A U.S. Senate subcommittee on oceans will take a fresh look at the Law of the Sea Treaty early next year, said Sen. Mark Begich, chairman of the Commerce Committee’s subcommittee on the topic.
The treaty was negotiated and signed by the United States decades ago, but has yet to go into effect here because it hasn’t been ratified by the United States Senate.
“It’s irresponsible for us to not be a party to the Law of the Sea,” Begich told the Empire last week.
“This is an important treaty that has huge opportunities for us, from Alaska’s perspective,” he said.
At a forum sponsored by the Juneau World Affairs Council at the University of Alaska Southeast recently, political and business leaders said ratification of that treaty was one of a number of steps the United States needs to take to fully exploit its Arctic resources.
Adoption of the treaty will help clarify the country’s claim to undersea resources that are increasingly becoming available as climate change reduces ice cover.
Also needed is the ability to protect the nation’s Arctic coastline, which means more icebreaking capability than is now available, they said.
Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell, former chairman of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission, told those in Juneau that under Law of the Sea, the United States will be able to assert a claim to an area the equivalent area of two Californias, half off of Alaska, he said.
“Without ratifying, we can’t even be at the table,” he said.
Then, after ratification gives the Unites States legal claim, the country needs the infrastructure to develop those claims and protect American interests, he said.
That includes ports and especially new icebreaking capability, so the United States can get to the resources it is seeking to win.
China has been building icebreakers, Treadwell said, but the United States has been reluctant to do so.
The need for new icebreakers in the Arctic was the subject of new Gov. Sean Parnell’s first testimony to the U.S. Congress, even before Treadwell joined his administration.
Parnell, along with the Coast Guard Commandant, argued that capability was needed for both developing our resources and ensuring our national security.
Treadwell said since the nation’s last remaining heavy icebreaker, the Polar Sea, is soon to leave service, we will be left with only the Healy, a medium icebreaker, still in service.
It’s been difficult to persuade the Office of Management and Budget, which develops the federal budget, to include a billion dollars for an icebreaker, he said.
“OMB is not crazy about spending on some ships they say are only going to be used for science,” Treadwell said.
Begich and Treadwell said there has also been opposition to some aspects of the Law of the Sea Treaty. It was first negotiated under President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, and took effect internationally after ratification by the 60th country in 1994. Now, more than 160 countries have ratified it.
The United States has consistently balked at signing, Begich said, as have Iran, North Korea and Libya.
“Libya may now sign before we do at the rate we are going,” he said, following the outer of longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi from power.
Treadwell said the U.S. was continuing to push for ratification, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testifying before Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski the administration would keep up the effort.
Treadwell said he thinks negotiations can allay concerns of some that the treaty would cede U.S. sovereignty to the United Nations.
“I think there are just a few members who believe that somehow we give up sovereignty when we sign that treaty,” Begich said. “The fact is we are not going to give up our sovereignty.”
Treadwell told the Juneau forum the treaty, and the icebreakers would give the country legal claims and the ability to assert them.
“The U.S. must have an Arctic presence, or other nations will gain hegemony in the region,” he said. “The world is watching, we need to be there.”
• Contact reporter Pat Forgey at 523-2250 or at patrick.forgey@juneuaempire.com.
Comments (21)
Add commentPerhaps we should stop trying
Perhaps we should stop trying to occupy every other country on the planet and focus a little on occupying our own nation...
Time is now
"China is building icebreakers," there it is in a nutshell, no more to be said. Is China building these for research? Doubtful. Will they be equipped with weapons? I'll bet money on it. We have decisions to make at the OMB. Do we want security for our homeland or more usually worthless studies. As I've quipped before, the Arctic is the new frontier and probable battlefield.
I think if there were fewer
I think if there were fewer people in the U.S. predicting some climactic showdown between this country and China, there'd be less chance of it actually happening. This isn't a big-budget Hollywood movie, after all. In reality, developed nations don't attack each other. Anyone who thinks China is really going to attack us either has a vested interest in the military-industrial complex or is a naive war-nut who watches the History Channel a little too often.
December 7, 1941
“Developed nations don't attack each other. “ Wow, I wish Japan knew that back on December 7, 1941
December 7, 1941
“Developed nations don't attack each other. “ Wow, I wish Japan knew that back on December 7, 1941
Yes, because all Asians are
Yes, because all Asians are the same, right? Doesn't matter that China is not founded upon a warrior culture like Japan was, or that fascism isn't running loose in the world, or that we now have very sophisticated weapons such as nuclear missiles--nope, because there was a big war 70 years ago, it'll happen again! Never mind that that war (and the preceding world war) is precisely the reason developed nations don't attack each other.
History?
Hasn't it been said history repeats itself? Realize this, China has no natural resources of its own. It is a huge and still growing industrial superpower. It consumes raw materials on a scale we haven't seen. Their population continues to swell further into the billions. Are they eyeing things abroad? Yes. I've always felt deterrance is the better solution opposed to unleashing the nukes.
I don't think Milspec said
I don't think Milspec said all Asian are the same, Persnickety. His was just responding to your claim that "developed nations don't attack each other," with a sound example of one developed nation attacking another. I think its coincidence that both China and Japan are Asian. 20th century history is rife with other examples of developed nations attacking one another: Iraq attacking Iran; Iraq attacking Kuwait; Germany attacking Austria, Poland, then everyone; Argentina attacking Great Britain (Falklands War); USA attacking Iraq; Prussia attacking France; just to name a few.
But to your credit, you aren't the first person to say that industrialized nations are done attacking one another -- why do you think World War One was called the Great War, or War to End All Wars, until World War II sprang up just a few decades later.
Are you joking? China has a
Are you joking? China has a ton of natural resources. Right now, they have essentially cornered the market on rare earth elements, which is why there's an issue with electric vehicles (the batteries use a lot of rare earths). Do you have any knowledge of geography at all? Do you think the world's 3rd/4th (depending on who you ask) largest country is a barren wasteland?
You're living in a neoconservative fantasy land. If China were gearing up for war, the logical thing to do would certainly not be to hold a good portion of our national debt or to rely on us as their largest export market.
He's missunderstood...
I don't think Mil said all Asian are the same. He was just responding to your (Persnik) claim that "developed nations don't attack each other," with a sound example of one developed nation attacking another. I think its coincidence that both China and Japan are Asian. 20th century history is rife with other examples of developed nations attacking one another: Iraq attacking Iran; Iraq attacking Kuwait; Germany attacking Austria, Poland, then everyone; Argentina attacking Great Britain (Falklands War); USA attacking Iraq; Prussia attacking France; just to name a few.
You are not alone though: Other people have said industrialized nations are done attacking one another -- why do you think World War One was called the Great War, or War to End All Wars, until World War II sprang up just a few decades later?
You also aren't the only one to think demilitarization will keep us safe. France demilitarized after The Great War, and built the Maginot Line to protect itself from Prussia (Germany) in lieu of a well-equipped army. Please remind me: how did that work out?
@Rainpedaler: Iraq, Iran, and
@Rainpedaler: Iraq, Iran, and Argentina are not/were not developed nations. When Prussia attacked France such a distinction did not exist. World War I changed everything, and World War II did so again.
Since World War II, every war or conflict has been fought between either a developed nation and a developing one (usually under the guise of "liberation") or between two developing nations, often with dictators in charge. China is a developed nation in control of an undemocratic government, but not a dictatorship. They are not despotic, but sure, they might go to war with us if they decide to completely ruin their economy and want to play with nuclear war. So basically, if you treat China as an evil entity bent on destroying us, this might happen, but not if you utilize a modicum of reasoning and treat China as a country with its own goals and limitations.
The last time the U.S. was attacked, it was during a time when essentially the rest of the world was at war, and Japan wanted to disable us before we also got involved and made things difficult for the Axis powers. If that scenario appears again, then I'll concede we should be wary of China. But right now it's foolish.
rare earth doesn't mean they have "resources"
Yes, China has one really big rare-earth element mine from which exports are tightly controlled -- that's why Canada is in the process of developing its rare-earth assets. China does not, however, have much in the way of oil, natural gas, or coal reserves, and these are what most people mean when they refer to "natural resources." You don't have to be a neo-con to understand that.
convenient
I think your interpretation of "developed" is convenient. What are you basing it on? GDP? CPI? Poverty Rate? Infrastructure? Gut feeling? Argentina, by the way, is the world's 28th largest economy and had an aircraft carrier during the Falklands war -- something China is just now getting. Iran and Iraq were the most developed countries in the middle east at the time -- the '80s -- when they went to war.
What good will hegemony in
What good will hegemony in the region be if the rest of the US is falling apart?
What good are our underground resources if those above ground are contaminated and in danger?
China is also investing in their childrens education, high speed rail and clean energy why are we not racing to do these things as well?
Lets FIRST see a listing of the people/corporations that stand to gain from this, who will get the contracts? Halliburton? Sounds to me like this is once again about making War profiteers.
Are we seeing Sean Parnell and his new rich friends slowly unfolding their vision of a "Corporate State" for Alaskans.
I agree...
I have to agree with you that its foolish to invite war, but its also foolish not to be prepared. It's a tough line to walk but its pragmatic -- not liberal or conservative -- to work for one and prepare for the other. I don't disagree with you. It's just that history shows pounding one's swords to plowshares does not compel the other to do the same.
The WTO classified countries
The WTO classified countries as developed or developing. Just because a country has a powerful military (North Korea has one of the world's largest, and it's definitely not a developed country) doesn't mean it is developed. Likewise, a large GDP doesn't necessarily mean it's developed either, as that wealth may be concentrated in relatively few hands (like Saudi Arabia).
And yes, China has plenty of resources. They produce about half of their oil consumption, nearly all of their coal, and at least some of nearly every other resource a modern economy consumes.
Guys, it's really easy to look this stuff up. If you have a world almanac or the ability type in "CIA World Fact Book" in Google, there's really no excuse for the level of ignorance on display here. Opinions about national safety are one thing, but saying China is resource-deficient is a flat out falsehood.
Seems like a win/win would be
Seems like a win/win would be to slow down our warming climate, or are immoral souls just out to profit from its warming?
ignorance...
The ignorance comes from assuming China's current rate of consumption is supported by its reserves. It is not. China's growth will force it to get more and more of its oil and other consumable resources from abroad. China knows this even if you don't.
And that's what the fuss is about -- not today's need, but tomorrow's.
Check your own ignorance.
The IMF lists China as a developing nation. The CIA does not. Who do you trust?
The initial statement was
The initial statement was that China has no natural resources of its own. 100% false. The modified claim was that China has little in the way of petroleum products. Also false. Consumption vs. production is an entirely different debate, one which also applies to our own country, as the race to secure more petroleum reserves ends in only one way if we don't shift to sustainable energy sources. China realizes this, even if we don't.
Is China Shangri-La?
China has some resources, but they cannot sustain it. Their pollution is terrible (barely got the Oympic games to stay because of air quality) and don't get started on human rights. I'm not an advocate of war, just saying China needs to be watched in the Arctic. Our one '62 Studebaker of an icebreaker won't cut it. We need money today to keep our nation afloat. Can't do much when you're broke.
What and where is the otherside of the question?
The law of the Sea
Only one side of the argument is presented. The for signing side. The other side has been drowned out. It seems correct but I would like to hear from those who think the US would be giving up its sovereignty and whatever else . Where is negative side of signing?
A lot of you turkeys were for a gasline but where is it? The facts are the was never going to be a gasline ever since Oct 30, 1977 . But nobody wanted to listen. And the State has urinated away $140 million to $200 million chasing a gasline. Nobody knows how much the Alaska legislature has urinated away nor do those urinated the States funds away want to know just how much they urinated away.
The State has profited handsomely,( about $7 billion by now with more to come ), because there was no gasline but you, Boobus Alaskanus, are not allowed to know that.
The State and the City of Anchorage were told they would lose their law suit on Belugas the way they were going about the Beluga law suit. They were framing their case incorrectly . They lost. They were told it would cost them $100,000 and $500,000 after the they went to court and lost . Now it will cost the State $500,000 put up in escrow for a non profit legal defense fund . If they go about the beluga case my way and win they pay; if they lose they don’t pay. But am just as sure of winning a properly framed beluga case as I was and am that there isn’t going to be a gasline.
What about it Attorney General John Burns ? Are you too proud to start over and frame the Beluga case correctly? You only pay if the State wins. The City of Anchorage says belugas have cost the dock millions of dollars so far .