c*******2
发帖数: 617 | 1 Why the US Will Not Sign the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
by Ken Meyercord / May 4th, 2016
Critics of American foreign policy love to point out instances where our
policy reeks of hypocrisy. No current issue in international affairs affords
a better illustration of our inconsistent sanctimoniousness than the
dispute over competing claims to insular territories (whether to call them
“islands” or “rocks” is of great significance, as we shall see) in the
South China Sea.
Symptomatic of our hypocrisy on this issue, we protest Chinese “aggressive
” actions in the area by sailing the Seventh Fleet through the territorial
waters of atolls turned into landing-strips to demonstrate our commitment to
protecting freedom of navigation. Yet we refuse to sign the UN’s
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the international effort to
formalize the rules governing freedom of navigation on the high seas. The
convention, which has been around since 1982, has been ratified by over 160
UN member states, including China, but not by the U.S. of A.
Opponents of the UNCLOS, like Senators Portman and Ayotte, contend that the
convention infringes on US sovereignty, in particular with regard to its
provision for international arbitration of disputes (keep that in mind when
the Permanent Court of Arbitration rules on a suit brought by the
Philippines over China’s claims in the South China Sea). But I believe the
main reason for our unwillingness to ratify the UNCLOS lies elsewhere.
The convention makes a distinction between “islands”, which can support
human habitation, and “rocks”, which cannot. The territorial waters around
either type of sea-bound outcrop can be claimed up to 12-miles out, but a
200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) can only be claimed around an island,
not a rock.
We have a number of possessions in the Pacific, formally called US Minor
Outlying Islands, around which we claim EEZs. Here’s a map showing them:
indexMost of these possessions were acquired in the late 19th century under
the Guano Islands Act of 1856. There was a gold rush, so to speak, for guano
deposits at the time as the phosphate-rich bird poop was much sought after
as a fertilizer. The act authorized any American captain who stumbled on an
uninhabited, unclaimed island covered in guano to claim it in the name of
the United States. Under the act dozens of islands came into America’s
possession, most of which we gave up once an island had been stripped clean,
literally. Currently, none of our outlying islands have permanent residents.
As can be seen, the EEZs around these outlying “islands” cover a sizeable
area. In fact, the projection used causes the EEZs in the South Pacific to
look smaller than they actually are compared to zones in more northern
latitudes. Just one of the equatorial EEZs, that around the Howland and
Baker Islands, is larger than the EEZ off the California coast.
indexUnder UNCLOS, many of these “islands” would be deemed mere rocks, not
entitled to EEZs. The same is probably true of some of the “islands” in
the Aleutian Islands chain. Hence, ratification of the Convention on the Law
of the Sea would result in a significant diminution of our Exclusive
Economic Zones, something our world-beaters are not likely to agree to
readily.
Despite the rocky grounds for many of our own claims, we pooh-pooh Chinese
claims based on similar grounds. I recently heard a former Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense, Kathleen Hicks, belittle China’s claim to the
Scarborough Shoal because it is almost underwater at high tide (see this
video at the 2:55:26 minute mark); yet we claim not only the territorial
waters but also an EEZ around a reef in the Hawaiian Islands chain, Maro
Reef, which is entirely submerged, even at LOW tide.
As mentioned previously, the Philippines has taken China to court over its
claims in the South China Sea. The court in question, the Permanent Court of
Arbitration, is often referred to in the press as a “UN tribunal” to give
it greater cachet, but, in fact, it is not part of the UN, being a body
created in 1899 when imperialism ruled the waves. No wonder China refuses to
participate in the proceedings (a Palestinian in an Israeli court stands a
better chance) and will no doubt ignore an adverse ruling. If so, you can
count on our media howling about China flaunting the rule of law, how
outraged the “the international community” (read “NATO”) is, and the
like.
Perhaps some courageous, soon-to-be-unemployed journalist will be brave
enough to point out that when Nicaragua took us before the International
Court of Justice – an actual UN body – over our mining of their harbors
and other offenses, we refused to participate in the proceedings, claiming
the court did not have jurisdiction. When the court ruled against us, we
blocked enforcement of the ruling through our veto in the Security Council.
Embarrassingly, in light of current posturing, one of the charges levelled
against us was interrupting peaceful maritime commerce – this by the self-
proclaimed protector of freedom of navigation in the western Pacific.
To the uninformed (read “Kathleen Hicks”), it will seem obvious to whom
sovereignty over the Scarborough Shoal belongs. Just look at how close they
are to the Philippines and how far from China.
Ms. Hicks has probably never heard of Navassa Island, another Guano Islands
Act possession of ours (see the map of US EEZs above). It lies far from our
shores but just off the coast of Haiti, which also claims it. We’ve shown
no willingness to give up the former El Dorado of avian defecation simply
based on geography.
Similarly, when bemoaning how far China’s nine-dash-line delineating its
claims in the South China Sea (shown as a solid red line above) extends from
the Chinese mainland, we should consider what a line encompassing our own
far-flung possessions would look like. Our line, like China’s, would
reflect past naval exploits, not proximity to ours or someone else’s coast,
and our line would extend much farther from our mainland than China’s does
from theirs.
Adopting a conveniently faulty memory, we call for peaceful resolution of
the disputes and require all disputants (read “China”) to refrain from
aggressive actions, like populating disputed territories, but in 1935 we
secretly started placing settlers on Howland, Baker, and Jarvis Islands,
former Guano Islands Act possessions long forgotten and by then of lapsed
and uncertain ownership. After a year of surreptitious colonizing, President
Roosevelt revealed the sneaky scheme and proclaimed the islands American
territory. That sort of behavior would not be condoned under the Convention
on the Law of the Sea, another reason our wily buccaneers will not sign it.
Ken Meyercord is the author of The Ethic of Zero Growth. He is a retiree who
lives in the Washington, DC area where he heads up The Iconoclast's Book
Club. He can be reached at: [email protected]/* */ Read other articles by Ken. |
|
