as a nonparty, we cede the legal high ground to china. we put ourselves on the defensive. we are not as strong an advocate for our friends and allies in the region as i would like us to be. and i don't think that's any place for the world's preeminent maritime power to find ourselves. so, the common thread, and this is something that secretary pa knelt th panetta stressed, when i make an argument to the chinese about resolving these disputes, i premise it on a rules-based order in the region. that they cannot have a chinese rule. they have to be bound by the treaty obligations and the legal framework, set forth in the convention and our credibility and our strategic position would be strengthened, were we a member. >> thank you. >> my last question, i would give to secretary panetta. and i know you spoke about iranian threats to close the straits of hormuz, you alluded to that. i have a specific question. according to the u.s. energy information administration, they said, quote, hormuz is, by far, the world's most important choke point due to its daily oil flow with approx

now, as a nonparty to the convention, we rely, we have to rely on what is called customary international law as a legal basis for invoking and enforcing these norms. but in no other situation in which our security interests are at stake do we consider customary international law good enough to protect rights that are vital to the operation of the united states' military. so far, we've been fortunate. but our navigational rights and our ability to you challenge other countries' behavior should stand on the firmest and most persuasive legal footing available, including in critical areas such as the south china sea. i'm sure you have followed the claims countries are making in the south china sea. although we do not have territory there, we have vital interests particularly freedom of navigation, and i can report from the diplomatic trenches that as a party to the convention, we would have greater credibility in invoking the convention's rules and a greater ability to enforce them. now, i know a number of you the have you heard arguments opposing the convention. and let me just address thos

but as a nonparty, we're on the outside looking in. we live by the rules but we don't shape the rules. it couldn't be more clear. without joining the law of the sea, we're deprived of critical benefits of protections under the treaty. a few quick examples. ratifying the treaty will lock in the favorable navigational rights that our military and shipping interests depend on every single day. it will strengthen our hand against china and others who stake out claims in the pacific, the arctic, or elsewhere. it will give our oil and gas companies the certainty that they need to secure our energy future, it will put our telecommunications companies on equal footing with our foreign investors and help secure access to rare earth minerals we need for weapons systems, computers, cell phones, and the like. it will also address issues of military effectiveness. as our focus shifts to the asia pacific region, it's more important than ever that we're part of the country. china and other countries are staking out illegal claims. it would give a boo

passage rights under international law, and we would further isolate iran as one of the few remaining nonparties to the convention. these are the key reasons from a national security point of view for accession, reasons that are critical to our sovereignty, critical to our national security. again, as the secretary pointed out, i understand the arguments that have been made on the other side, but at the same time, i don't understand the logic of those arguments. the myth that somehow this would surrender u.s. sovereignty, nothing could be further from the truth. not since we acquired the lands of the american west and alaska have we had such an opportunity to expand u.s. sovereignty. the estimated continental shelf is said to encompass at least 385,000 square miles. 385,000 square miles of sea bed. as i said -- as secretary pointed out, it's 1 1/2 times the size of texas that would be added to our jurisdiction. some claim joining the convention would restrict our military operations and activities, limit our ability to collect intelligence in territorial seas. nothing could be further from the t

lowest since january two thousand and nine the month president obama took office now last month nonparty farm employers added one hundred fifteen thousand jobs to their payrolls still that is well below the one hundred seventy thousand jobs economists predicted would be added and as far as that slowly declining unemployment rate experts say that was largely due to the three hundred forty two thousand people leaving the labor force altogether. and to talk more about all of that earlier i spoke with max kaiser host of the kaiser report featured right here on r.t. . the numbers to an economy that is in grave jeopardy of collapsing there are no new jobs being created of any significance and more importantly look at the wages wages are continuing to deteriorate and the purchasing power of the average american is continuing to deteriorate so this is a con i'm a very very troubled although you know of course everyone is getting this in several different directions some people say you know what there's been a twenty six or so straight months of growth in jobs in the private sector and americans

president was that taking on so much water, it was going against his brand of looking like he was nonpartisisan. >> he had no choice, did he, mary? >> exactly. it's not risky if you don't have a choice. you don't get bonus points if you're doing your job. he evolved into the position he originally had. he's not bold. he was four years against it and evolved back to where he started to be for it. his vice president outed him and the gay community was holding the money up, and he was on his way to george clooney's with an open purse. >> that's not true. >> first of all, that's exactly not true. barney frank was clear about that too. the gay community was not holding its money up. this was not about money. it was unplanned. the vice president, you know, spoke from the heart, and the president kind of followed that. but the -- >> well, wait a second. one point actually mary didn't include, this was going to be on the platform, a platform for gay marriage at the democratic convention. the president had to do it before then. didn't he? >> i said months and months ago that i thought that this elec

passage rights under international law, and we would further isolate iran is one of the few remaining nonparties to the convention. these are the key reasons for the national security point of view for accession. reasons that are critical to our sovereignty, critical to our national security. again, as the secretary pointed out, i understand the arguments that have been made on the other side, but at the same time i don't understand the logic of those arguments. the myth that somehow this would surrender u.s. sovereignty, nothing could be further from the truth. not since we acquired the land lands of the american west in alaska have we had such an opportunity to expand u.s. sovereignty. the estimated extended continental shelf is said to encompass at least 385,000 square miles, 385,000 square miles of seabed. as the secretary pointed out its 1.5 times the size of texas that would be added to our sovereignty, that would be added to our jurisdiction. some claim that joining the convention would restrict our military operations and activities and limit our ability to collect intelligence and terri

we've effectively lift by the terms of the treaty for 30 years but as a nonparty, we are on the outside looking in. we live by the rules when we don't shape for rules. it couldn't be more clear without joining the law we are deprived of critical benefits and protections under the treaty. a few quick examples. ratifying the treaty will walk in the favorable navigational rights that our military and shipping interests depend on every single day. it will strengthen our hand against china and others whose account claims in the pacific, the arctic or elsewhere. it will give our oil and gas company is the certainty they need to make crucial investments to secure the energy future and put it or telecommunications company on an equal footing with their foreign competitors and help secure access to minerals which we need for weapons systems, computers, sells phones and the like. it will also address issues of military effectiveness as our national-security focus shifts towards the asia-pacific region it's more important than ever that we are a part of this treaty. china and other countries are s