West Coast Publishing Ocean 2014 affirmative page

Other DA Answers

AT: Politics

Bipartisan support for ratification

Kate Sheppard, writes for The American Prospect, 2007, “Yo Ho Ho a Law for the Seas,” http://prospect.org/article/yo-ho-ho-law-seas, 5/5/15

It's a treaty that has solid progressive credentials and a wide body of support, transcending political party and interest area. It's a pretty easy sell for most legislators. "You have an agreement that's endorsed by a Republican president, the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Coast Guard, an overwhelming number of senators from both political parties, business groups, trade associations, and you already have 155 countries that are party to the treaty. It seems like if you can't get that through, I don't know what kind of treaty you can get through the Senate," said Spencer Boyer, director of international law and diplomacy for the Center for American Progress.

UNCLOS is popular

Ben Block, Staff writer with the Worldwatch Institute, 2013, “U.S. Leaders Support Law of the Sea Treaty”, http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5993, accessed 5/5/15

During last week's Cabinet confirmation hearings, leaders in both the U.S. Senate and the administration of newly elected President Barack Obama conveyed support for the treaty, known as the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention, suggesting an end to decades of dispute over U.S. accession. The treaty already has support from a diverse coalition of U.S. interest groups that represent national security, industry, and the environment.

Principled loss even on unpopular issues is good politics- key to approval ratings

Lanny Davis, Special counsel to President Clinton, 2011, "Column: Obama, be a sharp-elbowed centrist," USA Today, 8-17-11, www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-08-17-obama-leadership-economy_n.htm, accessed 3-8-14

Such bold and decisive moves by this president would be criticized as brash by some, reckless by others. But the American people would see the strength in a man standing up to the extremes of both parties to simply do what is best for this country. At a time when many Americans doubt the ability of the federal government to even function, these optics matter greatly. A decisive president — a leader leading — cannot be underestimated. Time to take a risk Thus, Obama can no longer afford, as has often been his custom, to wait for Congress to act and then step in as a final mediator. He needs to take the risk to put a stake in the ground and lead, if necessary to get out in front of congressional and party leadership, even of public opinion. He needs to simply do what he thinks is right. By doing so, President Obama can show that he represents all the American people and is willing to fight for the national interest, that he is willing to strive to be Teddy Roosevelt's "man in the arena … who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worse, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly." If anyone on the left or the right objects to Obama throwing a few elbows in the process, he can offer them simple advice, as he would in a basketball game: Get out of the way. That would be good politics for 2012. It would also be good for the nation.

AT: Sovereignty DA

No sovereignty concerns from UNCLOS

Isaak Hurst, Attorney with the International Maritime Group PLLC, November 2013, "The Law of the Sea and Its Effects On Offshore Mining," www.akbizmag.com/Alaska-Business-Monthly/November-2013/The-Law-of-the-Sea-and-Its-Effects-On-Offshore-Mining/, accessed 4/22/14

DeMint’s concerns are noble, but they are misguided—accession to UNCLOS will not erode US sovereignty, but solidify it. First, under UNCLOS, the United States is entitled to permanent seat on ISA’s Council, which provides the United States with veto power over any decisions or policies it finds objectionable. This “seat at the table” is a seat the United States does not have but desperately needs. Countries like China and Russia are now aggressively pursuing offshore mining leases within the parameters of the Convention. As of September of 2013, China is now the only nation authorized by the ISA to explore the deep seabed for as many as three major types of minerals. Would the United States have allowed such a sweeping grab of minerals rights if it were a member of the ISA Council? Likely not, but without UNCLOS membership, the United States has no voice.

Distrust their hyperbolic evidence

Kate Sheppard, writes for The American Prospect, 2007, “Yo Ho Ho a Law for the Seas,” http://prospect.org/article/yo-ho-ho-law-seas, 5/5/15

None of this has stopped the right wing from spouting off about the treaty. Pat Buchanan says Bush's acquiescence reveals that the "rot of globalism runs deep" in Washington, and chastises the Navy for supporting it as well. Frank Gaffney, president of the neocon think tank Center for Security Policy, says signing the treaty amounts to putting the United Nations "on steroids." Michelle Malkin defers to Reagan's oft-exploited ghost, and even the evangelical group Concerned Women for America trotted out some complaints about the "anti-American" nature of the treaty. But while critics paint their opposition as merit-based, their objections are really just another instance of the cottage industry that's popped up on the far right for opposing anything that comes out of the United Nations as a challenge to U.S. sovereignty -- without any relation to specific accords. Reagan opposed only a portion of the treaty, but today's movement opposes the very idea that the United States shouldn't have free rein when it comes to the ocean's resources, or that there's a need for consensus on preserving and protecting the commons. In the movement’s ideal America, all our energies are expended building up a military to strong-arm our right to the seas, all other nations be damned This is why the Law of the Sea Convention is the perfect issue for progressives to rally around. It reveals the outrage from the outer edges of the right for what it really is: anti-cooperative isolationism that is both unfounded in fact and counter to American interests.

Their arguments are conspiracy theories

Nicole Gaouette, Staff writer at Bloomberg, May 24, 2012, “Clinton Hits ‘Black Helicopters’ Crowd to Push Sea Treaty,” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-24/clinton-hits-black-helicopters-crowd-to-push-sea-treaty.html, accessed 4/26/14

The top American diplomat said some of the arguments against the treaty “cannot even be taken with a straight face.” These, she said, include claims that the U.S. would have to pay a “UN tax,” that it would give the UN power over the U.S. Navy and that it would erode U.S. sovereignty. “Honestly, I don’t know where these people make these things up,” Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday. She chided critics who object to the U.S. joining any UN treaty saying, “Of course, that means the black helicopters are on their way,” a reference to conspiracy theories about a world government.