I've written on this subject before, but I agree with this editorial. Why in the world is the administration supporting the Law of the Sea Treaty? Is it Powell's State Department, and no one else is paying attention?

As has been the case in the past, I have to differ with you on this point Rand. I presume we're supporting the LOS because it clarifies territorial boundaries. This is important for national security reasons in terms of our authority over vessels as they approach the coast, and is important in terms of creating clear boundaries for trade routes through many parts of the world. Clear territorial boundaries also help alleviate tensions in places where otherwise "incursions" could be used as a justification for aggressive retaliations (think North/South Korea, the South China Sea, Indonesia, and other areas in Asia where there are still disputes over boundaries and sovereign territory).

The LOS is far from perfect, but since it seems like no one is really interested in deep sea bed mining any time soon, the major problem with the Treaty (there are other minor ones) is outweighed by the advantages. Given our recent tendency to go it alone (I'm not saying we were wrong to do so, but relations with other nations are still important), it cant hurt to be able to point to at least a few areas in which we are able to work with the rest of the world.

> I presume we're supporting the LOS because it clarifies territorial boundaries.

Who enforces said boundaries?

Do you really think that a treaty will stop NoK from asserting bogus territorial rights?

> it seems like no one is really interested in deep sea bed mining any time soon

It wasn't too long ago that the same reasoning would have justified giving up US airspace....

Who enforces said boundaries?

The signatories to the treaty, of course. A treaty is not like a law. It isn't enforced on quarreling parties by a neutral Big Brother. It's more like a statement in advance of what kinds of individual enforcement action the majority of signatories will tolerate.

Do you really think that a treaty will stop NoK from asserting bogus territorial rights?

Not at all. But if, for example, China signs on, and is allowed by the US to exert sovereignty under its terms, then there is a better chance that China will not interfere if the US chooses to correct NoK's error in perhaps forceful terms.

That said, I nevertheless agree with RS here, and not Nathan. Mostly because the treaty would lend additional gravitas to the world-government international-law community, whom I wish collectively to the devil.

I also think the idea of there being value in the US being "nice" to other nations is mistaken. As Ben-Gurion supposedly said: 'Nations have interests. Men have friends.' Individual men are capable of acting against their own interests out of gratitude, or a variety of other altruistic notions, but I can't imagine a nation doing so.

I understand the LotS treaty would enable the US to make certain claims to resources on the floor of the Arctic Ocean, which recent drilling has revealed contains large amounts of organic matter and therefore possibly is rich in oil.

I understand the LotS treaty would enable the US to make certain claims to resources. . .

Why can't they be made in the absence of the treaty?

The LOST is a bad treaty because it would preclude the formation of independent city-states on the ocean.

Recent work in carbon nanotubes suggests the possibility that it MAY be possible to build a "space elevator" (a beanstock). I say may because I am not entirely convinced that this is possible. Anyways, the idea is to have the space elevator go from an equitorial location in the East pacific up to geostationary. Naturally the East pacific anchor port will evolve into a city-state (afterall most of the world's major cities have grown up around ports).

The idea is that this city-state should be politically independent of any existing nation-state. Sort of like pre-1997 Hong Kong, but without the Brits.

This is a marketable idea because it becomes a business haven for all of those overseas Chinese who may not want to remain in SouthEast Asia forever. It would also be a haven for banking, tourism, medical tourism, and advanced technology such as biotech and nanotech that might be regulated or banned in other countries. It would be a free-trade zone.

The LOST, in its current form (title 11) would specifically forbid the creation of such a city-state.

This is unacceptable and must be stopped.

I have written my congress people urging them not to ratify this treaty. Of course, I did not mention about the city-state idea at all. I talked only about national security and sovereignty issues.

I urge all of you to do the same.