The first is the shared principle that we abide by international rules and order.
Let me underscore that this is not a new principle, our solid commitment to establish a set of rules that all play by is one that we believe will help support peace and prosperity in this region.
What are we talking about? These rules include the principle of open and free commerce, a just international order that emphasizes rights and responsibilities of all nations and a fidelity to the rule of law; open access by all to their shared domains of sea, air, space, and cyberspace; and resolving disputes without coercion or the use of force.
Backing this vision involves resolving disputes as quickly as possible with diplomatic efforts. Backing these principles has been the essential mission of the United States military in the Asia-Pacific for more than 60 years and it will be even a more important mission in the future. My hope is that in line with these rules and international order that is necessary that the United States will join over 160 other nations in ratifying the Law of Seas Convention this year.
The law of the sea has been around for 30 years. What benefit have we missed because we aren't a member? What benefits have nations that have ratified the treaty gained? And if other nations are benefiting from the treaty at our expense, why do we have to obey a treaty we have not ratified?
And why do the Chinese have such different interpretations of the Law of the Sea in regard to exclusive economic zones than we have? Does ratifying this treaty ratify their view of what activities China can prohibit in these EEZ or does our view hold sway? And how does joining the treaty help peace if the Chinese insist our ratification of the treaty verifies China's view? How is China's behavior in the Scarborough Shoal confrontation with the Philippines consistent with a view that the Law of the Sea will bind China to our version of the rules of the road at sea?
Why haven't other treaties, custom, and tradition been enough to protect our interests? Is there some reason the administration believes our Navy won't be strong enough to defend existing rules of the road at sea? And if so, who will challenge the rules and why will this treaty be obeyed when others aren't being obeyed?
And while we're at it, why are even more agreements needed?
"We are stressing our effort to try to develop partnerships with countries in this region, to develop their capabilities so that they can better defend and secure themselves," [U.S. Secretary of Defense Panetta] said.
As part of that, he underscored the importance of moving ahead with ASEAN - the Association of South East Asian Nations - to develop a code of conduct that the countries of the region could abide by in settling disputes and ensuring maritime and navigational rights.
Some ASEAN countries have claims over parts of the South China Sea which has put them at odds with Beijing -- notably Vietnam and the Philippines.
Developing partnerships so our armed forces--especially our Navy--can deploy there makes perfect sense. But if we have the Law of the Sea that applies to you whether you are a member or not, why is a new agreement needed for the ASEAN region to settle South China Sea disputes?
And why can't diplomacy be used without this particular Law of the Sea treaty to settle disputes?
If it is so significant that 160 nations have signed the treaty and we have not, why won't that same imbalance within the treaty doom our efforts to change the treaty to our liking if we ratify the treaty? Won't we just be committed to obeying bad law by agreeing to be bound by bad law? And if our weight is enough to overcome that imbalance in numbers, why can't we use that weight from outside the treaty?
Don't we have allies who belong to the treaty who can fight for principles we share with our informal backing? Don't our opinion and Navy carry weight even if we aren't in the treaty?
Why is this law of the sea so critical? I'm just not persuaded that it is needed for freedom of navigation. And I'm sure not convinced that signing it would provide freedom of navigation.
Count on a strong Navy and supporting Air Force and ground force assets to defend that objective.
