I strongly believe that accession to this treaty is absolutely essential not only to our economic interests, our diplomatic interests, but I am here to say that it is extremely important to our national security interests as well.
Leon Panetta
The Public Record
Leon Panetta is a prominent Democratic politician from California, known for his extensive career in public service. He served as the 23rd Secretary of Defense under President Barack Obama from 2011 to 2013, where he played a key role in military operations, including the Navy SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden. Prior to that, he was the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from 2009 to 2011, focusing on national security and intelligence reform. Panetta has also served in the U.S. House of Representatives, representing California's 16th congressional district from 1977 to 1993, where he was known for his work on budget and agriculture issues.
If the United States is to assert its historical role as a global maritime power--and we have without question the strongest navy in the world. But if we are going to continue to assert our role as a maritime power, it is essential that we…
We continue to face a challenging and complex global security environment, with multiple transnational threats including violent extremism, the destabilizing behavior of nations like Iran and North Korea, military modernization across the…
the end result of that is going to be conflict, and it could very well jeopardize our national security
The Law of the Sea Convention provides a stable, recognized legal regime that we need in order to conduct our global operations today and in the future.
If we are not operating based on the same rules, it puts us at a disadvantage.
We are pushing for a rules-based order in the region and the peaceful resolution of maritime and territorial disputes in the South China Sea, in the Strait of Hormuz, and elsewhere. How can we argue that other nations must abide by…
Yes. I believe that being a party to the Convention would help enlist support from other countries to get offending countries to drop their spurious claims.
Yes. I believe strongly that joining the Convention would assist U.S. efforts to get countries with excessive maritime claims to drop their spurious restrictions on freedom of navigation.
No, it would not. It would enhance our ability to be able to navigate because we would be able to be at the table to protect our interests and protect our claims.
We attach the term 'lawfare' to these efforts to erode the protections of customary international law.
Although we do not have territory there, we have vital interests--particularly freedom of navigation.
It does put us at risk, and the risk is this, that if we face a situation that involves navigational rights...
We have much more to gain from legal certainty and public order in the world's oceans than any other country.
The majority of our allies are signatories. They have acceded to this Convention.
Candidly, I join my boss, Secretary Panetta, and Marty Dempsey in finding it awkward to suggest that other nations should follow rules that we have not yet agreed to ourselves.
Yes, regardless of whether the United States is a party to the Law of the Sea Convention, U.S. Military assets will continue to conduct operational assertions under the U.S. Freedom of Navigation Program.
This would in no way inhibit our ability to conduct intelligence operations.
How can you even assert that when you are not even--have acceded to the Law of the Seas Convention?
I can assure you that we will not let this happen and the Convention does not require it.
It is absolutely imperative that we retain the capability to protect our access to the skies, the high seas, the straits, and even the territorial waters of other nations with respect to innocent passage.
The time is now for the Senate to do what others have failed to do, join the Law of the Sea Convention.





