Responding to Attacks on the Law of the Sea Treaty

Yesterday I noted that the PTR did not seem keen to let us respond to their attack on the Law of the Sea Treaty despite the fact that they mentioned Citizens for Global Solutions in their column. By way of contrast, the Washington Times did give us the opportunity to respond to the Gaffney column they ran in their paper yesterday. FYI here is our Wash Times LTE :

Treaty could help U.S.

In his Commentary column "The U.N.'s big power grab" (yesterday), Frank Gaffney Jr. noted that my organization, Citizens for Global Solutions (CGS), supports ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea or UNCLOS).

The column raised some concerns about UNCLOS that seem misplaced.

CGS strongly believes that the UNCLOS protects the marine environment, benefits American business and helps our military. It is a set of rules for common use of the world's oceans that bolsters our national security and protects the oceans.

The U.S. military, which relies heavily on its ability to navigate on and fly freely over the sea, has been a strong advocate of UNCLOS. In absence of treaty rights, U.S. tools for protecting its navigational rights have been limited and resource-intensive.

The president has clearly stated that joining the treaty will make our country safer. The Joint Chiefs of Staff said that "from sustaining forward deployed military forces, to ensuring the security of our ports and waters as well as advancing our most important economic and foreign policy objectives it is important that the U.S. become a Party to the Convention."

No other country has more to gain from UNCLOS than the United States. We are supporting ratification for these reasons and are happy to place the arguments of its proponents against those of Mr. Gaffney.