Bryant Jordon for Military.com wrote:
Pentagon: Sea Treaty in U.S. Interests
Military.com | By Bryant Jordan | December 11, 2007
The U.S. is not about to go to war with Canada over the possibility our northern neighbor will bar liquid natural gas tanker ships from passing through Canadian waters to New England -- a restriction that would impose a severe hardship on the region.
Nor is the administration going to invade Australia, even though our down-under ally demands the right to put an Aussie pilot aboard any ship -- including American -- passing through the Torres Straits running between the island continent and Papua New Guinea.
But with the U.S. facing these prospects the only way to resolve them is by the country signing onto the Law of the Sea Treaty, which 155 countries already have joined, according to Navy Capt. Patrick J. Neher, director of the Navy’s International and Operational Law Office of the Judge Advocate General.
"This is pretty serious stuff," Neher said during an interview with military bloggers Dec. 10. He said Australia is asserting a regulatory right over the waterway improperly, and threatens that any violator is subject to arrest and their ship held.
"Now we're not going to roll the 7th Fleet into Sydney Harbor to compel Australia to roll back their illegal [regulation]," he said. "But what we can do if we were party to the [treaty] is use the dispute resolution process ... and I'm confident we would win."
Same with Canada's plans to keep American LNG tankers from passing through Head Harbor Passage en route to Maine, said Coast Guard Capt. Charles D. Michel, chief of the Office of Maritime and International Law.
Diplomacy hasn't worked, he said, noting that the Canadian prime minister reportedly "blew off President Bush" when he weighed in to resolve the problem, and it's highly unlikely the U.S. will use military force against Canada.
That leaves dispute resolution, which is part of the Law of the Sea Treaty, he said.
According to a Navy story on the Law of the Sea Treaty, the agreement was negotiated between 1973 and 1982 in order to update the customary law of the sea that dates from the 1600s. The U.S. helped bring about the treaty but has never signed onto it because of concerns it would be giving up sovereignty or losing rights it has long held under the historical, customary law.
According to Neher, however, the U.S. stands to lose its role as a leader in determining sea law by not joining in the treaty.
"There is a fundamental disconnect [in] trying to lead an alliance of nations to maintain public order on the world's oceans when you're one of the handful of countries … that aren't parties to that convention," he said.
The Defense Department has come out squarely in favor of the U.S. joining the treaty, which Never and Michel said guarantees right of passage through some of the most strategic areas. In June, the Joint Chiefs of Staff wrote to the Senate, urging it to support the treat
I liked this article because the US is going to sign a treaty that it has issues with and use the built in dispute resolution process that the treaty has instead of just taking a "fuck you, we'll go our own way" attitutde. What a novel and civilized idea.
Okay, maybe it can be read that the US is going with the treaty and doing things this way because it'll be screwed if it doesn't sign the treaty but I prefer to go with the more optimistic interpretation.
I did think "rolling the 7th fleet into Sydney harbor" made for an intesting image.
By the pricking of my thumb,
Something wicked this way comes.
Open, locks,
Whoever knocks.
It won't be signed. Why? If you want to mine or drill for oil outside of contnental shelves, you have to get permission from a "international organization" outlined in the treaty, and pay them tax.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
MKSheppard wrote:It won't be signed. Why? If you want to mine or drill for oil outside of contnental shelves, you have to get permission from a "international organization" outlined in the treaty, and pay them tax.
And God forbid the US of A should admit they are anything other than the undisputed Rulers of the World?
This message approved by the sages Anon and Ibid.
Any views expressed herein are my own unless otherwise noted, and very likely wrong.
I shave with Occam's Razor.
I would laugh in some alternate timeline that lacked iraq the US actually decided to conquer canada (cause that's what would happen) and blockade sydney. It'd be funny just because of all the place to conquer it'd make more sense. Canada has natural reasources up the wazoo, is bigger, has an much much much smaller army, and population and is culturally far similar than Iraq. Probably would fuck over the US on the international scene but it'd be interesting to see anyway.
I am the hammer, I am the right hand of my Lord. The instrument of His will and the gauntlet about His fist. The tip of His spear, the edge of His sword. I am His wrath just as he is my shield. I am the bane of His foes and the woe of the treacherous. I am the end.
-Ravus Ordo Militis
"Fear and ignorance claim the unwary and the incomplete. The wise man may flinch away from their embrace if he girds his soul with the armour of contempt."
MKSheppard wrote:If you want to mine or drill for oil outside of contnental shelves, you have to get permission from a "international organization" outlined in the treaty, and pay them tax.
From where I'm standing its fairly hilarious to see this being considered a bad thing. Oh no, an international organization regulates the things you can and cannot do in international waters! What a dreadful idea!
Booo! No treaty! Solve all problems by burning down Sydney with a punitive expedition!
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
RIPP_n_WIPE wrote:I would laugh in some alternate timeline that lacked iraq the US actually decided to conquer canada (cause that's what would happen) and blockade sydney. It'd be funny just because of all the place to conquer it'd make more sense. Canada has natural reasources up the wazoo, is bigger, has an much much much smaller army, and population and is culturally far similar than Iraq. Probably would fuck over the US on the international scene but it'd be interesting to see anyway.
"My fellow Amerikans, Canada was the source of primary funding for the terrorist who attacked us on Sept 11. Their people are repressed by their Socialistic government, we must bring out neighbors to the north the light of Democracy! We must get them to give up their hockey and love of cheese and have them embrace baseball and apple pie!"
Meh...we should have signed the Sea Treaty sometime ago. I never understood (very clearly anyway) why the US would help create certain international treaties.....then not sign it. Doesn't that somewhat show you don't really believe in it, thus making incentive for other countries to not sign it?
XBL: Darek Silver | Wii Friend: 5602 6414 0598 0225 LibriumArcana - Roleplaying, Fiction, Irreverence Trekker (TOS, TNG/DS9-Era) | Warsie (semi-movie purist) | B5'er | TransFan Cult of Vin Diesel: While it is well known that James Earl Jones performed the voice of Darth Vader, it is less appreciated that Vin Diesel performs the voice of James Earl Jones.
