• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • U.N. Doesn’t Give America Its “Seat at the Table” in Maritime Disputes

    Call it the old “seat at the table” argument. The U.S. Senate should ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the argument goes, in order to give America “a seat at the table” in resolving maritime disputes. It’s an argument that has been made so many times that even its proponents no longer understand it.

    Recent developments in the South China Sea indicate that at best American support for UNCLOS is irrelevant to managing, let alone resolving, disputes in the Western Pacific.

    Commander of U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) Admiral Robert F. Willard testified this week before the Senate Armed Services Committee that “…China does not make legal claims to this entire body of water…” (the several bodies of water that China calls its “near seas”). When it comes to at least one of these seas—the South China Sea—the statement is meaningless.

    Admiral Willard notes—and he would know—that China does “seek to restrict or exclude foreign, in particular, U.S., military maritime and air activities” in the South China Sea. A number of incidents over the last couple years point vividly to this problem. And China often uses legal arguments to explain its behavior.

    But China’s underlying sovereignty claims are not just “legal.” They are historical. In 2009, the Chinese circulated the famous nine-dash map that lays out its historical claim to virtually all of the South China Sea. That provoked a complaint from Indonesia. Indonesia is not generally considered one of the claimants in the South China Sea dispute. However, it objected because while it sees no threat in China’s legal claims, the historical claims represented by the nine-dash map include Indonesian waters.

    Now the Philippines has formally registered an objection to the Chinese sovereignty grab, to which the Chinese have responded by citing both the legal and historical bases for their claims.

    This brings us back to Admiral Willard’s statement. The legal basis of China’s claims to the South China Sea is meaningless as long as it maintains an alternative historical case. This also means that UNCLOS—which Admiral Willard gently urged the Senate to ratify—is irrelevant to settlement of the dispute. In fact, the treaty’s filing deadlines and apparent wiggle room on things like “Exclusive Economic Zones” (EEZ) and baseline determinations seem to have exacerbated the conflict.

    The fact that UNCLOS is not ameliorating the disputes in China’s other “near seas” points to its lack of utility there, too. In his testimony, Admiral Willard bemoans China’s challenge to “accepted interpretations of international law.” The Chinese contention that UNCLOS restricts U.S. military activity in foreign EEZs is shared in some fashion by 26 other nations. Granted, this is a distinct minority of the 160 parties to the treaty, but it does indicate that the “accepted interpretations” of UNCLOS are not rejected only by the Chinese. And today, the Chinese are often better than the U.S. at persuading neighbors of the error of their ways.

    It is the U.S. Navy, overseas bases and security allies—not the United Nations—that dictate the U.S. have “a seat at the table” in managing maritime disputes. So if the Administration wants to do something to shore up the U.S. position in the Western Pacific, President Obama would spend his political capital better by fully funding the Navy’s shipbuilding budget and laying off the defense cuts.

    And allow the Law of the Sea to rest peacefully at the bottom of the Senate.

    Posted in International [slideshow_deploy]

    4 Responses to U.N. Doesn’t Give America Its “Seat at the Table” in Maritime Disputes

    1. West Texan says:

      You're absolutely correct. The only voice we need to resolve maritime disputes is a well funded and equipped Navy.

    2. Dave Aldridge, Dayton says:

      Teddy Rosevelt (sp) was absolutely correct when he said, ” Speak softly, but carry a big stick”. Our “big stick” is the US Navy in this case. We can’t project power if what we put out there is old and can’t be kept running. We have to modernize and continue to replace our aging fleet or we will be “stickless”.

    3. Beacon01 says:

      We all kknow that there are the worst of thieves working in the UN (i.e. oil for food program). These people can be bought by China, or any other big money country or person (George Soros). So this could be at the heart of the U.N. not letting America at the table of Meritime Issues. there is no other logical reason. So, maybe a good journalist will follow the money.

    4. Wes in cincy says:

      You would be foolish to believe much of anything that China says.

      If they can't get their way by cheating or lying, then they try to get it by buying.

      They are surely the chief crooks of the Orient.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.