Global Policy Forum

By Paul Singer

The Law of the Sea Convention, an international treaty governing uses of the world's oceans, was steaming toward Senate ratification last fall, backed by everyone from the White House to the Navy to lawmakers from both political parties.

But U.S. approval may be capsized by conservatives wary of having the country sign any more international agreements, especially one overseen by the United Nations. The Bush administration appears to have backed away from the treaty, and despite exhortations by such Republicans as Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, Senate leaders are making no effort to bring the treaty to a vote.

If the U.S. doesn't ratify the pact this year, as appears increasingly likely, Washington could be cut out of efforts to rewrite the rules on issues such as ocean navigation, seabed mining and commercial fishing. The White House says it still supports the treaty, but it seems to be doing little to push it through the Senate. White House officials have made no public plea for the treaty, and supporters of the pact say the administration is not prodding the Senate to schedule a vote.

The treaty has been under development since the 1970s and has been in force since 1994 after being ratified by more than 100 nations; the U.S. is not among them. Conservatives in the Senate, led by Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), who chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee before his retirement in 2002, blocked ratification for years.

The document lets nations establish "exclusive economic zones" along their coasts, guarantees safe passage through waters controlled by other nations and creates international agencies to regulate seabed mining and arbitrate disputes. An exclusive economic zone is an area in which a nation has the sole rights to conduct fishing, drilling, mining and other commercial activities.

The administration once viewed the treaty as sufficiently important that in a February 2002 letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the State Department listed it as one of five "treaties for which there is an urgent need for Senate approval." This February, the committee endorsed the treaty and urged the full Senate to ratify it. If the U.S. does not approve the treaty, "we would forfeit our seat at the table of institutions that will make decisions about the use of the oceans, and we would increase the chance that such decisions would be contrary to our interests," Lugar said then. A parade of witnesses from the State Department, the Navy, non-profit groups and the congressionally chartered U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy have testified before congressional committees about the importance of passing the treaty.

Foes: Current Rules Sufficient
But opponents argue that the relevant rules are in place without U.S. ratification of the treaty. Joining the accord would require the U.S. to operate within the confines of another international bureaucracy, they say, without significant benefits.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, held a hearing last month to highlight concerns about the treaty. "It is time to slow down and take a critical evaluation" of the treaty, Inhofe said, adding that he had "many concerns." Frank Gaffney, president of the conservative Center for Security Studies, said the treaty can only hamstring U.S. military and commercial interests. "Even though the Navy and the U.S. government assert that this will not be a problem, it will be a problem," Gaffney said.

Gaffney points out that under U.S. nuclear non-proliferation policy, the Navy can stop and search ships suspected of carrying prohibited weapons or parts to other nations. But the Law of the Sea doesn't list non-proliferation as a reason to stop a vessel.

Peter Leitner, a senior adviser to the Defense Department who emphasized that he does not represent the department's views, also said the Senate should not ratify the treaty. "We are much better off in a more ambiguous situation," which allows the U.S. to take unilateral actions, "than we are under a system that says, `Thou shalt do this and thou shalt not do that,'" he said.

Despite most officials' support of the treaty, the specter of a major controversy over ratification appears to have kicked the Law of the Sea off the must-do list of the Senate and the White House. "My impression is that the administration has decided that it will not make this a high-priority item," Lugar said in an interview. "They have enough controversies now that they don't have the political capital to spend on it."

The administration still supports the treaty, Lugar said, but "they are not going to go into a visible program" to push the Senate to ratify it this year. The White House referred inquiries about the treaty to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Agency spokesman Jeff Donald said "it does remain an administration priority," but he was unable to say what the administration is doing to push the treaty through the Senate.

Senate Calendar Crowded
Amy Call, a spokeswoman for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), said the Senate calendar is crowded and that Frist is unlikely to schedule the treaty for a ratification vote if it would require a lengthy debate.

Frist last week said, "We talk about it in every meeting, so at some point it will probably be addressed." For the treaty's supporters, failure to ratify it would mean the U.S. is turning its back on international cooperation.

Harry Scheiber, co-director of the Law of the Sea Institute at the University of California, Berkeley, said the treaty offers a process to prevent conflicts over fishing, ocean transit and military activity on the high seas. Walking away from the treaty would be "a gratuitous insult" to U.S. allies and trading partners, Scheiber said, rejecting "a global effort of two decades."