"4 additional senators have joined in opposition to LOST, including Mike Johanns (R-NE), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Rob Portman (R-OH) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA). With 34 senators against the misguided treaty, LOST will not be ratified by the Senate this year."The statement was released as an update to a July 11 release in which Senator Demint describes the treaty as one that:
"would subjugate American sovereignty to the whims of an international tribunal."Demint states on the 11th of July that "...To date, 30 Republican senators have signed onto a letter opposing LOST. It takes 67 votes to approve treaties in the Senate, so only 34 votes are needed to ensure defeat of this misguided treaty..."
Obama administration officials and Treaty supporters lobbied heavily in favor of the LOST Treaty.
A U.S. Department of Defense Statement via the American Forces Press Service quoted Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta:
 |
| Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta |
“I strongly believe that accession to this treaty is absolutely essential, not only to our economic interests, our diplomatic interests, but I’m here to say that it is extremely important to our national security interests as well...I join a lot of the military voices of the past and present that have spoken so strongly in support of this treaty.”The DOD Statement says Panetta stressed that acceding to the treaty would help maintain the United States as a global naval power:
“If we’re going to continue to assert our role as a maritime power, it’s essential that we accede to this important convention...[A total of 161 countries have approved the treaty.] “We’re the only industrial power that has failed to do that...And as a result, we don't have a seat at the table.”
The Pentagon statement stressed that not having a seat means the U.S. is not represented and U.S. claims are not defended, and that Panetta said:
"...It means being unable to influence nations who are at the table...Ratifying the treaty, would ensure that our rights are not whittled away by the excessive claims and erroneous interpretations of others...It would give us the power and authority to support and promote the peaceful resolution of disputes within a rules-based order...”According to the Pentagon, the treaty would also secure U.S. navigational freedoms and global access for military and commercial ships, aircraft and undersea fiber-optic cables: Panetta suggested the new defense strategy almost demands accession to the Law of the Sea Treaty.
“We at the Defense Department have gone through an effort to develop a defense strategy for the future, a defense strategy not only for now, but into the future as well...And it emphasizes the strategically vital arc that extends from the western Pacific and eastern Asia into the Indian Ocean region and South Asia on to the Middle East...[By not ratifying the treaty, the United States undercuts its credibility in that crucial arc.] ...We’re pushing, for example, for a rules-based order in the region and the peaceful resolution of maritime and territorial disputes in the South China Sea, in the Straits of Hormuz and elsewhere...How can we argue that other nations must abide by international rules when we haven’t joined the very treaty that codifies those rules?..."
The DOD statement also quotes Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin E. Dempsey, saying that he:
"... hammered home this point, noting that joining the Law of the Sea Convention would strengthen America’s ability to apply sea power. From his standpoint, the treaty codifies the navigational rights and freedoms necessary to project and sustain U.S. military forces. These include the right of transit through international straits, the right to exercise high seas freedoms in foreign exclusive economic zones, and the right of innocent passage through foreign territorial seas..."Quoting Dempsey:
"...And, it reinforces the sovereign immunity of our warships as they conduct operations...Right now, the United States exercises these rights by sailing into these waters or flying over them. This plays into the hands of foreign states that seek to bend customary law to restrict movement on the oceans...And, it puts our warships and aircraft ‘on point’ to constantly challenge claims...The United States will defend its interests on the seas...But, the force of arms does not have to be -- and should not be -- our only national security instrument...Joining the convention would provide us another way to stave off conflict with less risk of escalation...”The Pentagon quotes Secretary of State Hillary Clinton regarding the Treaty:
“We believe that it is imperative to act now...No country is better served by this convention than the United States. As the world’s foremost maritime power, we benefit from the convention’s favorable freedom of navigation provisions. As the country with the world's second-longest coastline, we benefit from its provisions on offshore natural resources...”Senators against the treaty make the arguments that "LOST" is neither good for the country nor its interests. Senator Demint explains why "LOST" is so harmful:
*It would act as a backdoor Kyoto Protocol, forcing us into cap and trade policies that would destroy jobs and harm our economy.
*It would cost the U.S. trillions of dollars in international royalties to nations including state sponsors of terror like Sudan and “undemocratic, despotic or brutal governments in Belarus, Burma, China or Zimbabwe.”
*Former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton warned it would embolden China, “constrain U.S. naval activities, and do nothing to resolve China's expansive maritime territorial claims.”
*Radical environmental groups have lined up in support of LOST.Demint's statement emphasized that former President Ronald Reagan strongly opposed the Treaty.
In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senators opposed to the LOST Treaty stated their reasons for opposing the treaty:
"...We understand that Chairman Kerry has renewed his efforts to pursue Senate ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. We are writing to let you know that we believe this Convention reflects political, economic, and ideological assumptions which are inconsistent with American values and sovereignty...By its current terms, the Law of the Sea Convention encompasses economic and technology interests in the deep sea, redistribution of wealth from developed to undeveloped nations, freedom of navigation in the deep sea and exclusive economic zones which may impact maritime security, and environmental regulation over virtually all sources of pollution....To effect the treaty’s broad regime of governance, we are particularly concerned that United States sovereignty could be subjugated in many areas to a supranational government that is chartered by the United Nations under the 1982 Convention. Further, we are troubled that compulsory dispute resolution could pertain to public and private activities including law enforcement, maritime security, business operations, and nonmilitary activities performed aboard military vessels..."30 Senators had signed on to oppose the ratification. With four additional Senators joining in opposition, the Treaty's demise is imminent, and will not be approved "this year."
