* Ethnic rivalry and separatist violence within and without national borders;
* Regional tensions in areas such as the Middle East and Northeast Asia;
* Humanitarian crises of natural or other origin resulting in starvation, strife, or mass migration patterns;
* Conflict over mineral and living resources including those that straddle territorial or maritime zones; and
* Terrorist attacks and piracy against U.S. persons, property, or shipping overseas or on the high seas.
These challenges are considerably different from those which dominated thinking in the era following World War II. What has not changed, however, is that many U.S. economic, political, and military interests are located far away from the United States. The United States has always been a maritime nation and we must have substantial air and sealift capabilities to enable our forces to be when and where they are needed. Assurance that key sea and air lines of communication will remain open as a matter of international legal right and will not become contingent upon approval by coastal or island nations is an essential requirement for implementing our national security strategy.
Global mobility is the key to deterrence, and deterrence is the key to avoiding conflict. Without international respect for the rights and freedoms of the navigation and overflight set forth in the Convention, exercise of our forces' mobility rights would be jeopardized. Disputes with littoral States would delay action and be resolved only by protracted political discussions, frequently entailing demands for expensive concessions on our part. The response time for U.S. and allied/coalition forces based away from potential areas of conflict would lengthen. Deterrence would be weakened - particularly when our coalition allies do not have sufficient power projection capacity to resist illegal claims. Forces likely would arrive on the scene too late to make a difference, affecting our ability to influence the course of events consistent with our interests and treaty obligations. Responses to aggression must be swift and effective. For example, the rapid insertion of forces by sea and air in the Fall of 1994, in response to troop deployments by Iraq, deterred aggressive behavior and demonstrated the importance of maintaining our mobility through key choke points. [see Figure 4]
U.S. accession will substantially enhance the authoritative force of the Convention. The more authoritative the Convention, the more likely it is to guide and restrain the behavior of other States. For example, provisions in the Convention have already proven invaluable in resolving the following issues which have strong national security implications:
* Bilateral discussions with the former Soviet Union following the Black Sea "bumping" incident, resulting in the US-USSR Uniform Interpretation of the Rules of International Law Governing Innocent Passage Through the Territorial Sea, signed at Jackson Hole, Wyoming on September 23, 1989;
