OPINION:
We are pleased to see Kim Holmes finally concede that the navigational provisions of the Law of the Sea Treaty “are pretty good” (“U.N. Sea treaty still a bad deal for U.S.,” Politics, Thursday). The U.S. Navy has believed this for decades, and President Reagan recognized the benefits of this part of the treaty.
Mr. Holmes puts great weight on Reagan’s views on the Law of the Sea. So do we. Reagan was right to question the flawed deep seabed mining provisions of the original treaty and many Western governments refused to sign for the same reason. That’s why the treaty was renegotiated in 1994 and the seabed provisions were completely rewritten.
What puzzles us most is why Mr. Holmes is so dismissive of the judgment of another Reagan admirer, President George W. Bush. Mr. Bush argued that “joining will serve the national security interest of the United States” and would “secure U.S. sovereign rights over extensive marine areas, including the valuable natural resources they contain.” Every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff argued for its ratification.
Our business community - including the shipping, transportation, telecommunications, energy industries and the Chamber of Commerce - supports it. It’s good for our security and good for jobs. End of story.
FREDERICK JONES
Communications director
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Washington
Please read our comment policy before commenting.