Inhofe voices doubts about Law of the Sea treaty

Andrew Freedman, Environment & Energy Daily reporter

The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea is not sailing swiftly toward ratification, despite the unanimous approval of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month.

The debate over the treaty is pitting the unusual pairing of the Bush administration and environmentalists, who both argue ratification is necessary to protect U.S. shipping, environmental and deep sea mining interests, against conservatives who are wary of giving up authority to the United Nations. Because the treaty addresses environmental issues as well as international shipping and navigation, it falls under the jurisdiction of numerous committees from Environment and Public Works to Armed Services.

The EPW Committee held a hearing on the treaty yesterday and according to Amy Call, spokeswoman for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), the Armed Services and Intelligence panels are also planning to hold hearings before Frist will consider calling the treaty for a vote.

"The Senate calendar is tight this year," Call said. "It is unclear when it is going to come to the floor." She added that controversial pieces of legislation are likely to be put off until next year.

That would be too late for the United States to have input in treaty amendments, which will be debated beginning in November. According to experts, decisions made then could negatively affect U.S. shipping and mining interests.

The treaty provides for a comprehensive framework of ocean management and has been described by many as a "constitution for the oceans." It delineates offshore jurisdictions, including a 200 mile exclusive economic zone which countries can manage at their discretion, and outlines a comprehensive marine protection program including requirements for marine environmental assessments and enforcement of species protection measures. It would allow countries to apply to extract natural resources outside the 200 mile limit.

The treaty also includes provisions requiring countries to address ocean dumping and vessel pollution as well as pollution from offshore activities. And it requires countries to conserve and maintain fish stocks within the exclusive economic zones, conserve highly migratory fish species and marine mammals, and sets out regulations governing navigation and over flight in territorial waters and international straights.

As originally written, the treaty would have set up a centralized decisionmaking body governing offshore exploration. The United States and other developed countries would have had the same influence as developing countries on this panel, a provision opposed by many U.S. lawmakers. U.S. officials also objected to the deep seabed development provisions on the grounds that they were incompatible with free-market principles.

The Law of the Sea was modified in 1994 to give the United States and other countries with major offshore economic interests more influence over deep seabed mining decisions. The agreement also requires additional analysis of environmental impacts of deep seabed mining.

To date, 145 countries have ratified the Law of the Sea, and both the Pew Oceans Commission and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy have recommended immediate ratification (E&E Daily, Feb. 12).

Inhofe not ready to jump on board

In contrast to the warm reception the treaty received in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senate EPW Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.) voiced concern at yesterday's hearing that the treaty could cede too much power to the United Nations and undermine the Bush administration's antiterrorism initiative involving shipboard inspections.

Inhofe criticized the Foreign Relations Committee for allegedly stacking the witness lists at their two hearings with treaty supporters, and he called three treaty opponents to offer their views.

The skeptics questioned whether the United States will have sufficient clout within the seabed mining authority. Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, called the authority a "supra-national international organization" comprised of "unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats." He said it could function much like the U.N. General Assembly where the United States is frequently outvoted.

Bernard Oxman, a University of Miami law professor, countered that treaty rules state the council requires unanimity to act, giving the United States veto power.

Inhofe also questioned whether joining the convention would require the United States to bring its environmental laws in line with the 145 other nations and pass legislation to regulate carbon dioxide, for example. John Turner, who leads the State Department's Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, said the treaty requires only that participants have pollution-reduction measures in place, and no new laws would be required. "We feel it embraces our sovereignty," Turner said.

Ratification proponents say the treaty is necessary to protect U.S. national interests, such as securing rights to explore deep sea areas for natural resources. Turner said decisions on seabed mining rights and navigation rights that could go against the United States will be made by parties to the convention starting in November. "The U.S. must be at the table," he said.

Turner also dispelled recent rumors that the administration is backing away from the treaty due to opposition from conservatives. "The administration strongly recommends the Senate give its advice and consent," he said.

Gaffney said it is unclear if the treaty before the Senate truly reflects the 1994 modifications, but those changes have been sufficient to earn the support of Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). Stevens, who monitored the treaty negotiations more than 30 years ago, testified that he initially opposed ratification but is now satisfied that "it does protect American interests."

Fellow Alaskan Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski said she supports the treaty because it would allow the United States to push for developing deep seabed natural resources and help protect U.S. fisheries. She said Russia has already requested rights with the United Nations for 45 percent of the Arctic Ocean seabed, and failure to ratify would leave the United States out of those negotiations.

The major national security concern is that the treaty could undermine the Proliferation Security Initiative, which is a coalition of U.S.-led countries which are committed to disrupting trade in weapons of mass destruction by interdicting vessels in their territory or territorial waters.

Gaffney said China is already claiming the convention invalidates PSI because it limits the authority to intercept and board ships on the high seas. Inhofe and Gaffney's worries are not shared by the Pentagon, which supports ratification on the grounds that it would strengthen PSI by codifying navigation rights on the high seas.

In a statement for reporters, Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) cited a letter by Adm. Vern Clark, chief of Naval Operations, who wrote: "The convention supports U.S. efforts in the war on terrorism by providing important stability and codifying navigational and over flight freedoms, while leaving unaffected intelligence collection activities."

"Only ideological distrust of treaties in general, and a misguided belief that we might be better as a free-rider than as an active leader in oceans policy, have kept us out of an agreement that serves our national interest and improves our security," Lugar said.

Inhofe said further examination is warranted. "The argument that we should do this because everybody else is doing it always scares me," he said.