Joining Law of the Sea Treaty can’t wait
Wednesday begins a comprehensive discussion about whether the United States should join the Law of the Sea Convention. I’ve heard from countless military officials and conservative-minded business leaders who say it’s urgent. I’ve also spoken with senators and interest groups who oppose it.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in coming weeks, intends to provide a forum for debate on this issue for the first time since 2007. We’ll look at it from all sides to allow members to consider it based on merit and the best interests of the United States.
Why now? We’ve effectively lived by its terms, even as a nonparty to the treaty and a holdout. But we’ve deprived ourselves of its benefits for the past 30 years. We should instead be asking why it has taken us so long to have this discussion.
By not joining Law of the Sea, we’ve dealt ourselves out of the game that’s unfolding right in front of us. Let me give you a few examples:
The pact will lock in the favorable navigational rights that our military and shipping interests depend on every day. It can strengthen our hand against China and others, which are staking out claims in the Pacific, the Arctic or elsewhere.
It is designed to give our oil and gas companies the certainty they need to make crucial investments to secure our energy future. It puts our telecommunications companies on equal footing with foreign competitors. And it will help secure access to rare earth minerals, which we need for computers, cellphones and weapons systems that allow us to live and work day in and day out.
If you slice through the fog of misinformation, the case for ratification is clear and compelling. This isn’t President Barack Obama’s treaty — and it isn’t your father’s Law of the Sea Treaty, either.
This was originally negotiated at President Richard Nixon’s behest; refined and supported in part by President Ronald Reagan, and endorsed and aggressively pushed by President George W. Bush. Every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff argued for its ratification. The U.S. business community — including the shipping, transportation, telecommunications and energy industries, as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — joins the military in supporting it. The treaty’s most committed supporters are Republicans and conservative-minded business leaders, not Democrats.
This isn’t about politics — it’s about military effectiveness. As we focus more attention toward the Asia-Pacific region, it’s more important than ever that we’re part of this treaty. China and other countries are staking out illegal claims in the South China Sea. Signing this treaty would give an immediate boost to U.S. credibility as we push back against excessive maritime claims and illegal restrictions on our warships and commercial vessels. There’s no doubt in my mind that it would help resolve maritime issues to the benefit of the United States and our regional allies and partners.
This is about energy security. Russia and other countries are carving up the Arctic and laying claim to its vast oil and gas riches. But we can’t even access the treaty body that provides international legitimacy for these types of Arctic claims. We’re sitting on the sidelines instead of taking every possible step to ensure our stake in this resource-rich area.
This is about rare earth minerals. China controls production of rare earth minerals, critically important for cellphones, computers and weapons systems. U.S. industry is poised to secure these minerals from the deep seabed. But they cannot do so unless we’re a party to the treaty.
And it’s about telecommunications. The treaty provides a legal framework to lay and protect submarine cables. We all know how critical the Internet is. We need to be able to protect the cables through which the Internet flows. The treaty does that — but don’t take my word for it, listen to AT&T and Verizon, U.S. telecommunication giants.
The contentious political season has been inserting itself on the floor of Congress. It can, regrettably disrupt the Senate, though it was designed to be immune to the politics of the moment.
But perhaps in a calmer place, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee can do what, historically, it’s done best: Away from the hyperpartisan shouting matches, we can spend a lot of serious, thoughtful time deliberating all questions of substance. My hope and expectation is that everyone will keep an open mind and carefully consider the arguments on both sides — so that senators can come to their own conclusions.
But one point, for me, rings true: America has never been content to sit at the back of the room and let others make decisions that affect our national security and our economic opportunities. Why should today be any different? Let’s begin the discussion — which I believe will ultimately reaffirm that the treaty is good for security, jobs and America.
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.