SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator Lugar.
After both of your opening comments, I think you’ve made the case both
eloquently and persuasively for anyone who is willing to look at the
facts. I am well aware that this treaty does have determined opposition,
limited but nevertheless quite vociferous. And it’s unfortunate because
it’s opposition based in ideology and mythology, not in facts,
evidence, or the consequences of our continuing failure to accede to the
treaty. So I think you’ll hear, from both Secretary Panetta and General
Dempsey as well as myself, further statements and information that
really reinforces the very strong points that both of you have made.
We believe that it is imperative to act now. No country is better
served by this convention than the United States. As the world’s
foremost maritime power, we benefit from the convention’s favorable
freedom of navigation provisions. As the country with the world’s second
longest coastline, we benefit from its provisions on offshore natural
resources. As a country with an exceptionally large area of seafloor, we
benefit from the ability to extend our continental shelf, and the oil
and gas rights on that shelf. As a global trading power, we benefit from
the mobility that the convention accords to all commercial ships. And
as the only country under this treaty that was given a permanent seat on
the group that will make decisions about deep seabed mining, we will be
in a unique position to promote our interests.
Now, the many benefits of this convention have attracted a
wide-ranging coalition of supporters. Obviously, as we heard from both
Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar, Republican and Democratic presidents
have supported U.S. accession; military leaders who see the benefits for
our national security; American businesses, including, strongly, the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, see the economic benefits. It has the support
of every affected industry, including shipping, fisheries,
telecommunications and energy, environmental groups as well. We have a
coalition of environmental, conservation, business, industry, and
security groups all in support of this convention.
And I would ask that my longer written statement along with the
letters that I have received in support of the treaty be entered into
the record.
CHAIRMAN KERRY: Without objection.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Now, one could argue, that 20 years ago, 10
years ago, maybe even five years ago, joining the convention was
important but not urgent. That is no longer the case today. Four new
developments make our participation a matter of utmost security and
economic urgency.
First, for years, American oil and gas companies were not
technologically ready to take advantage of the convention’s provisions
regarding the extended U.S. continental shelf. Now they are. The
convention allows countries to claim sovereignty over their continental
shelf far out into the ocean, beyond 200 nautical miles from shore. The
relevant area for the United States is probably more than 1.5 times the
size of Texas. In fact, we believe it could be considerably larger.
U.S. oil and gas companies are now ready, willing, and able to
explore this area. But they have made it clear to us that they need the
maximum level of international legal certainty before they will or could
make the substantial investments, and, we believe, create many jobs in
doing so needed to extract these far-offshore resources. If we were a
party to the convention, we would gain international recognition of our
sovereign rights, including by using the convention’s procedures, and
therefore be able to give our oil and gas companies this legal
certainty. Staying outside the convention, we simply cannot.
The second development concerns deep seabed mining, which takes place
in that part of the ocean floor that is beyond any country’s
jurisdiction. Now for years, technological challenges meant that deep
seabed mining was only theoretical; today’s advances make it very real.
But it’s also very expensive, and before any company will explore a mine
site, it will naturally insist on having a secure title to the site and
the minerals that it will recover. The convention offers the only
effective mechanism for gaining this title. But only a party to the
convention can use this mechanism on behalf of its companies.
So as long as the United States is outside the convention, our
companies are left with two bad choices – either take their deep sea
mining business to another country or give up on the idea. Meanwhile, as
you heard from Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar, China, Russia, and many
other countries are already securing their licenses under the
convention to begin mining for valuable metals and rare earth elements.
And as you know, rare earth elements are essential for manufacturing
high-tech products like cell phones and flat screen televisions. They
are currently in tight supply and produced almost exclusively by China.
So while we are challenging China’s export restrictions on these
critical materials, we also need American companies to develop other
sources. But as it stands today, they will only do that if they have the
secure rights that can only be provided under this convention. If we
expect to be able to manage our own energy future and our need for rare
earth minerals, we must be a party to the Law of the Sea Convention.
The third development that is now urgent is the emerging
opportunities in the Arctic. As the area gets warmer, it is opening up
to new activities such as fishing, oil and gas exploration, shipping,
and tourism. This convention provides the international framework to
deal with these new opportunities. We are the only Arctic nation outside
the convention. Russia and the other Arctic states are advancing their
continental shelf claims in the Arctic while we are on the outside
looking in. As a party to the convention, we would have a much stronger
basis to assert our interests throughout the entire Arctic region.
The fourth development is that the convention’s bodies are now up and
running. The body that makes recommendations regarding countries’
continental shelves beyond 200 nautical miles is actively considering
submissions from over 40 countries without the participation of a U.S.
commissioner. The body addressing deep seabed mining is now drawing up
the rules to govern the extraction of minerals of great interest to the
United States and American industry. It simply should not be acceptable
to us that the United States will be absent from either of those
discussions.
Our negotiators obtained a permanent U.S. seat on the key
decision-making body for deep seabed mining. I know of no other
international body that accords one country and one country alone – us –
a permanent seat on its decision making body. But until we join, that
reserved seat remains empty.
So those are the stakes for our economy. And you will hear from
Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey that our security interests are
intrinsically linked to freedom of navigation. We have much more to gain
from legal certainty and public order in the world’s oceans than any
other country. U.S. Armed Forces rely on the navigational rights and
freedoms reflected in the convention for worldwide access to get to
combat areas, sustain our forces during conflict, and return home safely
all without permission from other countries.
Now as a non-party to the convention, we rely – we have to rely – on
what is called customary international law as a legal basis for invoking
and enforcing these norms. But in no other situation at which – in
which our security interests are at stake do we consider customary
international law good enough to protect rights that are vital to the
operation of the United States military. So far we’ve been fortunate,
but our navigational rights and our ability to challenge other
countries’ behavior should stand on the firmest and most persuasive
legal footing available, including in critical areas such as the South
China Sea.
I’m sure you have followed the claims countries are making in the South
China Sea. Although we do not have territory there, we have vital
interests, particularly freedom of navigation. And I can report from the
diplomatic trenches that as a party to the convention, we would have
greater credibility in invoking the convention’s rules and a greater
ability to enforce them.
Now, I know a number of you have heard arguments opposing the
convention. And let me just address those head-on. Critics claim we
would surrender U.S. sovereignty under this treaty. But in fact, it’s
exactly the opposite. We would secure sovereign rights over vast new
areas and resources, including our 200-mile exclusive economic zone and
vast continental shelf areas extending off our coasts and at least 600
miles off Alaska. I know that some are concerned that the treaty’s
provisions for binding dispute settlement would impinge on our
sovereignty. We are no stranger to similar provisions, including in the
World Trade Organization which has allowed us to bring trade cases; many
of them currently pending against abusers around the world. As with the
WTO, the U.S. has much more to gain than lose from this proposition by
being able to hold others accountable under clear and transparent rules.
Some critics invoke the concern we would be submitting to mandatory
technology transfer and cite President Reagan’s other initial objections
to the treaty. Those concerns might have been relevant decades ago, but
today they are not. In 1994, negotiators made modifications
specifically to address each of President Reagan’s objections, including
mandatory technology transfer, which is why President Reagan’s own
Secretary of State, George Shultz, has since written we should join the
convention in light of those modifications having been made.
Now some continue to assert we do not need to join the convention for
U.S. companies to drill beyond 200 miles or to engage in deep seabed
mining. That’s not what the companies say. So I find it quite ironic, in
fact somewhat bewildering that a group, an organization, an individual
would make a claim that is refuted by every major company in every major
sector of the economy who stands to benefit from this treaty. Under
current circumstances, they are very clear. They will not take on the
cost and risk these activities under uncertain legal frameworks. They
need the indisputable, internationally recognized rights available under
the treaty. So please, listen to these companies, not to those who have
other reasons or claims that are not based on the facts. These
companies are refuting the critics who say, “Go ahead, you’ll be fine.”
But they’re not the ones – the critics – being asked to invest tens of
millions of dollars without the legal certainty that comes with joining
the convention.
Now some mischaracterize the payments for the benefit of resource rights
beyond 200 miles as quote “a UN tax” – and this is my personal favorite
of the arguments against the treaty – that will be used to support
state sponsors of terrorism. Honestly, I don’t know where these people
make these things up, but anyway the convention does not contain or
authorize any such taxes. Any royalty fee does not go to the United
Nations; it goes into a fund for distribution to parties of the
convention. And we, were we actually in the convention, would have a
permanent veto power over how the funds are distributed. And we could
prevent them from going anywhere we did not want them to go. I just want
to underscore – this is simple arithmetic. If we don’t join the
convention, our companies will miss out on opportunities to explore vast
areas of continental shelf and deep seabed. If we do join the
convention, we unlock economic opportunities worth potentially hundreds
of billions of dollars, for a small percentage royalty a few years down
the line.
I’ve also heard we should not join this convention because quote “it’s a
UN treaty.” And of course that means the black helicopters are on their
way. Well, the fact that a treaty was negotiated under the auspices of
the United Nations, which is after all a convenient gathering place for
the countries of the world, has not stopped us from joining agreements
that are in our interests. We are a party to dozens of agreements
negotiated under the UN auspices on everything from counter-terrorism
and law enforcement to health, commerce, and aviation. And we often pay
fees under those treaties recognizing the benefits we get dwarf those
minimal fees.
And on the national security front, some argue we would be handing power
over the U.S. Navy to an international body. Patently untrue, obviously
absolutely contrary to any history or law governing our navy. None of
us would be sitting here if there were even a chance that you could make
the most absurd argument that could possibly lead to that conclusion.
Disputes concerning U.S. military activities are clearly excluded from
dispute settlement under the convention.
And neither is it true that the convention would prohibit intelligence
activities. The intelligence community has once again in 2012, as it did
in 2007, as it did in 2003, confirmed that is absolutely not true.
So whatever arguments may have existed for delaying U.S. accession no
longer exist and truly cannot be even taken with a straight face. The
benefits of joining have always been significant, but today the costs of
not joining are increasing. So much is at stake, and I therefore urge
the Committee to listen to the experts, listen to our businesses, listen
to the Chamber of Commerce, listen to our military, and please give
advice and consent to this treaty before the end of this year. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
