yet maintain naval strength at a time when our nation’s debt keeps climbing. One example is over piracy. The total economic costs of Somali piracy in 2011 were approximately $7 billion by some estimates. Signing the treaty would allow the U.S. to better coordinate anti-piracy and anti-terrorism efforts alongside the international community. Instead of policing the world’s waters by ourselves, we could share the burden.
Signing the treaty, then, reduces costs and danger for our already overextended navy.
What’s more, approving the treaty is similar to the best kind of business decision: it reduces expenses and puts money in our pocket. It provides for Exclusive Economic Zones, or exclusive privileges to manage the natural resources near our coast. No country stands to benefit more from these zones than the United States. As Citizens for Global Solutions points out: “The American zone is larger than that of any country in the world. The size of [America’s] zone is…bigger than the lower 48 states combined.” With increased access to the ocean’s resources – including mineral-rich waters near our shores – we can boost the economy, increase domestic energy production and bring back more jobs.
Another benefit of the treaty is the boost it would give to U.S. international legitimacy. China regularly violates the economic rights of other Asia-Pacific countries by controlling ocean territories reserved for our allies in the region, such as Japan and South Korea. By joining the Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the U.S. would have the legal authority to enforce the treaty – preventing China, which has already ratified UNCLOS, from illegally stripping its neighbors’ natural resources. As it stands now, we lack the legal ability to prevent China from gaming the system. If we ratify the treaty, we gain a seat at the negotiating table and leverage against China’s bullying tactics.
The arguments against the treaty are grounded in ideology, not evidence. Critics argue that under the treaty, the U.S. will lose access to vital seabed mineral resources and be subjected to foreign and bureaucratic control, threatening our national security. Yet neither is the case. Indeed, quite the contrary – no country has more to gain from the treaty than the U.S. We would receive access not only to huge tracts of the ocean by our shores, but exclusive regions of the Arctic seabed. What’s more, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Director of Naval Intelligence have reaffirmed that, if anything, it enhances U.S. maritime and security interests.
The reality is that despite the scaremongering and ideological inflexibility by some in Washington, UNCLOS doesn’t compromise our global influence; rather, it enhances our security capabilities and economic opportunities. As we focus on the Asia-Pacific, we need all the tools we can get to balance China’s maneuvering.
During my time on active duty, there were numerous incidents with China involving U.S. naval aircraft and ships operating in the South China Sea. This treaty would reinforce the U.S. right to conduct military operations in international seas. Moreover, it gives us a tool that can immediately minimize the possibility of a major crisis in the region.
Not all international diplomacy efforts can be solved by adding more ships to the water. The law is on our side; it’s about time we stopped allowing America to be handcuffed on the international stage.
Capt. (Ret.) Gail Harris is a former U.S. naval officer, and was the highest-ranking African American female in the United States Navy upon her retirement in December 2001. She was also the first female and African American to lead the Intelligence Department for Fleet Air Reconnaissance Squadron in Rota,Spain – the largest US Navy aviation squadron.
Photo Credit: Kevin Burkett
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Liang1a
Come on Diplomat. Stop censoring my posts. If you claim that it is because there is some problem with your monitoring system then for goodness sake fix it. What kind of archaic system are your operating anyway?
Observer
@ All chinese posters,
Lastest news – -the US is paying $50 thousands for each person killed and $11 thousands for each wounded from that attack from the US soldier in Afghanistan.
How much china paid for the all the attacks on poor and unarmed fishermen?
Who is behaving like low class pirates?
DinhLuc512
You Are Right Major.
Chinese Communist are Sick and Creepy, Asean Country Should stick together.With Japan,South Korean, and Australia, including the US and Europe.Also Leave the Russian Aside ,At then End the Will help the Chinese Anyway by Supplying them with
Fuel and Weapon.Like I said The US Just sit Back and Relax.Its Strictly Business.
Any Country in Asia or South East Asia Want to Buy US Weapon feel free too Buy it.
The US could even you Credit or an IOU.History tend to repeat itself Just like WW2.
And Remember My Chinese Comrade and Peoples,Your Own Govermant will USED you as a Human SHIELD<
VICTOR
cAN A BANKRUPT COUNTRY GIVE CREDIT???????????
SHAME SHAME SHAME.
Liang1a
As America increases its threat against China it is even more reason to show that the soft power of the Dengists has failed. It is time to kick the Dengists out of the Chinese government and increase the Chinese military spending up to 3% of GDP. At the same time China should phase out exports to the developed countries, specifically Japan, US and EU and their lackeys and minions. China should also kick out all the foreign factories of its enemies and ban foreign investments such as the production of cars which now control 80% or more of China’s domestic market.
Any Chinese who say China must appease its enemies are traitors by definition.
Expert
@ Liang1a
The foreign factories are doing just that, leaving China in search of a lower-cost country that is. And the world would love to see China stop exporting its cheap goods, because doing so would torpedo Chinese economy.
John Chan
@Expert,
You are too sentimental; it is against the spirit of capitalism. Capitalists are in the business of making money, they are not in the business of charity, if they don’t do that they will be bankrupted, and other capitalists won’t give him a shit.
Capitalists are searching maximum return continuously, they will leave a place without emotion whenever there is another place offers better return, and it is all about business. Any nation does not prepare to face such eventuality, they are asking troubles for themselves.
China is forcing its coastal areas to move up in the value added chain, meanwhile moving low cost manufacturing inland. Your hope to see China stop exporting low cost goods (cheap but good value) need to wait for awhile.
Italians are protesting to Chinese government against Chinese who are selling high-end goods made in China more expansively than Italian goods; those high-ends makers all have head offices in Italy, so they labelled their products with Italian labels.
China intents to compete in all areas from high to low; has your government done anything for such challenge? Bad mouthing and ill wishful thinking are not going to help you and your nation a bit. There is no pot of gold at the end of a rainbow in the Cloud of Cuckoo Land.
Yang zi
China should do anything to please US and the West. They feed our poor countrymen Liang.
papa john
Great! Old Liang. You Chinese do your parts – kick out all the foreign factories and ban foreign investments. We do our parts to help you out to have a full sense of isolation – block all the bloodline sea lanes to and from Chinese ports. You like Mao era, right? Then you have it.
Major Lowen Gil Marquez, Phil Army
To protect the neighboring countries of South East Asian Nation they must organize a cohesive military partnership so that the Communist Chinese will think thrice before bullying SEA and ASIAN Countries.. The communist Chinese were very expert in Lie Propaganda whatever they say is base on Lie, don’t ever trust their word because its always a deception to hide their creeping thoughts of invasion at any Theater of offensive spearhead penetration stratagem..
victor
Trust Pax America and u have Iraq and Afghanistan,vietnam,etc.
The most voracious imperialist of all times and master of destruction.