Steve Forbes: Sink the Law of the Sea Treaty

Steve Forbes says in recent a commentary that the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) should be torpedoed:

"The U.S. Navy and American shipping interests support LOST because, they say, it codifies the principle of freedom of navigation. But those rights already exist under traditional maritime law. And what makes those freedoms real is not a new piece of U.N. paper, but the might of our Navy."

"In fact," Forbes adds, "the treaty could impede what we do now because of ambiguous language concerning submarines and the gathering of military intelligence. LOST was designed to put the Earth's oceans under the control of the U.N."

In essence, the treaty would regulate deep-sea mining, maritime transit, fishing, pollution and oceanic research. Furthermore, it would establish the International Seabed Authority (ISA), which would act as a de facto world court.

Under treaty provisions, the ISA would be the first and final judge of deep-sea disputes. It would get into the mining business itself with forced subsidies from private companies.

But, warns Forbes, "With its cut of profits, royalties and fees, the ISA would also be a redistribute-the-wealth mechanism for 'deserving’ developing countries."

"Sensible senators should strangle this resurrected beast," admonishes Forbes. "The supposed fixes don't really deal with the convention's fundamental flaws, starting with the basic notion that the sea – and by precedent, space – should be managed by U.N. bureaucrats.

"LOST's structures – already in place but so far 'inadequately' funded, at least until Uncle Sam opens his checkbook – read like names in a C-grade version of the movie Star Wars: the International Seabed Authority; its mining subsidiary, the Enterprise; the Council; the Assembly; the Finance Committee; and so on. All these would decide who mines what and where in the ocean – and at a stiff price.

"How do you think American interests would fare in today's environment?”

However, administration officials claim LOST won't hurt U.S. military activities.

"But who's to say how the White House's claim will be respected by yet another U.N.-created, highly politicized, anti-U.S. body?" asks Forbes.

"Someday ocean mining may become cost-effective on a major scale. Then the U.S. and other countries can negotiate an appropriate treaty concerning recognition of claims and adjudication of disputes ŕ la today's World Trade Organization.

"In any case, we don't need the U.N., which was recently implicated in a multibillion-dollar scandal concerning the Iraq Oil-for-Food aid program, to do this job."

Editor's note: