Republicans huge blunder blocking 'Law of the sea" UN Treaty.

The short of it is this, the 'Law of the Sea' UN Treaty divvies up the ocean floor to over 160 countries, and the only country that isn't part of it, is the United States. Since China is the largest country in the treaty, they are dominating. Mining will start next year, and the ocean floor is rich with minerals vital to our strategic interests. So, why are Republicans in the Senate blocking US entry in this treaty? Everyone is for it, business, environmentalists, just about everyone except some Senate Republicans because, once upon a time, Reagan didn't like the UN controlling things.

This 60 minute segment illuminates the issue:

(Requires a subscription to Paramount, CBS usually puts episodes on YT a few days later, this aired 3/31)
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/60minutes-2024-03-24/

Here is the long of it, in more detail:

A group of 24 Senate Republicans, led by Jim DeMint, have vowed to vote against the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), effectively blocking its ratification. This move could hinder the United States' ability to uphold a rules-based order in the South China Sea and may signal a shift away from using treaties as a tool of U.S. national policy. The opponents, including Senators Kelly Ayotte and Rob Portman, argue that UNCLOS threatens U.S. sovereignty by empowering an international organization to regulate commercial activities. However, supporters point out that the treaty actually enhances U.S. economic and resource jurisdiction, and failing to ratify it could leave the U.S. at a disadvantage.

The discussion surrounding the U.S. Senate's reluctance to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) largely centers on opposition from Senate Republicans. This resistance has historical roots, dating back to when the treaty was first negotiated about 30 years ago, with initial opposition from President Ronald Reagan, who argued it would jeopardize U.S. national and business interests, especially concerning seabed mining. Although a major renegotiation in 1994 addressed these concerns and garnered support from the U.S. Navy and business communities, as well as the George W. Bush administration, Republican opposition in the Senate persisted. Today's opponents express concerns that the treaty encroaches on U.S. sovereignty and dislike the empowerment of an international organization, the International Seabed Authority, to regulate and distribute revenue from seabed mining activities (Brookings).

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/outlaw-of-the-sea-the-senate-republicans-unclos-blunder/

Despite this longstanding opposition, there's bipartisan support for the treaty, recognizing the shifting global landscape, particularly regarding critical minerals and strategic competition with China. Proponents argue that ratification is increasingly urgent due to China's aggressive maritime activities and the potential for the Arctic and other regions to be opened for mining. They highlight that failure to ratify leaves the U.S. sidelined in international discussions about ocean resource management, with China moving forward and holding significant exploration licenses. Senators supporting ratification efforts, such as Lisa Murkowski, emphasize the geopolitical shifts and the importance of U.S. participation in setting the rules for oceanic exploration and exploitation (E&E News by POLITICO).

https://www.eenews.net/articles/bipartisan-bid-to-break-sea-mining-impasse-struggles-in-senate/

The opposition is rooted in concerns about limiting U.S. power and a preference for bilateral over multinational agreements. Critics within the Senate argue that the treaty would infringe on U.S. sovereignty and subject the country to international regulations that could hinder economic and strategic interests. Despite these challenges, there's a consensus among many lawmakers and experts that the U.S. position on maritime disputes, especially in the South China Sea, would be strengthened if the U.S. ratified the treaty. The treaty is viewed as a foundational element of maritime law, codifying practices and norms that the U.S. largely adheres to, even as a non-signatory. This adherence, however, does not afford the U.S. the full range of legal and diplomatic tools that ratification would provide, potentially undermining the U.S. stance in international maritime disputes (Voice of America) (Radio Free Asia).

https://www.voanews.com/a/united-states-sign-law-sea-treaty/3364342.html
https://www.rfa.org/english/news/southchinasea/kurt-campbell-confirmation-12072023143357.html

So, to sum it up, the blockade against the U.S. joining UNCLOS reflects a complex interplay of sovereignty concerns, geopolitical strategies, and the evolving demands of global maritime governance. The ongoing debate underscores the broader tensions between engaging in international agreements and maintaining unilateral control over national interests. I think Republicans are making a major mistake, not just any mistake, but a strategic one which will cost us in terms of our mineral needs.


https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/oceans-seas/2012-08-07/outlaw-sea

When U.S. Senators Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio), both vice presidential hopefuls, recently declared their opposition to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, they virtually guaranteed that it would be dead on arrival if it were sent to the Senate. A group of 34 senators, including Ayotte and Portman and led by Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), is now on the record promising to vote against UNCLOS, which is enough to make getting the two-thirds majority necessary for ratification impossible.

UNCLOS was first negotiated 30 years ago. But back then, U.S. President Ronald Reagan objected to it because, he argued, it would jeopardize U.S. national and business interests, most notably with respect to seabed mining. A major renegotiation in 1994 addressed his concerns, and the United States signed. Now, the U.S. Navy and business community are among UNCLOS’ strongest supporters. So, too, was the George W. Bush administration, which tried to get the treaty ratified in 2007 but failed due to Republican opposition in the Senate.

Today’s opponents, including Ayotte, DeMint, and Portman, focus on two issues. First, they argue, the treaty is an unacceptable encroachment on U.S. sovereignty; it empowers an international organization — the International Seabed Authority — to regulate commercial activity and distribute revenue from that activity. Yet sovereignty is not a problem: During the 1994 renegotiation, the United States ensured that it would have a veto over how the ISA distributes funds if it ever ratified the treaty. As written, UNCLOS would actually increase the United States’ economic and resource jurisdiction. In fact, Ayotte, DeMint, and Portman’s worst fears are more likely to come to pass if the United States does not ratify the treaty. If the country abdicates its leadership role in the ISA, others will be able to shape it to their own liking and to the United States’ disadvantage.

Let's discuss.