Call your representative today and protect your familes rights: 202-224-3121 In current days, leading US cupboard officers have traveled across the globe on high profile diplomatic missions Ironically, within the process of Secretary of State Hillary Clintons go to to the Arctic Circle and Secretary of Protection Leon Panettas travels in Asia, they both undercut the situation for that United Nations controversial Law of your Sea Treaty Lost a case they had jointly produced prior to departing in testimony prior to the Senate Overseas Relations Committee
Mrs Clinton took part in a meeting from the Arctic Council, whose eight members have territory in that region Of those, just 5 Russia, Canada, Norway, Denmarks Greenland and also the United states really have coasts around the Arctic Ocean, and thus can declare rights to the resources offshore
To be certain, the secretary of State used the event of her joining another Arctic nations for that purpose of forging a brand new region wide search and rescue SandR agreement to express the Obama administrations commitment to Lost She assured her colleagues that the president is determined to overcome opposition in the Senate and the country in order to get the treaty ratified
Nevertheless, this SandR agreement suggests the most obvious: It is far easier to achieve understandings in a group of eight or, better yet, five nations that have similar, if not identical, interests and a shared understanding of the stakes, than among a group of 150 plus nations, most of whom do not
If that is true for an accord governing assistance to downed planes and ships Lost at sea, it surely is the situation when it comes to the disposition of potentially many billions of dollars worth of undersea oil and gas deposits
Meanwhile, our Defense secretary was off in Asia trying to shore up Americas alliances within the area without really saying that China is a threat that needs to become countered there So he eschewed the presidents much touted strategic pivot with the Middle East and South Asia towards the South China Sea supposedly involving a move in force to parry the PRCs aspirations for hegemony
Instead, Mr Panetta employed less offensive terms like rebalancing and made commitments about a future US presence in the theater which were deeply discounted considering ongoing, and forthcoming, sharp cuts in defense spending
It happens that Secretary Panettas enthusiasm for that Law of the Sea Treaty tracks with Team Obamas public efforts to low ball the hazards posed by Chinas increasingly aggressive behavior toward our Asian friends and allies, and its growing capability to act coercively due to its growing military capabilities
Panetta and, surprisingly, even senior Navy and other military officers who should know better seem to think that if only the united states were a party to Lost, international legislation would tame the Chinese dragon
As one from the nations most astute China hands, Gordon Chang, noted recently in his column at World Affairs Journal: Although Beijing ratified the [LOST] pact in June 1996, it continues to issue maps claiming the entire South China Sea
law of the sea treaty 1982 That claim is, among other things, incompatible with all the treatys rules Its no wonder Beijing notified the UN in 2006 that it would not accept international arbitration of its sovereignty claims
Just as common sense argues for using bilateral or, at most, five party forums to establish arrangements governing the Arctic Oceans resources, it strongly militates against the united states allowing itself to be bound to a treaty whose core provisions ie, these governing limitations on territorial claims and mandatory dispute resolutions are already being serially violated by Communist China
On May 9, Secretary Panetta nonetheless stated that that By moving away from the sidelines, by sitting at the table of nations that have acceded to this treaty, we can defend our interests, we can lead the discussions, we will be in a position to influence those treaty bodies that develop and interpret the Law of the Sea
That is simply not so if, as is true of the LOSTs various institutions, we would have but one seat among many, and no certainty that we can decisively influence bodies that develop and interpret the Law of the sea
In fact, thanks towards the rigged game nature of these institutions, such bodies can be relied upon to hamstring us by, for example, applying environmental regulations over which we have no control to our Navys anti submarine warfare exercises and our domestic emissions into inland air and water that migrates towards the international oceans
Meanwhile, china will get away with deciding on which rules they might abide by and which they wont
Mr Chang puts it this way: China is a signatory towards the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, but remains a notorious nuclear proliferator, and it is a member of the World Trade Organization, yet brazenly disregards its trade obligations And UN
law of the sea treaty obama sanctions? China openly violates those too, even though it is one of the five permanent members from the Security Council
In short, the Obama Administration wants senators to suspend common sense and ignore real and legitimate concerns about the deleterious impact from the Law of the Sea Treaty on our sovereignty, economic interests and potentially even the national security
UNCLOS Will 34 Senators have enough common sense to just say No?
