Negotiations for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage began in 1998. Its stated goal of preserving heritage located undersea is laudable. But the evolution of the effort has resulted in a draft Convention on Underwater Cultural Heritage (UCH), that would:

• Destroy an entire American industry;
• Impair shipwreck preservation efforts;
• Accede to the statist, anti-free market agenda of UNESCO;
• Empower U.N. bureaucrats to regulate industries from fishing to telecommunications to oil exploration to construction;
• Jeopardize the U.S. Navy's cultural heritage; and
• Undermine the U.S. Senate's advice and consent role in treaty-making.

• The U.S. government is participating in a multilateral negotiating process that would eliminate an entire American industry. The draft Convention on the UCH could also have significant adverse effects on a wide-range of industries from fishing to shipping to international telecommunications and marine construction.
• The draft convention would put American salvage companies out of business. Article I of the Annex states: "[u]nderwater cultural heritage shall not be traded, sold, bought and bartered as items of commercial value." If salvors cannot receive value for their discoveries, they will cease to exist. It is as if a U.N. body decreed the works of Van Gogh or Rembrandt cannot be traded, sold, bought or bartered as items of commercial value.
• The draft Convention on UCH would effectively end deep ocean exploration for historically significant shipwrecks. Article V of the Annex states that "Project funding shall not require the sale, acquisition or barter or underwater cultural heritage."
• Modern shipwreck recovery is capital intensive and utilizes very advanced technologies. The cost of deep ocean exploration and recovery can run up to $50,000 per day. This cost, now borne largely by the private sector, would be shifted to governments. The Institute of Marine Archaeological Conservation (IMAC) does not believe U.S. taxpayers should be asked to finance underwater shipwreck exploration.
• Prohibiting private sector activity would effectively end shipwreck recovery. Relying on Third World Culture Ministries to manage complex and costly search and recovery efforts ensures that important underwater cultural heritage will never be found, studied or recovered.
• If the draft Convention on UCH were in effect, the entrepreneurs who discover and preserve historic shipwrecks would be high and dry. Shipwrecks from the Queen Anne's Revenge (Blackbeard's ship in North Carolina waters) and the Atocha (a Spanish galleon off the Florida Keys) to the Titanic (off of Nova Scotia) would be undiscovered and unknown.

• The draft Convention on UCH perversely argues the best way to save shipwrecks is to destroy them. The draft convention's Article I wrongly claims the best protection for underwater cultural heritage is "preservation in place" -- leaving shipwrecks in the water. Abandoning historical treasures under the sand thousands of fathoms deep means few humans will ever have the opportunity to view them but the ravages of salt water and time will continue to destroy them.
• Shipwrecks represent one of the most important archaeological resources remaining in the world. The professional historic salvage community promotes high standards of archaeological fieldwork, research, artifact conservation and ultimate publication of historical data.
• IMAC believes the public should have a right to access the historical, archeological and cultural benefits of shipwrecks and underwater cultural resources. Such benefits are best achieved through the professional exploration, recovery and conservation of the shipwrecks.
• An international ban on shipwreck recovery will only encourage illicit salvage and increase the black market in artifacts and the looting of shipwrecks. There is evidence that national efforts have done just that -- Australia, for example, saw a dramatic decrease in the number of historic shipwrecks reported to the government once historic salvage was banned.

• The UNESCO Convention is being shaped by delegates with a distinct bias against free enterprise. The U.S. withdrew from UNESCO in 1984 because its anti-American, pro-socialist agenda was so pervasive. Little has changed since then except for the U.S. role as "observer" to various UNESCO activities, including the ongoing draft Convention on UCH negotiations.
• Many delegations have little knowledge or interest in the realities of modern underwater salvage. The Rapporteur for the 1999 Convention on UCH negotiating session was from Benin. Benin, bordered by Togo, Burkina Faso, Niger and Nigeria, has a coastline of less than 80 miles on the Bight of Benin, no merchant marine and no natural harbors.

• The draft Convention on UCH would impact a wide range of human activities on or beneath the world's oceans. The Preamble cites "threats to underwater cultural heritage from…exploitation of natural resources … construction …laying of cables and pipelines."
• The draft convention's definition of underwater cultural heritage is too broad. The definition in Article I includes "all traces of human existence partially, totally or periodically underwater for at least 100 years . . ." This definition is all encompassing and literally includes non-perishable garbage. Only UNESCO would see rum bottles tossed overboard in 1900 as "cultural heritage"! And Articles 5 and 7 require the reporting of any discovery of underwater cultural heritage to the Director General of UNESCO and the General Secretary of the International Seabed Authority (ISA).
• Article 7 of the draft Convention on UCH entails requirements if UNESCO unilaterally designates any area of international waters "as requiring special protection."  

• A "competent authority" that would have sweeping powers to alter, restrict or eliminate maritime activities at its discretion. The draft Convention makes repeated references to such an authority or authorities but never defines the term.
• The ill-defined provisions bestowing broad powers to UNESCO, the ISA and "competent authorities" could be easily construed by U.N. bureaucrats as license to:

• Foreshadowed in the Preamble and enabled in the text, such actions would lead to higher operational, insurance, product and service costs to American government, industry and consumers.

• The draft Convention would undermine the ability of the U.S. Navy to preserve their historic properties.
• A June 16, 2000 memorandum written by the Director of the Naval Historical Center highlighted serious concerns with the draft Convention. He noted: "Of most concern to the [Director of Naval History] is the possibility that control, management and protection of U.S. Navy cultural resources, both above and beneath the water, whether aircraft, ships, other transportation vehicles, artifacts associated with military service, structures, buildings, and any material currently held by the sovereign, would be handed to an as yet unnamed 'competent authority' outside the purview of the U.S. Navy."
• The Director of Naval History concludes that he "does not concur with either the necessity for U.S. Navy involvement in the proposed draft convention, nor certain provisions outlined in the draft, if required to participate" (emphasis in original).

• Article 21 states that "No reservations or exceptions may be made to this Convention." Should the U.S ever sign the Convention, this article would undermine the Senate's ability to exercise its Constitutional responsibilities by adding reservations to any resolution of ratification. In recent years, the Senator has taken a dim view of multilateral treaties with similar clauses.
• In addition, the entry into force of the Convention has an extremely low threshold. Article 20 states that the Convention enters into force three months after only five countries deposit their instruments of ratification. The United States Senate -- and all coastal states -- may wish to consider the implications of a binding document of international law that has only been ratified by landlocked states such as Nepal, Mali, Paraguay, Kyrgyzstan, and Zambia.

• The international bureaucrats' left hand is unaware of its right hand. Several of the provisions in the draft Convention on UCH conflict with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (CLOS). Article XII of the Annex bars the application of "[a]ny internal law or regulation having the effect of providing commercial incentives for the excavation and removal of" wrecks and artifacts. This clause conflicts with article 303(3) of the CLOS, which preserves "the law of salvage or other rules of admiralty."
• The draft Convention on UCH would create great confusion for the courts and the executive branch in trying to implement contradictory treaty language. The United States has signed, but not ratified, the CLOS, and generally recognizes most of its provisions. The U.S. position on the draft Convention on UCH certainly calls for clarification by the United States Senate, to which the CLOS has been submitted for advice and consent.

Cooperation with Rogue States?

• Article 10 of the draft Convention on UCH requires states to impose criminal penalties for illicit importation of underwater cultural heritage items and cooperation with enforcement of such sanctions. The original draft further mandated cooperation on documents, witnesses and extradition
• The implications of requirements for law enforcement cooperation with nations like Libya, China, Iraq and North Korea would need serious examination, should the U.S. ever consider signing and ratifying the Convention on UCH.

Exporting America’s Technological Edge?

• Article 16 of the draft Convention on UCH requires "States Parties shall cooperate to promote training and transfer of technology relating to underwater cultural heritage".
• The United States has the most advanced deep ocean exploration and recovery technology and techniques in the world. The Convention’s requirement to transfer such technology and techniques – to or through the U.N. – to American competitors like France or Japan needs close scrutiny before any decision to become a party.