[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 7, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2266-S2267]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


 SENATOR CLAIBORNE PELL'S SPEECH BEFORE THE GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW 
                CENTER ON THE LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION

  Mr. DODD. Madam President, on Friday, January 27, 1995, Senator 
Claiborne Pell spoke at the Georgetown University Law Center on the 
topic of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. During 
that speech, Senator Pell made a very strong case for United States 
ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty.
  As many of my colleagues may already know, Senator Pell has been a 
leading advocate for promoting the peaceful uses of the oceans for more 
than four decades. I believe he first became interested in the subject 
as a young man in the service of the U.S. Coast Guard--an interest he 
has continued to pursue with energy and imagination since he was 
elected to the Senate in 1960.
  While the national security implications associated with the Law of 
the Sea Convention have been widely discussed over the years, I do not 
believe that as much attention has been focussed on the economic 
implications of the treaty. In that regard, Senator Pell's speech on 
January 27, very clearly spelled out the economic importance of the 
treaty to the United States. I found his arguments most useful in 
gaining a fuller appreciation of the treaty's many provisions.
  I know that Senator Pell very enthusiastically endorsed President 
Clinton's decision to sign the Law of the Sea Convention and to seek 
the advice and consent of the Senate to its ratification. And, that he 
believes it to be of the utmost importance that the United States 
become a party to this important convention as soon as possible.
  I am confident that Senator Pell is willing and eager to play an 
active role in educating this body on the very important issues 
associated with the Law of the Sea Convention. I hope that the Senate 
will have an opportunity to address this subject during the 104th 
Congress.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of Senator 
Pell's speech at Georgetown University Law Center be printed in the 
Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the speech was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                   Address by Senator Claiborne Pell

       It is a great pleasure to join you here this evening at the 
     Georgetown University Law Center to discuss the United 
     Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. This is a subject 
     that is near to my heart and one that I have been involved 
     with for much of my working career.
       With its transmission to the Senate in October and entry 
     into force in November, the Convention has again moved to the 
     fore as an issue for public debate.
       These events make today's symposium particularly timely, 
     and I want to thank the organizers, and especially Mr. Eric 
     Fersht, for their outstanding work. The panels you have heard 
     from provide a truly exceptional array of information about 
     the Law of the Sea Convention.
       The initial support for this idea was led by Arvid Pardo, 
     Malta's delegate to the United Nations, with his famous 
     ``Common Heritage of Mankind'' speech before the United 
     Nations General Assembly in 1967.
       The Convention then became the interest of many people. I 
     remember particularly the ``Pacem in Maribus''--Peace on the 
     Seas--meetings organized by Elizabeth Mann Borgese.
       Her book, The Ocean Regime, published in 1968, gave written 
     expression to the ideas that were to gain a wider audience 
     through Pacem in Maribus, on their way to being embodied in 
     the negotiated texts of the Law of the Sea Convention.
       For me the dream began even earlier. It was during my 
     service in the U.S. Coast Guard during World War II that I 
     wrote my first memorandum on the subject to Admiral Waesche, 
     then Commandant of the Coast Guard. And even before that I 
     had been appointed by President Eisenhower as a Delegate to 
     the first meeting of IMCO (the International Maritime 
     Consultative Organization.)
       My service on the staff of the San Francisco Convention 
     that prepared the UN Charter, just fifty years ago this 
     summer, further confirmed me in my belief that ways could be 
     found to create a working ocean peace system.
       The Law of the Sea Convention is the product of one of the 
     more protracted negotiations in diplomatic history. When the 
     process began, the Vietnam War was nearing its peak; the Cold 
     War was at its height; it had been only five years since the 
     construction of the Berlin Wall.
       I was proud to serve as a delegate and observer to those 
     early Law of the Sea negotiations, one of the few who had 
     also attended a Pacem in Maribus meeting. My enthusiasm led 
     me in 1967 to introduce the first Senate Resolution calling 
     on the President to negotiate a Law of the Sea Convention.
       That resolution and a draft treaty that I proposed in 1969 
     led to the Seabed Arms Control treaty, which was ratified by 
     the Senate in 1972. This little-known treaty has permanently 
     removed nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction 
     from the ocean floor, which is seventy percent of the earth's 
     surface.
       It has been signed by nearly 100 countries, it works, and 
     it provides a good precedent for the Convention on the Law of 
     the Sea.
       With the Seabed Arms Control Treaty as my model, you can 
     appreciate my enthusiasm for the Law of the Sea Convention. 
     In my view there are few actions that the Senate can take in 
     the year or two ahead that can have greater long term 
     benefits for the world as a whole than to ratify this Treaty.
       The implications for world peace are enormous; the 
     potential for trade and development is equally far-reaching. 
     I hope this Convention will not be caught up in a spate of 
     politics as usual, but will be seen in the framework of a 
     renewed commitment to bipartisanship in foreign policy.
       The old saying was that ``politics stops at the water's 
     edge.'' That would be an apt motto for our consideration of 
     Law of the Sea, since its scope begins precisely at ``the 
     water's edge.''
       Let me outline just a few of the reasons that have come to 
     make me such a strong supporter of the Convention.
       Of greatest importance, the Convention will enhance our 
     national security, because it establishes as a matter of 
     international law, freedom of navigation rights that are 
     critical to our military forces.
       [[Page S2267]] At the Foreign Relations Committee's hearing 
     on the Convention in August, Admiral William Center--whom you 
     heard this morning--testified, ``The Convention underpins 
     strongly the worldwide mobility America's forces need. It 
     provides a stable legal basis for governing the world's 
     oceans. It reduces the need to fall back on a potentially 
     volatile mixture of customary practice and gunboat 
     diplomacy.''
       The Secretary of Defense, William J. Perry, also supports 
     prompt Senate action ``to send a strong signal that the 
     United States is committed to an ocean regulatory regime that 
     is guided by the rule of law.''
       I have heard arguments that the Convention's provisions on 
     freedom of navigation are not really important because they 
     reflect customary international law. I disagree with that 
     argument.
       Customary international law is inherently unstable. 
     Governments can be less scrupulous about flouting the 
     precedents of customary law, than they would be if such 
     actions are seen as violating a treaty.
       Moreover, not all governments and scholars agree that all 
     of the critical navigation rights protected by the Convention 
     are also protected by customary law.
       They regard many of those rights as contractual and, as 
     such, available only to parties to the Convention.
       For example, it was not long ago that the United States 
     claimed a territorial sea of only three miles. Now it is 
     twelve. I am certain there are countries that would like to 
     expand their territorial sea even further. Only the 
     Convention establishes limits on countries' claims to 
     territorial seas as a matter of international law.
       These navigational rights are of very real importance to 
     our armed forces. There have been recent situations where 
     even U.S. allies denied our forces transit rights in times of 
     need.
       For example, during the 1973 Yom Kippur war our ability to 
     resupply Israel was critically dependent on transit rights 
     through the Strait of Gibraltar. In 1986, U.S. aircraft 
     passed through the Strait to Strike Libyan targets in 
     response to that government's acts of terrorism directed 
     against the United States.
       On February 11, 1992, the USS BATON ROUGE (SSN689) was 
     struck by a Russian Sierra-class attack submarine while on 
     patrol in the Barent Sea, off the major naval port of 
     Murmansk. The USS BATON ROUGE, a Los Angeles-class attack 
     submarine, was submerged at a depth of 59 feet at the time of 
     the collision, in waters claimed by Russia as territorial, 
     but considered by the United States to be high seas.
       In addition, the following examples are situations where 
     having the Law of the Sea Convention in effect might have 
     made a difference:
       Between 1961 and 1970, Peru seized 74 U.S. fishing vessels 
     over disputed tuna fisheries.
       In 1986, Ecuador interfered with the USAF aircraft flight 
     over the high seas 175 miles from the Ecuadorian coast.
       Since 1986, Peru has repeatedly challenged U.S. aircraft 
     flying over its claimed 200 nautical mile territorial sea. 
     During several of these challenges, the Peruvian aircraft 
     operated in a manner that unnecessarily and intentionally 
     endangered the safety of the transiting U.S. aircraft and its 
     crew.
       This includes an incident where a U.S. C-130 was fired upon 
     and a U.S. service member was killed.
       In 1986, two Cuban MIG-21 aircraft intercepted a USCG HU-
     25A Falcon flying outside of its 12 nautical mile territorial 
     sea, claiming it had entered Cuban Flight Information Region 
     (FIR) without permission.
       In 1988, Soviet warships intentionally ``bumped'' two U.S. 
     warships engaged in innocent passage south of Sevastopol in 
     the Black Sea.
       In 1984, Mexican Navy vessels approached U.S. Coast Guard 
     vessels operating outside Mexican territorial waters and 
     interfered with valid USCG law enforcement activities.
       Libyan claims to the Gulf of Sidra have resulted in 
     repeated challenges and hostile action against U.S. forces 
     operating in high seas.
       During the 1980's, transits of the Northwest Passage by the 
     USCG POLAR SEA and POLAR STAR were challenged by the Canadian 
     government.
       I do not doubt that, if necessary, the United States Navy 
     will sail where it needs to to protect U.S. interests. But, 
     if we reject the Convention, preservation of these rights in 
     non-wartime situations will carry an increasingly heavy price 
     for the United States.
       By remaining outside of the Convention, the United States 
     will have to challenge excessive claims by other states not 
     only diplomatically, but also through conduct that opposes 
     these claims. A widely ratified Convention would 
     significantly reduce the need for such expensive operations.
       it would also afford us a durable platform of principle to 
     ensure support from the American people and our allies when 
     we confront claims we regard as illegal.
       The Convention's provisions on freedom of navigation are 
     also vitally important to the U.S. economy and the thousands 
     of U.S. workers whose jobs are dependent on exports and 
     imports. We live in an interdependent world, and 80 percent 
     of trade between nations in this interdependent world is 
     carried by ship.
       Oil is one example of this. In 1993, 44 percent of U.S. 
     petroleum products supplied came from imported oil. This oil 
     was carried on tankers that every day pass through straits, 
     territorial waters, and exclusive economic zones of other 
     nations.
       The U.S. has a vital interest in the stability of the 
     international legal order that serves as the basis for this 
     commerce. We also have an interest in avoiding higher prices 
     for consumers and job losses that can result from costly 
     coastal state restrictions on navigation.
       The benefits of the Convention extend to many other areas. 
     Protection of submarine cables is one example. The new fiber 
     optic cables that connect the United States to other 
     countries are crucial for international communications and 
     our increasingly information-based economy.
       These cables are enormously expensive. A new fiber optic 
     cable connecting the United States to Japan can carry up to 
     one million simultaneous telephone calls, and is valued at 
     $1.3 billion. The total value of existing cables is measured 
     in the many billions of dollars.
       When these cables are broken, U.S. companies, and 
     ultimately U.S. consumers, incur huge repair costs. The 
     Convention contains new provisions that strengthen the 
     obligation of all states to take measures to protect the 
     cables, and cable owners.
       Past U.S. concerns with the Convention's provisions on deep 
     seabed mining--concerns that had prevented the United States 
     from signing the Convention--were resolved in an agreement 
     signed in July at the United Nations in New York.
       Earlier today, you heard about this subject from Wes 
     Scholz, the head of the U.S. delegation to the negotiations 
     on the Part XI Agreement. He and his negotiating team did a 
     truly superb job in adjusting the Convention's provisions on 
     seabed mining to provide a workable framework for the 21st 
     century.
       Looking to the future, U.S. interests in the Convention lie 
     not only in what it is today, but in what it may become. Just 
     as form and substance have been given our Constitution by the 
     courts, so too will future uses of the oceans be influenced 
     and shaped by decisions made under the Convention.
       With the Convention's entry into force last November 16th, 
     the United States stands on the threshold of a new era in 
     oceans policy. Under the Convention, U.S. national interests 
     in the world's oceans would be protected as a matter of law. 
     This is a success of U.S. foreign policy that will work to 
     our benefit in the decades to come.
       The question on many people's minds now is: will the Senate 
     act on the Convention during this, the 104th Congress?
       I think that those who support the treaty should help make 
     the case for its approval. The benefits of the Convention are 
     many. We should not be shy in making them known. The 
     consequences of not ratifying the Convention are also many. 
     Those too should be made known.
       Over the past 25 years, the Convention and its supporters 
     have overcome many obstacles. The same tenacity and 
     commitment that brought the Convention to where it is today 
     will be needed to take the Convention the next step.
       U.S. ratification of the Convention may not come quickly, 
     but I am confident it will come. It is up to us to make that 
     happen sooner rather than later. And when it happens, that 
     for me will be a nearly life-long dream come true.
     

                          ____________________