* Technical discussions between U.S., Indonesian and Philippines officials concerning archipelagic sea lanes passage through the Indonesian and Philippines archipelagos; and
* Technical discussions with other major maritime powers regarding regulations pertaining to passage through key straits, rules for establishing straight baselines, and resolution of maritime boundary disputes.
A universal Convention offers considerable promise because of the flexibility which it provides to States to resolve disputes over conflicting uses of the sea through the employment of any of four dispute resolution mechanisms. Even though the United States and certain other States will exercise their right to exclude military activities from compulsory jurisdiction, as a party we can use these mechanisms to restrain excessive claims by foreign coastal States because they usually affect non-military activities as well. The large number of "hot spots" on the globe (Bosnia, North Korea, the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, and the former Soviet Union) underscore the need for additional methods of resolving conflicts.
PROTECTION OF THE ROUTES OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE, ACCESS TO CRITICAL OIL AND GAS RESOURCES, AND THEIR MODES OF TRANSPORT, DEPEND UPON A STABLE OCEANS REGIME IN WHICH NAVIGATIONAL RIGHTS ARE ASSURED
To be secure and influential in the international political arena, the United States must sustain strong economic growth. In the 13 years since the United States rejected the Convention's seabed mining regime, our country has become more economically dependent than ever upon access to global markets. U.S. economic growth is closely linked to the world economy as a whole and the majority of that trade is carried on and over the world's oceans. Seaborne commerce exceeds 3.5 billion tons annually and accounts for 80 percent of trade among nations. Universal adherence to the Convention will provide the predictability and stability which international shippers and insurers depend upon in establishing routes and rates for global movement of commercial cargo.
When we think about strategic mobility, we often overlook the interdependencies between commercial transportation and our standard of living. Commercial ships (unlike warships) do not have the ability to resist illegal action by coastal States. Thus, they are the usual victim when rights to free and unencumbered access to the high seas, foreign territorial waters, archipelagic waters and international straits are threatened or restricted.
The "Tanker War" between Iran and Iraq during their 1980-88 conflict is a good example of how illegal activities on the part of coastal States toward non-belligerent shipping can have a direct and lasting effect on the United States strategic interest in assuring the movement of petroleum from the Persian
