straightforward, honest president in the philippines, and furthermore, the philippines having rejected our fleet from various places in recent years now is very concerned about definition of where the rights are for the chinese, the philippines joined vietnam, indonesia, other countries and wondering precisely who is going to enforce what. for a variety of reasons and in part because of this law, it has come into the orbit of our diplomacy in a way we have not seen in the last decade. let me just ask any one of you how are we going to work to define who owns or governs or commands what in the south china sea in particular? and in that large area between

china and the philippines in which there are extraordinary resources, and certainly very little definition of who does what and for the moment a great deal of reliance upon the united states fleet to bring some definition to this if we don't have law of the sea, the question is how do we define it? what are we prepared to do? what are the american people prepared to do? it's one thing to talk about enforcing this and in essence going to war over it but at least in the old days it required a declaration of war that people wanted to know if it was worth the sacrifice of individual human beings. so can anyone give me some idea of where we're headed in the pacific and the south china sea particularly. >> yes, sir, i can. in the south china sea you have

a great example of how the law of the sea should play out if done correctly. because of globalization, things that move in the oceans that move through the south china sea, half of the energy supplies in the world move through there daily, a third of our economy moves through there daily, all of the things we talked about. there are competing claims from the various coastal states in there. we have a tendency to want to talk about china but there are a number of countries that have excessive claims and they are in two areas. one is in territorial disputes and other is am maritime disputes. so what the law of the sea would give us, it gives frame work on territorial disputes which the u.s. takes no position on territorial disputes between the philippines and the chinese or any other excessive territorial claim. the law of the sea would give a

framework for them to be able to have that dialogue in a peaceful way. our perspective is that we don't want coercion. we don't want -- we want things done peacefully and done in a frame work that allows that to happen. my understanding is there are vehicles in the law of the sea if applied properly that would allow them that vehicle and they are desirous of that. the other side is excessive maritime claims which are laid out in the law of sea of what can be there. these are critical to us so they can maintain our unimpeded access to those areas for the future that allows us to provide, if you want to call it a security deterrent that allows us to -- we have seven allies in the world, five are in this region, in ensuring that our allies' perspectives are looked

at properly through a rule of law that allows us to continue operate freely with them is important. this is why the law of the sea convention is important to me. >> yes, sir. >> senator, there's one other nuance. i've been watching this. the coast guard has responsibilities in the pacific as well and one thing we have seen china doing as an indication they are operating under the rule of law, they are in fact many times now using their maritime patrol vessels more or less their coast guard vessels which are less provocative rather than sending large navy ships out there. once again, portraying themselves as following the rule of law and acting within the convention. we have no means of disputing that unless we are parties to the convention because i'm involved with the chinese and north pacific coast guard forum and whenever we address issues like this the first response is you're not a party to the convention and it puts us in a

difficult situation to deal with and makes our work much harder. >> senator, if i may make a comment. one of the things i would like to pursue in south china sea is one part of the ocean i organize, train and equip and deliver the ships to admiral locklear and others. we're looking forward to what i call dependable or predictive behavior by the elements in these maritime crossroads such as the south china sea. if each interaction ends up to be a debate or confrontation, it becomes unpredictable and then you get the unprepared and then you get this debate, which is okay if everybody is agreed upon on what customary international law is but it evolves and becomes domestically derived in some locations. that's kind of what we have right now in the south china sea. we say to ourselves, how do we

preclude this? we should talk and not have belligerent behavior. we have talks with china and there are others. i host heads of navies every two years in a symposium. having something like law of sea convention as a book that we agree to and sit down and say let's talk about protocols that we're all going to agree to or what is the basis of the disagreement would be very helpful. >> i appreciate that. each of you know that we get briefings here about so-called bif at of our national defense toward the pacific. that's why it is crucial in terms of what we're talking about today and our overall national defense and foreign policy. thank you very much. >> thank you, senator lugar. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me thank all of you for your leadership and your service to our country.

you have all indicated that you support the ratification of the law of the sea treaty. we've been in discussions of this for almost 20 years. this has been an issue that's been around the united states senate for a long time. i would like to get from you an assessment as to whether this is just something that would be nice to get out of the way and or whether this is an important issue as it relates to our national security. >> i can start off, sir. i think it is an important issue related to our national security. some have pointed out that there are no operations that we have been unable to conduct because we have not become a party to the convention and that in fact is true. as we look to the future which is what this is really about and we see some of the erosions of customary international law referred to, that's what we're really concerned about. and we would rather not wait until that becomes a crisis for us. we would rather get the treaty

ratified now so we've got that fundamental basis and international treaty law to do what we need to do and counter those taking us on in the maritime environment. we believe it's an issue for national security mostly in the future. >> is there any disagreement on that or any further clarification? >> if i may, senator, the arctic as mentioned earlier by senator lugar is a new area. i don't know what's customary up there and we'll be defining our behavior and our protocols up there. therefore, i would say it's an opportunity. >> in regards to the arctic, that's an area that is emerging as to the issues, we're not -- the issues that are currently being thought of were not ten years ago. it's an emerging area of great interest to the united states. as i understand it, we're the only country that borders the arctic that's not a member of the -- that's not ratified the law of the sea. explain a little bit more as to how that disadvantages us as

these discussions are taking place. >> senator, i'm the commander of northern command. it's in my area of responsibility. arctic is a fast changing environment. it's harsh. there are few assets available. working together is really at a premium. it's the opening of a new frontier, danger and uncertainty and also opportunity. the idea that the strongest, the fastest, the most aggressive party can define the customary international law is not the approach that any of the eight arctic nations desire to take. it would empower me as i provide leadership on behalf of the united states in the arctic to start with that rules based frame work, the firmness of treaty law in order to start sorting through the uncertainty that we face up there. as i said, there's a large premium on working together in the arctic right now.

>> thank you for that. i want to get back to china for one moment. i think back a decade ago when we were looking at china and saying, we should be able to manage our trade issues with china and it wasn't going to be a major problem for america and now we see what this has developed. the maritime interest of china seems to be expanding. they seem to be more bold than they've been in the past some of which we believe are not appropriate under international law. can you tell us how ratification, the law of the sea, would put us in a stronger position vis-a-vis china as it relates to its maritime ambitions? >> i can start and then turn it over to admiral locklear. one thing we've talked about is erosion of law. china has been assertive in writing laws that would restrict maritime activity in their exclusive economic zone. some of that maritime activity

is very important to us from a military sense and perhaps in a classified briefing later in the year we can go over that. without being a party to the convention, we really don't have a leg to stand on if we try to invoke the convention's clear rights in terms of our ability to operate in that exclusive economic zone. that's a potential future source of friction. it's already a source of friction but it could get worse and we would like to see the fundamental underpinning of the treaty to back up our rights in the eez to do what we need to do in a military basis. over to sam. >> i fully agree. it provides a solid fixed and favorable legal frame wowork to protect u.s. navigation and overnight rights and sovereignty of our ships and aircraft. that's the first thing it does. it would allow us being part of

the convention -- it alliance our international legal authorities with those of our allies and our partners and our friends in that region which is important. i think it would strengthen our standing to support our allies who are dealing with some of these issues particularly in the south china sea and they are trying to find a mechanism to align their maritime claims with international law and so it would improve our overall support and our standing as we try to get them to resolve in an ever increasing complex environment. we have to look forward and not in the rearview mirror. the complexity of the maritime environment because of the demand for resources because of the amount of goods ten years ago the amount of things that flowed on the ocean across the sea lines in that ten years it quadrupled because of the globalization of the economy. so we need to make sure that we're able to work through these disputes from a solid fixed

legal framework rather than resulting in every issue being a standoff that potentially could lead us down a path we don't want to go. >> as i understand it, 1990s when this treaty was first brought to the senate, there were concernsed, those concerns were shared by some of our allies and modifications were made and our allies went ahead and ratified the treaty to congress. the senate has not followed its suit. from your testimony here today, am i correct to say that you believe today it's more important to ratify the treaty than a decade ago and that circumstances on the sea continued to present additional challenges that the law of the sea would help america in promoting its national interest and national security. is that a fair assessment? it's even more important today than ten years ago because of the emerging issues? >> absolutely. a decade ago there were not as

many nations who were asserting their claims into the maritime environment in the way they are as there are today. and those claims -- those excessive claims continue to grow. i would say definitely compared to ten years ago, it's more important today than it was. >> okay. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator cardin. before i recognize senator corker, let me just quickly on your question about the arctic, i just want to comment. i believe the russians are sending their fifth mission into the arctic to do plotting this summer and the chinese have been up there in a significant way, is that not accurate? >> yes, senator, that is. >> again, this will be part of our classified briefing for all of the members but it's quite significant what is happening there without recourse in any legal way, is that correct? >> that's correct, senator. >> senator corker? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank each of you. i do believe that each of you are here espousing your own

views and i also know that sometimes we can have silos where one part of our government wants something to happen and other parts may be jeopardized and there's our role here to balance those off. we thank you for being here and certainly for your service. admiral locklear, my friend and colleague, senator lugar, asked you about china and the philippines and it looks to me like it's just the opposite of what we just said that those two countries are signatory to law of the seas treaty and there's a dispute and no resolution. it looks to me like the law of the seas treaty is not working as it should be with two countries having a dispute and both being signatsignatory. i would like to you explain why the laws of the sea treaty hasn't already resolved the conflict there and what is it about it that's failing? >> yes, sir. i think your perspective is correct. it has failed them to some degree. but i think it hasn't been tried in some of these areas that are

now emerging. i believe that there is opportunity and i get from all of our -- >> what do you mean it hasn't been tried? we have a conflict there. they are in dispute. it looks to me like china has basically said we're sorry. we're not going to adhere to the treaty document. how is it working? >> well, at this stage my understanding is that the chinese want to solve this in a bilateral relationship. >> the treaty is not working if they are doing it in a bilateral way, is that correct? >> the treaty provides mechanisms should the partner states choose to use it or the people -- signatory states choose to use it. our perspective is in our dialogue with our allies and our partners and as well as chinese, we want them to resolve this using standard rules and to use those that are outlined -- those

mechanisms outlined in the convention rather than a bilateral way where you may end up having a coercive perspective from one party or another that drives the decision in a detection we would not want it to go. >> it sounds like china is saying we don't care what you think. we don't care that we're members of the treaty. we want to resolve it in a bilateral way. to me it points to failure. we have a real life example of a failure of this treaty. admiral, you kept saying and it just -- this in no way affects our sovereignty but then you kept saying if we're not a member, key decisions are being made that affect our sovereign rights. how can both be true? >> i would say first of all, i want to add a bit to what sam locklear said and that one of the things that helps us in the south china sea is that when we have the nations align together pushing against china, china

tends to listen and when they can cut out somebody from the herd and go bilateral, they will tend to not go under treaty mechanism. if we're party to a law of the sea and we can put our political power and diplomatic power behind that, it would bolster the nations into potentially supporting the philippines, what have you. the law of the sea is not a magic formula to resolve a dispute between china and the philippines but it would allow us to have credibility in entering into that environment and then in terms of the sovereignty piece, what we would like is we will be able as a party to the convention to have direct influence over how the convention is applied and we'll be able to more fundamentally and with more credibility apply what is now customary international law embedded in the convention. >> i understand all of those things. we're a member of the club and

we can include the rules of the club. if key decisions are being made right now because we're not a party to the treaty that affect our sovereignty, how can you say that the treaty doesn't affect our sovereignty? >> senator, we would be in the mechanisms of the treaty and able to counter those decisions. >> wait a minute. you cannot say on one hand that the treaty in no way affects our sovereignty and then say decisions are being made that affect our sovereignty. you can't say that and it would be true. >> what i'm saying is by not being a party to the convention, we lose an opportunity to preserve our sovereignty. >> by virtue of you saying that, you say the treaty has pieces of it that affect our sovereignty. >> positively it affects our sovereignty and avoids negative impact on our sovereignty. for example, the extended continental shelf piece, we won't be able to assert that right unless we concede to the

treaty. someone could come off our coast and explore for natural resources and we don't have the power of the treaty behind us to say, sorry, you can't do that. >> can you give me one example where us not being a party to this treaty ever impacted your ability to enforce u.s. law? one live example? >> absolutely, sir. we have countries within south and central america that have excessive territorial sea claims and often times when you have these questions about jurisdiction, we may have intelligence or we may have a target which we believe is smuggling drugs or people and we cannot gain cooperation from these countries that are outside of the convention and we're outside of the convention and they have jurisdictional claims. we don't have mechanism for disputing this. on a routine basis, not only do we lose cases but often times we

lose time, our cutters and crews while we go through protracted negotiations with countries in particular for drug interdiction. we're focused on countries that are challenging us around the world on a day-to-day basis and even with our closest friends, we have disputes that only can be resolved within the convention. our border between canada and alaska isen under dispute. we can't negotiate with all of the tools in our tool bag with canada unless we are members of the convention. we have waters in northern new england between maine and alaska where we have jurisdictional disputes in terms of transit that has prevented lng port to be developed past maine because canada will not allow us to have free and unimpeded passage because and i think they are on very loose footing here, because

we can't negotiate because we aren't members of the convention. it's not just with countries that challenge us. it's also with our friends as well. those can be played against us because we haven't signed onto the convention. >> i find it hard to believe we couldn't reach a bilateral agreement with canada. it seems far-fetched. i would love to talk to you more about it. i get the impression that we feel like that if we were a party to the law of the sea treaty that it would cause us to have some savings as it relates to dealing with maritime issues throughout our navy. is that correct, admiral? >> i don't know there's any influence on the -- >> we're talking about the cost. we have a lot of cost because we're not part of the treaty. we have to do things in a very different way. it seems to me that i've heard that throughout the testimony here today. >> i don't think any of us have expressed, senator, that it would be more costly for us if we did not exceed to the treaty

in terms of financial terms. we're not going to have any different size of navy if we do or do not concede to the treaty. it gives us another tool in the toolbox to do business as a navy and as a nation. >> listen, i respect each of you. i will say that today's testimony -- i thank you for your public service. to me, it has fogged things up more than it began. i very much appreciate and look forward to many one-on-one meetings as we hash this out. i thank you very much for your service to our country. >> senator webb? >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me begin by just offering an observation on the exchange that just took place. without getting to the issue of sovereignty and there are sovereignty issues involved clearly in what we're attempting to do in places like the south china sea, i would just say as

on observation treaties in and of their nature compel certain actions by our country. that's why we come together and have this process very carefully before we ratify a treaty and they also cause an agreement among our governmental people to abide by certain standards that are in a treaty. that's what a treaty is about. that does not mean that in a treaty in my opinion we're going to be giving up any of our sovereignty rights. let me start with that. before i get into my question, i would like to join the chairman in recognizing senator john warner for his presence here today. he's been working on this issue for a very long time, from the time he was in the department of navy and i was a 25-year-old marine on his staff. that was a long time ago. it was a pleasure to follow

senator warner, secretary of the navy, and also to be able to serve with him here in the senate as my senior partner. tremendous regard for all of his service and work that he's done on this area. i believe that the indisputable starting point in this discussion really is that the international rules of the road for security and also for commercial exploration have never been more complex. this affects the issues of freedom of navigation as you have discussed several times this morning. those are basically tactical questions. it also affects issues of sovereignty. those are strategic questions and following issues of sovereignty in and of itself unavoidably involves commerce and how our nation interacts in a lot of areas that right now are not clear in terms of who

has those rights. that's apparent in the arctic as has been discussed and it's also clear in such areas as the islands where after a number of years of quiet dispute in 2010, japan and china had a blowup over sovereignty that could have involved our security treaty with japan if it had gone further. it's clearly apparent in the south china sea from our office, the initial -- we initially offered a senate resolution condemning the chinese actions a couple years ago involving the use of military force in the philippines and off of the coast of vietnam and we had unanimous

vote by the senate that had two very important pieces in it i think in terms of the expression of the senate. one was deploring the use of force by navy and maritime security vessels from china and other called on all parties to refrain from threatening the u.s. of force and to continue efforts to facilitate multilateral peaceful processes as we address these issues. and that to me is the most important component of what we're talking about today. we need to find the right forum to address disputes where claims can be resolved with the agreement of multiple claimants and this is a key point when we're discussing the activities of china particularly to this point. not only china. there are a lot of these that are potentially going to affect sovereignty rights and eventually commercial

competition. it's an evolving entity. it's an important entity. ten countries. 650 million people. a widely varying governmental systems among them. they have been struggling for ten years now to find rules of navigation and sovereignty to try to calm down the process in this part of the world. they issued a proclamation in '02 to lay down rules of the road and they issued another one recently. we've not been totally successful with china. we all know that. we have been attempting to develop a number of different ways to encourage china to come into the solutions process on a multilateral basis. from our office we have done the same thing with respect to the delta where china does not recognize downstream water rights from the macon river with

damming that's done upstream that makes it very difficult to bring china into a multilateral solutions process and it is -- there's no place that it is truer than when we look at sovereign sovereignty rights and the future of the activities and commercial endeavors in the south china sea. for that reason, i think this is a format that will greatly assist us in the future. i know that there are questions on other side. i'm sure all of you have seen the editorial in "the wall street journal" yesterday written by former secretary of defense rumsfeld who says the treaty remains a sweeping power grab that could prove to be the worldwide mechanism of wealth in history. that's not necessarily in any of your portfolios. i would like to hear from you.