Originally posted by the Voice of America.
Voice of America content is produced by the Voice of America,
a United States federal government-sponsored entity, and is in
the public domain.


               Former US Officials Weigh In on Global Sea Treaty

   by Michael Bowman

   CAPITOL HILL - Top officials of the former Bush administration have
   aired disagreements on whether the United States should join a global
   maritime treaty known as the Law of the Sea Convention. Former Defense
   Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and former Deputy Secretary of State John
   Negroponte testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
   Thursday.

   More than 160 nations belong to the United Nations Convention on the
   Law of the Sea, which governs how nations may use the world's oceans
   and the resources they contain. All major industrialized nations have
   ratified the treaty except the United States.
   According to Donald Rumsfeld, that is how it should remain. The former
   defense secretary took issue with the treaty's collectivist treatment
   of seabed mineral resources.
   "I do not believe the United States should endorse a treaty that makes
   it a legal obligation for productive countries to pay royalties to
   less-productive countries based on rhetoric about common heritage of
   mankind. The wealth distribution idea incorporated in the Law of the
   Sea Treaty is especially objectionable, because the mechanism for
   redistribution is poorly designed. It uses a newly-created
   multinational seabed authority. The authority would not be effectively
   accountable to the American people any more than any U.N. agency is
   accountable," Rumsfeld said.
   Contrasting Rumsfeld's opposition to the treaty was a top diplomat of
   the former Bush administration, John Negroponte, who argued the Law of
   the Sea Convention would bolster the United States economically and
   militarily.
   "The United States would gain legal protection for its sovereignty -
   sovereign rights and jurisdiction in off-shore zones, the freedom of
   maneuvering action for its military forces, and protection for economic
   and marine research interests at sea. U.S. firms would be able to
   obtain essential internationally-recognized and exclusive rights to
   explore and exploit deposits of strategic minerals on the ocean floor
   beyond national jurisdiction and secure recognized title to the
   recovered resources," Negroponte said.
   The former Bush administration backed ratification, as does the Obama
   administration today. But Senate action has been delayed for decades
   and remains on hold, at least for now. The chairman of the Senate
   Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry, has said a vote will not be
   held before the November elections. Kerry nevertheless backs the
   treaty.
   "Ratifying the treaty will lock in the favorable navigational rights
   that our military and shipping interests depend on every single day. It
   will strengthen our hand against China and others who stake out claims
   in the Pacific, the Arctic, or elsewhere. It will give our oil and gas
   companies the certainty that they need to make crucial investments to
   secure our energy future. And it will help secure access to rare earth
   minerals which we need for weapons systems, computers, cell phones, and
   the like," Kerry said.
   Lawmakers opposed to ratification argue the Law of the Seas Convention
   would erode U.S. sovereignty by subjecting it to a global authority on
   maritime matters.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1]http://www.voanews.com/content/law-of-sea-treaty/1211287.html

References

   1. http://www.voanews.com/content/law-of-sea-treaty/1211287.html