[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.
____________________