Navy News, opinions, editorials, news from Iraq, photos, reports - Navy Times

Critics assail Law of the Sea treaty

Critics of the Convention of the Law of the Sea argued at a hearing Thursday that signing the treaty was a “recipe for disaster,” leading to the creation of “a socialist entity” to police the world’s oceans.

Frank Gaffney, a former member of the Reagan administration who now heads the Center for Security Policy, argued that critics of the treaty have been “underrepresented” in hearings on the subject. He said the high percentage of Senate Foreign Relations Committee members who favor the treaty “amounts to a rubber stamp” of support for the Law of the Sea Convention.

The 200-page treaty covers myriad issues related to the world’s oceans, including fishing, mining, navigation, shipping and other activities; 155 countries have signed it, but the United States has not. The Bush administration, which supports the treaty, has said it would enhance security on the high seas. Critics such as Gaffney, however, argue that ratifying the treaty could hinder naval counterterrorism efforts by subjecting U.S. military personnel to review by foreign magistrates.

The convention “creates various supranational bodies to develop and enforce its provisions,” Gaffney said. He argued the treaty promulgates a “socialist worldview” that are a product of “transatlantic progressives.”

Fred Smith, president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said in written testimony that the treaty “would create a socialist entity to develop the oceans.”

The hearing, which was devoted to private-sector witnesses, was the second on the topic in as many weeks; an earlier meeting by the panel heard from administration officials. The Navy has long supported the 25-year-old proposed treaty, which President Reagan refused to sign in 1982 because of provisions, since modified, which would have limited American options in seabed mining. Nonetheless, Reagan announced that the U.S. would abide by other elements of the treaty, even though it was not an official signatory.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted to endorse the treaty unanimously in 2004, but the full Senate did not take up the matter. A vote is expected by the full body before the end of this year.

Arbitration panel criticized

Under the terms of the treaty, the legality of seizures made by Coast Guard and Navy ships would be subject to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, based in Hamburg, Germany, and a five-person international arbitration panel. The United States and the flag state of the seized vessel would have input in selecting some of the arbitrators.

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., said this arbitration panel could be a “recipe for disaster” for American maritime interests. He called for another hearing in which additional critics of the treaty would be called to testify.

But Bernard Oxman, a law professor at the University of Miami, Fla., said that the treaty is “in large measure the product of American efforts” to maximize security, stability and sovereignty at sea.

What’s more, other coastal nations could further extend their territorial seas and economic exclusive zones if the United States doesn’t sign, Oxman said.

“If the law of the sea is left to drift, it will drift in the direction of increasing coastal state restrictions on global freedoms,” he argued.

U.S. military and civilian shipping depends on foreign coastal states’ willingness to allow international ships and aircraft to pass through their waters and airspace, Oxman said.

By becoming a part of the treaty, Oxman argued, the United States will be able to “control” the evolution of the law and better influence the “perceptions of foreign nations regarding their rights and our freedoms off their coasts.”

The committee also heard testimony from members of the shipping, oil and gas and submarine cable industries, all of whom supported it .

Retired Adm. Vern Clark, a former chief of naval operations and now a member of the corporate board of defense contractor Raytheon, said the treaty provides a “stable and predictable legal regime” at sea.

Clark cited an experience he had as the commander of a ship in the Black Sea, when a Soviet ship made his ship’s safe passage difficult. The incident could have resulted in an exchange of fire, Clark said, an unnecessary event that would be less likely if the U.S. has signed the treaty. The law of the sea provides a “better venue” to protect ships from harm, Clark argued.

Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England and Vice Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Patrick Walsh testified in front of the committee in the initial hearing Sept. 27 to outline broad support for official American participation in the convention.

“We don’t see any downside to the treaty, frankly,” England told senators during the hearing.