Center for a New American Security

On Wednesday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the national security and strategic rationale for ratifying the Law of the Sea Convention. (See their full remarks here.)

The hearing was the first of three planned ones, according to reports. The other hearings – not yet scheduled – will include high-ranking military officials building on the national security message and representatives from the business community making the economic case for ratifying the convention.

Photo: Courtesy of the Department of Defense. 

Later this morning the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will examine the national security and strategic imperatives for ratifying the Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC). Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey are scheduled to testify. (View the live webcast here starting at 10 AM.)

In preparation for today’s hearing, below is a primer on what I see as the national security rationale for ratifying LOSC. As I have written before here on the blog and in a recent policy brief on Security at Sea, ratifying the convention will serve a range of national security interests. For example:

• Ratification would lock in critical navigational rights and other customary practices that are codified in the treaty and, perhaps more importantly, give the United States a seat at the table to rebuff attempts by rising maritime powers to redefine or reinterpret practices that have been so beneficial to the global economy and U.S. national interests, such as the right of military vessels to exercise innocent passage through a coastal state’s territorial waters.

• Ratification would strengthen the ability of the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard to do their job and work with others to protect U.S. interests, including counterproliferation and counterpiracy missions, by grounding those activities in international law. Indeed, as Secretary of Defense Panetta recently remarked, “Treaty law remains the firmest legal foundation upon which to base our global presence, on, above, and below the seas.”

• Ratification would allow the United States to lay sovereign claim to the potentially trillion dollars of deep-sea oil, natural gas and mineral resources on our extended continental shelf – an area beyond our current 200-nautical mile jurisdiction – through an internationally recognized claim to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. Accessing these resources is ever more important in promoting U.S. domestic energy and minerals production and all the benefits that would accrue to U.S. economic and national security.

• Finally, ratification will put the United States in a position of strengthen and restore its maritime leadership in strategic regions around the globe, including the Arctic and the South China Sea. Being party to the treaty would allow the United States to secure its right to resources in the Arctic, take part in crucial conversations at the Arctic Council and rebuff attempts by other powers to infringe on U.S. interests. Ratifying the treaty would also give the U.S. more credibility with allies over the dispute in the South China Sea by encouraging those in the region to abide by the treaty’s laws and seek resolution through the convention’s recognized legal framework. As Secretary Panetta put it recently, “How can we argue that other nations must abide by international rules, when we haven’t officially accepted those rules.”  

To learn more, check out our recent study, Security at Sea: The Case for Ratifying the Law of the Sea Convention.

For additional resources, visit The American Sovereignty Campaign. 

Afghan poppy production is on the rise in some areas and may indicate backsliding in crucial provinces that have seen security gains in recent years. According to a report from McClatchy on Saturday, Nangarhar province has been heralded by U.S. and Afghan officials as a success story in recent years due to the successful routing of Taliban insurgents and near-eradication of poppy crops that dominated the province. Nangarhar, a major financial and political hub, has carried strategic significance for U.S. and coalition forces, according to the McClatchy report: “The province controls the centuries-old trade – and invasion – corridor that runs from Pakistan’s port of Karachi through the fabled Khyber Pass to Kabul, and north to Central Asia.”

The successful counterinsurgency and poppy eradication efforts there provided U.S. and Afghan officials with a success story that they believed could also be used as a model for the other 33 Afghan provinces. However, the success in Nangarhar appears to be short lived.

“The tide has since turned,” McClatchy reported on Saturday. “Poppy growing is rising, as is support for the insurgency, fueled in part by a harsh government poppy-eradication drive that’s sparked clashes and led some farmers to sow land mines. Many people fear that one of the most crucial provinces will only slip deeper into bloodshed and corruption as U.S. troops withdraw.”

The growth in poppy production also bodes poorly for other U.S. and international development projects that have sought to wean Afghan farmers off a dependence on poppy in lieu of food crops that could help feed famished Afghans. Poppy remains a valuable cash crop, even more so after a 2010 decline in opium production, largely resulting for a disease that attacked poppy crops. According to McClatchy, before 2010, opium sold for approximately US$165 per kilogram. Now it earns farmers as much as US$400 per kilogram.

From Global INT @globalint2040: “Huge finds make East Africa the next big gas source uk.reuters.com/article/2012/0… via@Reuters.”

Global INT links to a Reuters report of a major gas find off the coasts of Mozambique and Tanzania that could make East Africa the next major exporter of liquefied natural gas to places like Asia. One of the blocs off the coast of Mozambique is estimated to hold up to 52 trillion cubic feet of gas, enough to meet the gas demands of France, Germany, Britain and Italy for five years, the report notes.

From The New York Times Science section @nytimesscience: “Hawaii’s Beaches Are in Retreat, and Way of Life May Follownyti.ms/JBmQoK.”

The New York Times reports on recent findings for the U.S. Geological Survey that found that erosion along Hawaii’s iconic beaches could accelerate as a result of sea level rise, imperiling coastal communities. According to one geologist at the University of Hawaii, scientists are encouraging coastal communities to retreat away from the beaches in order to adapt to this changing environment. One has to wonder how easy that is in practice, especially for major installations like the U.S. Navy’s bases in Honolulu and elsewhere.

From Circle of Blue @circleofblue: “Losses from natural disasters set to outpace economic growth in some countries: @AlertNet su.pr/2WcNEl#water #economy.”

Circle of Blue links to a story in Reuters that says a new study reports that economic losses from natural disasters will likely outpace economic growth in the world’s low- and middle-income countries. This could have devastating consequences for countries the United States is seeking to develop strategic partnerships with, including Vietnam and others. What is more, one has to wonder where Myanmar fits into this picture, a country that could potentially experience significant economic growth over the next decade through foreign investment and gradual relaxation of western sanctions, but that lies in a natural disaster prone region where more than 70 percent of the workforce relies on agricultural development for their income. (Cyclone Nargis upended agricultural communities in the Irrawaddy valley back in 2008, for example.)

There is some evidence that western sanctions on Iranian oil exports are taking a toll on the Islamic republic, even months before the sanctions go completely into effect in July. “Hobbled by sanctions against its banks and a growing international boycott of its petroleum, Iran is seeing its revenue sag while its oil sits in storage depots and floats in tankers with nowhere to go,” The Washington Post reports.

According to estimates by the Telegraph, approximately 19 of the National Iranian Tanker Company’s 34 oil tankers are lying idle off Iran, valued at about US$2.95 billion. “The fact that Iran is using valuable tankers for storage suggests that onshore holding facilities at Kharg Island, believed to have a capacity of 23 million barrels, must also be full,” according to the Telegraph. That holding facility could be storing an additional US$2.05 billion worth of idle oil. Moreover, Iran has become increasingly dependent on its own fleet of oil tankers since “One key impact of recent sanctions has been to choke off shippers’ access to maritime insurance, nearly all of which is underwritten in Europe,” according to The Washington Post.

On Wednesday, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta joined Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey and Senators John Warner and Chuck Hagel in a forum on the Law of the Sea Convention hosted by the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Atlantic Council. Secretary Panetta urged the U.S. Senate to ratify the Law of the Sea Convention in order to protect U.S. security interests. “Treaty law remains the firmest legal foundation upon which to base our global presence, on, above, and below the seas,” Secretary Panetta said, adding “How can we argue that other nations must abide by international rules, when we haven’t officially accepted those rules.”  

To learn more about the national security rationale for ratifying the Law of the Sea Convention, see our recent study Security at Sea.

Photo: Secretary Panetta addresses the audience of the Forum on the Law of the Sea on Wednesday, May 9, 2010. Courtesy of Glenn Fawcett and the Department of Defense. 

On Monday, Chinese media reported that China’s first deep-water drilling rig (developed domestically by the state-run China National Offshore Oil Corporation) will begin operations today in the South China Sea.

To date, China’s offshore oil drilling activities have been restricted to shallow waters (less than 300 meters deep) largely due to the country’s lack of technological capability to drill in deep- and ultra-deep waters. According to one report, China State Shipbuilding Corporation – the company that developed the new rig – says that China will now be able to drill to depths of between 10,000 and 12,000 meters, possibly eclipsing the record set in 2009 by the Deepwater Horizon rig that could drill to 10,683 meters.

The technological milestone is an important development in the South China Sea dispute, where competition over potentially lucrative deep-water oil and natural gas reserves has raised tensions among countries with overlapping claims in the region. China, for example, claims the entire South China Sea as its own. The deep- and ultra-deep water drilling capability will unlock reserves in deep waters, according to reports. Chinese media reports that “About 70 percent of oil and gas reserves in the resource-rich South China Sea is [sic] contained in 1.54 million square km of deep-water regions, or sea areas with depths of over 300 meters.”

Japanese officials shutdown the last of 50 nuclear reactors late Saturday evening, taking the country off of nuclear power for the first time in more than four decades. Most of Japan’s nuclear reactors will remain idle for the foreseeable future as they undergo stress tests to determine their ability to stand up against a major disaster, a measure introduced after the March 2011 triple disaster that crippled the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant and left the country’s nuclear-power future in a tailspin.  

Japanese officials remain concerned that the country could experience electricity shortages during the peak summer months without nuclear power, which previously provided approximately 30 percent of Japan’s total electricity demand. A panel of experts reported to Japanese policymakers in April that nine utilities could see electricity shortfalls in August. As a result, Japanese officials may power up two reactors during the summer in order to meet electricity demand. The Japanese Times reports that “Last month, Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda and key members of his Cabinet decided that firing up the No. 3 and 4 reactors at the Oi power station is essential to ensure a stable supply of electricity in the Kansai region in summertime,” even as the country continues to reduce its reliance on nuclear power. It is not clear if those two reactors will be back online by the summer.

Dr. Jay Gulledge is a Senior Scientist and Director of the Science and Impacts Program at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, and a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the Center for a New America Security. He is a co-author (with Dr. Rob Huebert) of Climate Change & National Security: The Arctic as a Bellwether, a new study published by the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. 

 
Today the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions – C2ES, formerly the Pew Center on Global Climate Change – is releasing a new report, Climate Change & National Security: The Arctic as a Bellwether. The lead author of the report is Dr. Rob Huebert, Associate Director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary.

Official military doctrine in the United States now holds that “climate change, energy security, and economic stability are inextricably linked.” Nowhere is this linkage more clearly illustrated than in the Arctic, and that’s why we think the region is a bellwether for how climate change may reshape global geopolitics in the post-Cold War era.

As the planet has warmed over the past few decades, temperatures in the Arctic have been increasing at about twice the global rate. And the Arctic sea ice cover has been shrinking much faster than scientists anticipated. The five smallest sea ice covers ever recorded have all occurred in the past five summers. As a result, the Northwest Passage through the Canadian Archipelago has opened up every summer since 2007, and the Northeast Passage along Russia’s coastline has opened up every summer since 2008.

New and expanded shipping routes through the Arctic can cut the distance to transport goods between Asia, North America, and Europe by up to 4000 miles. We’re seeing increased interest and investment in oil and gas exploration. The United States Geological Survey estimates that 30 percent of the world’s undiscovered gas and 13 percent of undiscovered oil lies in the Arctic. Russia likely possesses the largest share of any country. There’s also growing interest in tourism and fishing.

As the economic potential of the Arctic becomes more apparent, governments and militaries have begun to reposition themselves. What’s happening in the Arctic is the starkest example yet of the way climate change directly affects international security. 

There has been a lot of activity in the South China Sea recently, and if you’re like me it is difficult to keep track of it all. Well luckily you don’t have to! Our Asia-Pacific Security team is doing it for you. That’s right: checkout our Flashpoints feature, an online web portal for those studying security in the East and South China Seas, for the latest developments in the region. I particularly recommend the timeline feature.

Also, if you didn’t already seen it, don’t miss Patrick Cronin’s op-ed in The New York Times on Wednesday where he puts the latest Philippine-China Scarborough Shoal scuffle in perspective and recommends how U.S. policymakers should think about engaging in the region.  

Photo: Courtesy of CNAS.org. 

 
Later this morning CNAS will release a new policy brief that explores the national security and foreign policy benefits of ratifying the Law of the Sea Convention.

Download Security at Sea: The Case for Ratifying the Law of the Sea Convention here.

While the United States has to date protected its maritime interests without ratifying the Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC) – relying instead on the protections afforded by customary international law – the rise of modern navies and unconventional security threats are making this approach increasingly risky and will imperil U.S. national security interests. LOSC is the only global maritime regime that codifies longstanding maritime norms that are consistent with U.S. interests and protects the status quo. By failing to ratify LOSC, the United States forfeits its ability to shape the interpretation and execution of the convention and protect the provisions that support the existing international order, with consequences that will last for decades. Ratifying the treaty would demonstrate that the United States is serious about upholding international norms on maritime issues at a time when rising powers are challenging existing rules at sea and, as a result, American interests.

But what are those interests? How will LOSC specifically help the United States secure its access to the maritime domain, and achieve broader foreign policy and national security goals? That is the subject of Security at Sea. And while the list of benefits is extensive - and my effort to explore the benefits is by no means exhaustive - there are some specific security issues that I think will resonate with U.S. policymakers. As I argue in the policy brief, ratifying the treaty will:

• Strengthen U.S. counterpiracy and counter weapons of mass destruction proliferation missions;
• Increase America's ability to protect its interests in the Arctic, the South China Sea and the Caribbean Sea; and
• Protect and enhance U.S. sovereignty by allowing the United States to make internationally recognized sovereign claims to its extended continental shelf and the natural resources lying beneath the seabed, including oil and natural gas reserves that will bolster U.S. domestic energy production.

While LOSC is no silver bullet – it won’t help address every challenge that the United States will confront at sea – ratifying the treaty will improve America’s ability to protect many of its global interests by providing a stronger legal foundation for its own maritime activities and helping to shape and enforce international norms and legal authorities. It is time for the U.S. Senate to ratifying LOSC and allow the United States to take advantage of the benefits that will accrue to American interests.

The South China Sea dispute is once again in the headlines, with notable developments that are raising some concerns about increased tensions in the region. On Saturday, Reuters reported that the Chinese military issued the sternest warning to date regarding U.S. military involvement in the territorial dispute, in part due to combined exercises with the Philippine military. “China's official Liberation Army Daily warned that recent jostling with the Philippines over disputed seas where both countries have sent ships could boil over into outright conflict, and laid much of the blame at Washington's door,” the Reuters report stated, adding: 

‘Anyone with clear eyes saw long ago that behind these drills is reflected a mentality that will lead the South China Sea issue down a fork in the road towards military confrontation and resolution through armed force,’ said the commentary in the Chinese paper, which is the chief mouthpiece of the People's Liberation Army.

 

‘Through this kind of meddling and intervention, the United States will only stir up the entire South China Sea situation towards increasing chaos, and this will inevitably have a massive impact on regional peace and stability.’

On Sunday, Commander of the U.S. Marines in the Pacific Lieutenant General Duane Thiessen reiterated the United States’ defense commitment to the Philippines. In a statement to reporters on Palawan Island, Lieutenant General Thiessen said, “The United States and the Philippines have a mutual defense treaty which guarantees that we get involved in each other's defense and that is self explanatory,” according to a report by ABS-CBSNews.com.