Law of the Sea Treaty as a peace tool for US

Senate approval of the Law of the Sea Treaty would help the US counter China's aggressive moves to claim islands near the Philippines and other Asian neighbors.

Philippine Navy/AP Photo
Filipino naval personnel look at giant clam shells on board a Chinese fishing vessel at the disputed Scarborough Shoal in the South China Sea, near the Philippines, April 10. The Philippine government said the standoff began when its navy tried to detain Chinese boats fishing in its waters, but was stopped by two Chinese surveillance craft.

To prevent wars, the United States needs the best tools of peace. But right now it is missing a critical one in not approving the Law of the Sea Treaty.

Adopting this international pact, which 153 nations now follow, could come in very handy as the US tries to help end a heated conflict in East Asian waters.

Since early April, China and the Philippines have been in a tense, ship-to-ship standoff over control of a disputed shoal in the South China Sea. As a defense ally of the Philippines, the US could be obligated to assist the Philippines if China forcibly takes Scarborough Shoal.

In the past, China has shown it is willing to kill the soldiers of other countries in taking various islands in the sea. Even on Wednesday, China stated that it “has ... made all preparations to respond to any escalation of the situation by the Philippine side.”

China’s aggressive tactics to assert maritime rights and claims in the seas around its shores could be better countered if the US were on firm legal ground with a rules-based approach to resolving such disputes. To achieve that, the Senate must approve the Law of the Sea Treaty soon.

The six nations that contest the islands, reefs, and waters of the South China Sea are all signatories to the pact. But China’s interpretation of it is often vague or not widely accepted. It relies on its economic muscle to gain concessions or reject international mediation of a dispute.

Even the map that China uses to assert a claim hundreds of miles from its mainland consists of only a few ill-defined lines. In addition, it seems to prefer dealing with each claimant nation individually in hopes of avoiding a multilateral approach.

This current dispute is not just over a wave-battered shoal. The South China Sea is home to one-third of the world’s traffic in the shipping trade. Half of the world’s oil and gas runs through it. The sea may contain large stores of petroleum. In fact, China is ready to start its first deepwater oil drill in the area.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta made a plea Wednesday for the Senate to approve the treaty. He is backed up by military commanders who seek the legal protection for Navy ships to travel the high seas without harassment, as China has shown it will do.

“By moving off the sidelines and leading the discussion, we would be able to influence those treaty bodies that develop and interpret the Law of the Sea,” Mr. Panetta said.

Critics of the treaty contend it would unfairly restrict the US too much in mining the seabed for minerals. But under rules of the treaty’s International Seabed Authority, the US would be able to veto any proposed implementation of such provisions.

In 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton declared that resolution of the disputes in the South China Sea is in America’s interest. This assertion at first angered China, but it has since shown some moderation in its behavior.

Now would be a good time to further that momentum by joining the treaty. It might help bring China into honoring the international norms of the sea. Without the US officially endorsing such rules and principles, disputes like those in the South China Sea could easily escalate to war. Tools of peace are needed before that happens.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.