The president wants it. The military wants it. So do shipping industry and environmental groups. The only thing standing in the way of the United States finally signing on to the Law of the Sea Convention, a United Nations treaty governing what happens on, above and under the ocean, is a small group of conservatives. Their unfounded fears of the United States ceding too much control to an international body should not blow members of Congress off course. The treaty has many benefits, most immediately in the war on terrorism, and should be ratified.

Although the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 19-0 for ratification, after testimony from the State, Defense and Homeland Security departments, Majority Leader Bill Frist has refused to allow a full Senate vote on ratification of the treaty. His primary reason for not having a vote is that the Senate calendar is already full. This may be true, but given the widespread support of the treaty, debate does not need to be lengthy.

The consequences of the Senate’s inaction could be felt soon. Lack of American participation could be damaging to President Bush’s efforts to stop international trade in weapons of mass destruction. Under the Proliferation Security Initiative, 15 countries on five continents have agreed to work together to board ships believed to be transporting biological, chemical or nuclear weapons to countries of concern or to terrorist groups. The Bush administration has credited last year’s seizure by Italian officials of nuclear centrifuges bound for Libya with forcing that country to admit to its nuclear ambitions.

This effort is in jeopardy without U.S. support for the U.N. sea treaty. PSI was designed to be compatible with the treaty, but that could change when the treaty is up for amendment for the first time. Countries that are parties to the treaty, notably China and India, have been highly critical of PSI as an encroachment on their sovereignty.

It is possible they will try to amend the Law of the Sea to make it conflict with PSI. Some PSI participants have said they will no longer participate in interdictions if the PSI rules conflict with the sea treaty.

Troop and equipment movement could also be harmed. Adm. Vern Clark, chief of naval operations, told the Senate Armed Services Committee this spring that the treaty supports U.S. efforts in the war on terrorism. It “ensures the freedom to get to the fight, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, without a permission slip,” he said.

If it does not sign on to the Law of the Sea, as have 145 other countries, the United States will miss its best chance to influence not only implementation that treaty’s provisions, but also of other critical agreements like PSI. The next round of talks begins this fall, with or without America.