U.S. Navy has concluded that costs of unilateral enforcement of naval freedoms through Freedom of Navigation program no longer worth it
This is just a sampling of excessive maritime claims and their sequels, but it represents the financial and diplomatic costs, as well of the risks, associated with the FON program. The case became compelling that such costs and risks would be substantially less under a specific, binding treaty.55 Two noted experts on the law of the sea, 1. Ashley Roach and Robert W. Smith, presented the position of the State Department in 1994: “Unilateral U.S. demonstrations of resolve—especially operational assertions—are sometimes viewed as antagonistic. They risk the possibility of military confrontation and of political costs that may be deemed unacceptable, with prejudice to other US. interests, including worldwide leadership in ocean affairs and support for use of cooperative, international solutions to mutual problems?“
Quicktabs: Evidence
Arguments
Related argument(s) where this quote is used.
-
The United States can assert its navigational rights at any point on the globe, but it cannot be assured of a local superiority of forces simultaneously at every location of potential maritime dispute. Moreover, obvious practicality compels restraint—against both allies and potential adversaries—over maritime disputes. Even the peaceful and non-confrontational Freedom of Navigation (FON) program may present diplomatic costs and pose risks inherent in physical challenges,
Keywords:Related Quotes:- Attempting to enforce navigational rights outside of UNCLOS framework would be an expensive undertaking and waste of resources
- U.S. efforts to address excessive claims outside of UNCLOS framework are unsustainable
- Dangerous precedent to assume U.S. can continue to assert its navigational rights
- Ratifying convention would significantly reduce costs U.S. military incurs to protect navigation rights
- ... and 16 more quote(s)
Supporting Arguments: