"Law of the Sea" Treaty

America’s right to freely use the ocean’s bounty may be jeopardized by a treaty currently under debated in The United States Senate.  Opponents of the potential law are enraged that they have not been invited to participate fully in a scheduled hearing. 

 The Law of the Sea Treaty has already been approved by 162 nations.  However, many Americans remain concerned that the bill was tilted to the benefit of other countries at the expense of the U.S.  They note that it is anti-free enterprise, and would literally force private companies to surrender highly valuable seabed mining technology to other countries.

Supporters of the treaty, including Presidents Obama, G.W. Bush and Clinton, believe that the measure provides a legal right to enforce environmental restrictions, and oppose aggressive acts by foreign powers and pirates, by providing a comprehensive system of law and order in the world’s oceans and seas. Opponents note that existing international law already does that, and the only force powerful enough to oppose those interests is the U.S. Navy. 

The truly contentious point arises from the Treaty’s grant to “land locked and geographically disadvantaged states…the right to participate on an equitable basis the exploitation of an appropriate part of the surplus of the living resources of the exclusive economic zone of costal states of the same region and sub-region…States are bound to promote the development and transfer of marine technology ‘on fair and reasonable terms and conditions’ with proper regard for all legitimate interests.” They point to the Treaty’s preamble, which notes that “the area of the seabed and ocean floor and the subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, as well as its resources, are the common heritage of all mankind, the exploration and exploitation of which shall be carried out for the benefit of mankind as a whole, irrespective of the geographic location of states.”

Opponents (who have coined the acronym L.O.S.T. to describe the treaty) both elected officials and in the private sector, continue to note that the treaty doesn’t grant any provable benefits to the U.S. that America’s naval power, advanced technology, and enterprising private sector don’t already provide. Further, since the U.S. has the most advanced technology and the greatest ability to utilize the ocean’s resources, it would essentially be providing numerous and highly valuable benefits to other nations and interests and receive almost nothing in return.

Recently, 27 Senators delivered a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid stating that the treaty “reflects political, economic and ideological assumptions which are inconsistent with American values and sovereignty.”  Noting that the Treaty includes “redistribution of the wealth from developed to undeveloped nations” and other provisions harmful to U.S. interests, the 27 senators stated they are “particularly concerned that United States sovereignty could be subjugated in many areas to a supranational government” and that “compulsory dispute resolution could pertain to public and private activities including law enforcement, maritime security, business operations, and nonmilitary services performed aboard military vessels.”

Several Senators have stated that the  treaty imposes an “international tax” that would transfer billions, if not trillions, of dollars out of the American economy, and that U.S. companies would have to give away  “the very types of innovation that historically have made our nation a world leader.”

 Business leaders are concerned that U.S. companies would be forced to confront a global environmental agency that would be hostile to the private sector.  They are even more worried that, since the majority vote on international policy making panels will be third-worlders, the entire treaty could essentially devolve into a transfer the wealth scheme. The Competitive Enterprise Institute notes that “at a time when U.S. consumers are struggling with the rising costs of gasoline, the U.S. would eventually have to share oil revenues from development of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) beyond 200 nautical miles—roughly 14 percent of the OCS.”

       Supporters clearly have failed to establish that the benefits of this treaty outweigh its problems.