UNA Tampa Bay Advocacy: Blog

In today’s society there is uncertainty concerning the world powers and their economic situation.  The American economic crisis, the European economic crises of 2008 and every other economy in the world make up the current melancholic global economic situation we are in today. 

According to a UN press release the world economy will expand by 3.1 per cent in 2011 and 3.5 per cent in 2012 – far from sufficient to enable recovering the jobs lost because of the 2008 crisis (Kanhema).  It is true that the United States suffered greatly from the 2008 disaster, but so did the whole world.  As citizens of this world it is on us to help each other in times of need.  Some longstanding policies in certain countries like Greece and Italy are now falling and taking the rest of the party with them.  Not meaning to be rude or ostracizing but it is the simple truth that countries such as these have indulgent lifestyles, many retire in their 50’s, and many pay little to no taxes.  There is the need for austerity on part of these governments, to live like the rest of us do.

However, if the Greek and Italian banks go under, it will hurt the American banks, the French banks, the Japanese bank, it will hurt the world economy because these loans that are supposed to be repaid with time, won’t, they will turn out to be grants.  It would be like giving free aid to foreign nations.  If this one sided act is not reciprocated in like, then there is no way to create a cycle of prosperity, a sustainable future.  If these countries fall, it will hurt the European Union which will harm our globalized world and it could trigger another recession.

It is necessary for the nations composing the United Nations to help out these countries, because whether we like it or not, if they suffer, eventually we will suffer too.  This is not to say, to blindly give aid, the recovery of these nations is first and foremost up to themselves.  It is necessary for the people to take unto themselves austerity measures.  To have fundamental changes in their lifestyles, the perpetrator of this situation, to live within the normal bounds of a worldly society.

If we can work together and do what is needed, rather than what we wish to imagine, then we can all come out of this crisis stronger than we were before.

Mark McAvoy

15 December 2011

Citation

Kanhema, Newton. "High Unemployment, Fiscal Tightening and Risk of Currency Wars Threaten Global Recovery." World Economic Situation and Prospects. 1 Dec. 2011. Web. 15 Dec. 2011.

Editor's Note: Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth is President of the United Nations Foundation.

As the eyes of the world are focused on the Palestinian statehood bid at the United Nations in New York, another troubling chapter is unfolding in Paris. The United States is on the brink of abandoning its decades-long leadership in several international organizations – a process that will fundamentally undermine American national security and economic interests.

At issue are two laws from the early 1990s that prohibit the United States from providing financial contributions to any United Nations entity that admits Palestine as a member. The laws are strict: if Palestine is admitted to a U.N. agency, the United States must stop paying its membership dues. The restrictions provide no authority for the president to waive these prohibitions even if it is in the national interest to do so.

With a clear majority of countries around the world prepared to back Palestinian ambitions at the United Nations, the United States is poised to lose its leverage over several U.N. bodies that advance American interests and promote our ideals.

The damage to Americans of a forced withdrawal would not stop there. The first U.N. agency from which the United States could be pushed out is UNESCO, which admitted Palestine as a member today. To Americans, UNESCO is best known for designating World Heritage Sites. It also leads global efforts to bring clean water to the poor, promotes educational and curriculum building in the developing world, and manages a tsunami early warning system in the Pacific, among other important tasks. This critical work would be jeopardized if UNESCO’s top funder stops paying its bills.

The immediate damage would not be limited to UNESCO. The moment Palestine is admitted to UNESCO it will also clear the path for its entry to the World Intellectual Property Organization. This is a lesser known U.N. agency that serves American businesses and brands by setting global standards for copyrights and adjudicating cross border patent disputes.  In the last year alone, dozens of major American companies brought cases before WIPO — the American Automobile Association, Apple, The North Face, Costco and Facebook to name just a few.  If Palestine joins WIPO, the United States will have to pull out, limiting its ability to steer policies in ways that advance American economic interests and create jobs here at home.

The damage would not stop there. The membership of U.N. agencies like the International Civil Aviation Organization, International Postal Union, and the International Telecommunications Union are also likely to admit Palestine.  Each of these agencies performs tasks that American lawmakers probably take for granted. Thanks to the Universal Postal Union, the Chinese will deliver a package with American postage stamps on it and vice versa. Air traffic controllers in Dubai and Dulles speak the same language because of the International Civil Aviation Organization.  Alas, under the 1990s laws, the USA will lose its voice at those organizations once they admit Palestine. Without the United States as a voting participant, perhaps French supplants English as common language of

Next on the list of agencies from which the USA would be forced to withdraw is the International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Health Organization. In recent years the IAEA has been a critical part of American attempts to constrain the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea. In 2006, the Bush administration successfully lobbied other members of the IAEA executive board to refer Iran’s nuclear program to the Security Council for sanctions. Should the United States stop paying membership dues to the IAEA–which it could be forced to do under current legislation if Palestine is admitted as a member — the United States would give up our vote on the executive board. It would literally lose a seat at the table during the next nuclear crisis.

The WHO works closely with the United States–particularly the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — to keep infectious diseases like the Avian Flu from reaching our shores. If the Palestinians are admitted to the WHO, that cooperation would have to stop under the current law.
Read: New Security Council takes shape.

Should the U.S. pull out of these organizations; it is not as if these organizations would stop functioning altogether. Rather, an agency like IAEA may have to reduce the number of nuclear inspectors it deploys around the world. Other countries, maybe even America’s global rivals, will step into fill the leadership void left by the United States.

As long as these laws remain on the books, Congress is setting the stage for America’s waning influence over international affairs.  From businesses interests to non-governmental organizations who care about America’s influence at the U.N., everyone must take a stand and urge Congress to give the President the flexible authority needed protect our national security and economic interests.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of Timothy Worth. For more views on the United Nations, visit U.N. Dispatch.

 

U.S. House of Representative Foreign Relations Committee chair, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL18), introduced a bill in the last session of Congress, H.R. 557, calling on the United States to consider its U.N. assessments voluntary, rather than required as it has always been.  There is concern that she may introduce similar legislation this session of Congress.

Currently the United States is assessed 22% of the $1.5 billion U.N. operating budget and 27% of the $5 billion U.N. peace keeping operations budget.  Nations, individuals, and organizations also contribute voluntarily to programs such as UNICEF, the U.N. Development Programme, and the World Health Organization.  The total budget for the U.N. system is only about $15 billion.  In contrast, Wall Street bonuses for 2010 were about $21 billion, and the U.S. military budget is about $698 billion, not counting the hidden military costs such as the VA Hospitals, Social Security payments for war related deaths and injuries, etc.

This means that the U.S. contributes about $330 million a year for the U.N. operating budget and about $1.35 billion for peace keeping operations.

If legislation such as last years H.R. 557 had passed, it would have set a dangerous precedent that would allow all nations of the world to only contribute amounts that they want to, or to select programs that they choose.

Imagine if states within the U.S. could decide whether they wanted their citizens to pay taxes or not.  Imagine the states could also decide which federal Federal programs they wanted to pay for.   Imagine what that would do to the effectiveness of the Federal Government, how difficult it would be to budget for anything, and how much danger it would put our nation at risk with national security, operation of long standing successful federal programs, and our nation’s social safety net.  H.R. 557 could have the same impact on the U.N., as well.

The U.N. provides major benefits to the U.S. for business, enhances U.S. national security, and provides the U.S. diplomatic and other benefits that provide a forum and structure for solving global problems.

Business Benefits

Business is often global and depends on many U.N. programs to provide economic growth.  Some of the key benefits of the U.N. for business include:

• The business community and the UN share common interests in promoting economic growth and stability, creating employment and stimulating investment. UN work - such as electoral assistance, the promotion of literacy and the eradication of disease - helps to build stable, functioning, democratic societies. It provides the "soft investment" without which private investment could not reap a return. 


• UN initiatives to promote exports, remove trade barriers, promote uniform trade laws and protect copyrights benefit businesses everywhere. 


• The UN system defines technical standards in telecommunication, aviation, shipping and postal services, which make international transactions possible. 


• UN efforts to advance market-oriented reforms, facilitate business transactions and develop business-friendly legislation help stimulate direct foreign investment in developing countries, which amounted to $233 billion in 2004, according to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). 


• The UN system is a major purchaser of goods and services, totaling over $6.4 billion a year. UNICEF buys half the vaccines produced worldwide, while the UN Population Fund is the world's largest purchaser of contraceptives. 


• U.S. companies are consistently the largest sellers of goods and services to the UN. In 2004, companies from the United States earned nearly $316 million through procurement done by UN Headquarters in New York - more than 24 per cent of total procurement.  

• The UN system increasingly engages in joint ventures with the private sector and intergovernmental organizations for various projects, including the provision of web-accessed satellite imagery, maps and other geographic information for areas where UN agencies and non-governmental organizations are providing humanitarian assistance or carrying out post-conflict rehabilitation and reconstruction.  See:www.un.org/geninfo/ir/index.asp?id=150

Peace Keeping Operations

The U.S. benefits greatly from U.S. Peace Keeping Operations from both politically and finacially.

Consider the value to the United States when military action is sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council rather than a “go it alone” approach that makes the U.S. much more vulnerable to global criticism, loss of respect, and more likely to become a terrorist target. 

This alone is good reason for the U.S. to work within the U.N. structure when possible for military and peacekeeping operations.

There  are other benefits from U.S. Peace Keeping Operations including the large procurement of communications equipment and other supplies from U.S. Business that amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars a year.

There are currently 15 U.N. peacekeeping operations in four continents Including:

Africa

• UN Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO)
• African Union-UN Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID)
• UN Mission in the Sudan (UNMIS)
• UN Operation in Côte d'Ivoire (UNOCI)
• UN Mission in Liberia (UNMIL)
• UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO)

Americas

• UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH)

Asia and the Pacific

• UN Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste (UNMIT)
• UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP)
• UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA)*

Europe

• UN Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP)
• UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK)

Middle East

• UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF)
• United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)
• UN Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO)

Many of these peacekeeping operations such as Afghanistan, India/Pakistan, Haiti, Lebanon, Sudan, and Liberia, the U.S. has strong interests.  

In each of these operations with the U.S. only paying 27% instead of 100% of the costs, it is both a political and economic benefit to the United States.

A good example of how the U.N. has benefited the United States is illustrated in the example of the Persian Gulf War.

This war was a U.S. led coalition of forces authorized by the United Nations against Iraq.

President George H. W. Bush, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, clearly understood the benefit of making this a U.N. action rather than a solo U.S. action.  

34 nations joined the U.S. led coalition and the nations of Germany and Japan contributed about $10 billion to the effort.

The total cost of the war was about $61.1 billion of which $54 billion was offset by contributions from other nations.

Had a voluntary contribution system, as proposed by H.R 557, been in place, the U.S. would have been vulnerable to pay $54 billion more than it did.  This amount represents.  This economic benefit to the U.S. represents over 150 years of U.S. assessments for operating costs for the U.N.

This one incident shows that the economic value of the U.N. far exceeds the economic costs.  This benefit comes without even considering all the of the other political and diplomatic benefits of the U.N. in various peacekeeping missions and operations around the world.

Diplomatic & Other Benefits

The U.S. and its citizens receive many diplomatic benefits through U.N. membership.   Some of the key benefits include:

• Opportunity to reduce nuclear proliferation, a key U.S. diplomatic goal.

• Global cooperation in addressing illegal narcotics trafficking.

• International standards to assure safe air travel standards for civil aviation. This is particularly important to Americans who make up 40% of the world’s air travel.

• Protection of health through global cooperation in health programs.

• Protection of international foods that must meet U.N. FAO standards, and U.N. WHO standards for manufacture and trade of foods.

• The World Meteorological Association which provides weather data benefitting american farmers, shipping, and aviation.

• The World Intellectual Property Rights protection provided by the U.N. WIPO that helps protect U.S. Intellectual Property Rights for movies, music, books, and software which is worth billions per year.

• Improving communication systems through the U.N. International Telecommunications Union (ITU), that plays a key role in setting international standards, allocates radio frequencies, and coordinates orbits for international satellites.

• Protection of environmental resources through global scientific study, development of international policy and programmes, and development of international conventions for  issues needing global attention.  These include but are not limited to preservation of biodiversity, ozone depletion, climate change, ocean acidification, fisheries management, chemical pollution, and hazardous waste management.

In summary, the benefits to the U.S. from the United Nations far outweigh the costs which amount to the equivalent of about 6 hours of the total yearly U.S. budget.

This six hours of expenditures provide critical benefits for the U.S. for business and commerce, national security, diplomatic goals and objectives, and health and safety of U.S. citizens.

Without a United Nations, costs we be far more than our small U.S. assessment to the U.N. and  would lead to far more costly alternatives the U.S. would be forced to incur.  

Dr. David Randle is President & CEO of the WHALE Center, Director of Advocacy for the Tampa Bay Chapter UNA USA, Board Member of Friends of the U.N., Manageing Director of the Waves of Change campaign, co-facilitator of the Global Healing Initiative, and Advocacy Coordinator for the UNA USA FL Division.

Dave's 88-year-old father has been involved in the space program most of his career. We have always been interested and supportive of the space program and the benefits that it has brought to all humankind. When Dave served as John Denver's environmental and political advisor, support for the space program was one of his top six priorities.

Recently, at the Kennedy Space Center, Dave picked up an Apollo 13 hat for his dad. It had the wording, "Failure is not an Option". The hat seemed fitting as his dad had been told a couple years ago that he had only three days to live. He didn't accept the prognosis and sought other treatment. For him failure was not an option so the hat seemed quite fitting for him to wear in the event he has to go to the hospital again.

Recently we heard a podcast where the NASA Space program was used as a metaphor for how we might better respond to critical environmental issues of our time.

This naturally caught our attention.

The story begins with the Apollo 11 mission to the moon. This was the mission where Neil Armstrong became the first human to walk on the moon. The landing for this mission was tense and uncertain but they made it. The famous words were spoken by Neil Armstrong: "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."

The Apollo 12 mission then followed with a second successful mission to the moon.

The astronauts were able to land much easier this time, spend more time on the moon, and gained more knowledge, skills, and furthered the NASA Apollo project.

Apollo 13 began its journey to the moon with the goal of further gains. Once again the launch was successful. Before the crew could land on the moon an explosion crippled the service module. The famous words were then relayed, "Houston, we have a problem".

At first there was disbelief in Houston; the thinking was that some technical glitch was probably just giving false information. 15 full minutes past before Mission Control in Houston realized this was now a critical life and death crisis.

At that point the Apollo 13 mission was abandoned and the new mission was survival. The astronauts had to shift their priorities to the all out task of making the space craft life sustaining until they could return to Earth. This meant they needed to conserve water, get the carbon dioxide out of the air they were breathing, conserve the energy from the batteries, conserve the air needed for the last hours of the journey, learn how to adapt to uncomfortable temperature changes, conserve the limited potable water, and find ways to use the resources of the lunar module not for exploration but as a lifeboat for their survival.

Despite the great challenge and uncertainty of the return voyage, failure to both Mission Control and the astronauts was not an option.

With Mission Control putting all their focus on a new mission, and the courage and support for each other among the astronauts, all were brought home safely to what NASA called a "successful failure".

Our state of planet Earth continues to become more perilous as we are fast approaching and in some cases have already surpassed the planetary boundaries for sustainability.

Today, we are threatened with many challenges that science has labeled our planetary boundaries. In an article in Nature, Johan Rocstrom and his co-authors argue that to avoid catastrophic environmental change, humanity must stay within defined planetary boundaries. If one boundary is transgressed, then safe levels for other processes could also be under serious risk. The planetary boundaries include: climate change, ocean acidification, atmospheric aerosol loading, chemical pollution, land system changes, ozone depletion, overload of phosphorus and nitrates, and decreasing fresh water resources.

Just as the Apollo 13 mission aborted its original goals and its passengers focused on their own survival boundaries, crew aboard Spaceship Earth are being called to change their mission in order to live within our planetary boundaries. There is a need to abort the mission of business as usual to a new mission of creating a sustainable planet that functions within the limits of the planetary boundaries.

Like the astronauts aboard Apollo 13 this will mean using our resources more creatively, making sure our air is clean without to much ozone or carbon emissions, that there is potable drinking water for all, that chemicals don't contaminate the space ships water and food supply, and all passengers are able to be able to have the basic survival needs to complete the journey.

Like the 15 minute pause in Houston where there was disbelief that the Apollo space craft was in trouble despite the warning signs, there has been the same kind of disbelief among many that Spaceship Earth is in trouble.

The question now is: Will enough people on Spaceship Earth realize that we have already exceeded some of the planetary boundaries and are dangerously close to exceeding others? Like the Apollo astronauts we need to change our mission.

There are some important lessons that we can learn from the Apollo 13 experience including:

The importance of creating a shared vision among the crew members of Spaceship Earth. In the Apollo 13 story, Mission Control set a new mission that failure was not an option and Apollo Commander James Lovell let the other crew members know "I intend to go home". This new shared vision created a context for better solving the problems. Creating a shared vision for a sustainable planet where people live within the planetary boundaries may be half the battle.

Creating a sense of community around the vision is also important for success. We learn from the Apollo 13 story that conflict over the best approaches to take was greatly reduced once everyone agreed to work toward the same vision. The team focused on innovation and creativity to jointly solve the problems as opposed to focusing on different approaches. Commander Lovell observed that: "Thousands of people worked to bring us back home." The more individuals and groups we can get to work on a shared vision the stronger sense of a global community will form to achieve the goals.

Developing a positive culture for change helps achieve success. Gene Kranz, Flight Director of Apollo 13, said to his co-workers: "work the problem", meaning do the research to find the solutions. In solving the Apollo 13 challenges, the team put priority on the need for technical proficiency and getting the facts. When the explosion happened, one of the first questions was, "what do we have on the space craft that is good?" The team also made sure that everyone was getting the information they needed. Kranz created a positive culture for solving the problems.

Scientists from around the world have sounded the alarm. Many in government, higher education, NGO's, and business sectors have started to respond. Some encouraging examples include:

In government, the United Nations Environment Programme is in the process of completing it's 5th Global Outlook Report (GEO-5), a process that engages scientists from around the world to detail the needs of the planet and set an agenda for what needs to be done. The warnings of the last report, GEO-4, have been largely ignored.

The U.N. Academic Impact, a global initiative that aligns institutions of higher education with the United Nations in support of sustainability, human rights, literacy, and conflict resolution now has over 500 participating institutions. Each of the participating institutions makes a commitment to at least one project each year based on the program's principles.

NGO's such as the International Union of Conservation and Nature, have brought together over 1000 NGO's and 11,000 scientists to work on issues such as biodiversity, climate change, sustainable energy, human well-being, and a green economy.

Corporations are becoming more sustainable in their practices. In the recent Newsweek Green Rankings of the 500 Largest U.S. Corporations, 51 had environmental performance rankings above 90 on a scale of 0 to 100. Of the Global 100 Corporations, ten percent also scored 90 or higher as well. One of the companies that was both a national and global leader in the rankings is the Walt Disney Co. The Walt Disney Co. was ranked #11 in environmental performance, #2 nationally in environmental performance in its category of Media, Travel, and Leisure, and #1 in this category globally. One of the unique things about the Walt Disney Co. is that it has proactively set ambitious goals related to each of the 9 planetary boundaries. It is fast becoming model for others to follow. For example it has set goals of reducing its carbon emissions by 50% by 2012 from 2006 levels and then becoming a net-zero carbon company thereafter. It has also set a goal to reduce its solid waste 50% by 2013 and becoming a net zero waste company thereafter.


To bring back the Apollo 13 crew safely, it took the cooperation of mission control, the astronauts, and many supporting scientists and other experts to use the ship's resources wisely.

Imagine if there was a coordinated effort of uncompromising integrity between governments, institutions of higher education, NGO's, and corporations. Imagine if they all worked together with a shared vision to have Spaceship Earth return to operation within safe planetary boundaries.

The simple truth is that like the Apollo 13 team, it will take bold leadership willing to acknowledge that we have serious problems on planet Earth, are willing to work to create a shared vision, sense of community, a positive culture that is committed to success, and that they really get it, that failure is not an option.

Dr. David Randle is President & CEO of the Whale Center. Dr. Reese Halter is an Earth Doctor; Science Communicator: Voice for Ecology, conservation biologist at Cal Lu University and public speaker.

Related Links:

WHALE Center

Waves of Change

Global Healing

Blue Community

Dr. Reese Halter

Carl Jung said:  “The most intense conflicts, if overcome, leave behind a sense of security and calm that is not easily disturbed. It is just these intense conflicts and their conflagration which are needed to produce valuable and lasting results”  

Jung noted the change in the themes of dreams and protests leading up to the World Wars with Germany in his book Civilization in transition.  He theorized that global conflicts are often based on psychological crisis originating in the collective consciousness of individuals

As the video below shows, the first month of 2011 has begun with many conflicts around the globe.  All of these protests seem to share common themes.  They are all voices against corruption, a cries for economic justice, and a calls for stronger human rights.

The examples include:

Albania - protests over government corruption
Algeria - protests by massive unemployed teenagers
Argentina - protests against low wages and job layoffs
Australia - protests for stronger human rights
Bangladesh - protests against unsafe working conditions and poor wages
Belgium - protests against government failures
Canada - protests against human rights abuses in Pakistan
Chile - protests against rising gas prices and deteriorating economic conditions
Cuba - protests against terrorism and human rights abuses.
Cyprus - protests against wage cuts and economic policies.
Egypt - protests against government corruption, and economic policies
Greece - protests against economic policies
Honduras - protests against government corruption and human rights
India - protests demanding jobs promised for land but not delivered
Ireland - protests against economic policies
Israel - protests in over government policy
Italy - protests on economic policies by workers
Jordan - protests on economic policy
Tunisia - protests against unemployment and government corruption
Turkey - protests against conservative Islamic Government, and human rights
United Kingdom - protest against education cuts and economic policy
United States - protests on human rights re: Tibet & Koch Brothers corrupting democracy
Venezuela - protests re: economic policy
Yemen - protests against government corruption

At the core of these protests seems to be a battle of two different world views that parallel Albert Schweitzer's two religious world views.

Albert Schweitzer, the great humanitarian, and nobel peace prize winner,  observed that religion is no longer a force for spiritual life in our age.  He explained that while religion can still point to good works, it gave up its spiritual force once it sanctioned wars.  Schweitzer said religion “lifts up its voice in protest but it can not command.  The spirit of the age does not listen.”

Schweitzer though observed that in his time civilization had begun to change.  He described two different currents in religion, one that is dogmatic the other free from dogma.

Dogmatic religion is based on creeds, true beliefs, and controlling behavior.  It has no relationship to thinking.  Religion free of dogma is rationalistic, ethical and seeks to remain on good terms with thinking.   The dogmatic free religion for Schweitzer was one that he said shared the vision of Jesus. The non-dogmatic religion shared something universal of the heart which can be adopted for any age, that worked for the bringing of the kingdom of peace and justice to all.

Perhaps our world today like in Jung's tme, is a civilization in transition attempting to shed the outdated dogmatic religions, political systems, and oppressive economic systems.  A civilizaton where people's inner psyches are being transformed to collective birth a new civilization described in the vision of Global Healing.  

Global Healing understands that there can be no peace without justice no matter how strong a military and economic system is in place.  Global Healing understands that there can be no justice without sustainability no matter how well intentioned a government or people might be in their collecive thoughts.   Finally, Global Healing understands that basic human rights must take precendence over all all creeds or relgious belief systems if we are to be a true global community.

Schweitzer was adamant that a dogma free religion not be tied to any creed or tradition.  For Schweitzer his ethic of reverence for life was enough.   In the same way Global Healing is a movement that is dogma free with an ethic of "one planet, one people" that might unite a global community in transition.

So as we watch the global protests around the world, lets reflect on the words of Carl Jung: “our vision will become clear only when you can look into your own heart. Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes.”

Look inside and perhaps what is going on with global protests will give you a clearer vision for a civilizaton in transition to Global Healing.

For more info on Global Healing

 

1) Although the United States is a leading maritime power, has one of the world’s longest coastlines and some of the most resource-rich waters, we remain outside the world’s pre-eminent legal regime for the oceans. For too long, the United States has isolated itself from this widely-supported treaty and the important bodies it established to promote cooperation and dialogue on the full spectrum of oceans issues. A total of 158 countries are currently parties to the treaty.

2) By joining the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which the United States helped draft and has long sought, we will demonstrate to other nations that the United States is truly committed to working within a global system based on international law and cooperation. 

3) US ratification of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea is endorsed by a diverse collection of experts, policymakers, and civil society groups, including the Obama Administration, Senate leaders, environmental organizations, and oceans industries. 

4) The treaty provides a model framework for marine conservation. The treaty's comprehensive environmental provisions mandate international cooperation and define rights, obligations and principles for protecting the world's oceans. The treaty requires states parties to protect and preserve the marine environment, and to prevent, reduce, and control maritime pollution. The treaty also promotes, and protects the right to conduct, scientific research.

5) Joining the treaty would greatly strengthen US influence over the development and interpretation of ocean law and policy. Failure to ratify the treaty prevents the United States from fully participating in key decision-making bodies such as the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, and the International Seabed Authority. These institutions make important decisions affecting US interests, such as delineating continental shelf boundaries for coastal states.

6) Ratification would promote US economic interests. As with its national security benefits, the United States has far more to gain than any other country from the economic protections provided by the treaty. The treaty establishes exclusive economic zones for coastal states, extending up to 200 miles from shore. The United States, with some of the world's richest waters and its longest coastline, would be guaranteed sole jurisdiction over extensive fisheries and oil and gas reserves. The treaty would also protect the United States' right to exploit our valuable continental shelf resources beyond the limit of the exclusive economic zone. Additionally, the treaty safeguards navigational rights for commercial vessels and the laying of submarine cables and pipelines.

7) If ratified, the treaty would provide important benefits for US national security and the war on terrorism. The treaty safeguards the global mobility of our armed forces by securing vital maritime navigation and overflight rights, helping to ensure that our military can quickly respond to today's global threats.

8) All initial concerns preventing the United States from ratifying the treaty were fully rectified by a legally-binding agreement concluded and signed by the Clinton Administration in 1994. By altering provisions concerning deep seabed mining, the agreement cleared the way for formal US accession to the treaty. Every administration beginning with President Reagan has declared the United States' intention to abide by all treaty provisions except for those concerning deep seabed mining.  

June 2009