The otherwise estimable Barbara Slavin of USA Today writes an entire article about the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS), without actually mentioning the treaty by name. Slavin explains how the White House sees "black gold" under the Arctic ice--and references a treaty that would firm up American oil companies' claims to excavate--but she never explicitly states that it is the Law of the Seas Treaty, which sets rules the use of the world's oceans, to which she is referring.

Nevertheless, the article is good. It shows how the Senate's non-ratification of the treaty is undermining American interests. Oil and mineral extraction companies, for example, are wary about the legal firmament of their Arctic claims absent Senate ratification of the treaty. Slavin quotes John Bellinger III, the State Departments' top lawyer, and Coast Guard Commandant Thad Allen--both of whom urge the quick ratification of the treaty, which the US signed back in 1982. Though the piece does not mention it (this is a short USA Today article after all) the military also advocates for US ratification because doing so would help it more freely navigate the ocean.

But oil companies and the military are not the only advocates of US ratification of the Law of the Seas. Major environmental groups also see great value in the treaty, which contains provisions for protecting fish stocks and sets marine environmental standards. The treaty has the unanimous support of the Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

So what is stopping its passage? Slavin cites one senator in particular who opposes the treaty on strict ideological grounds. "There's still a little sovereignty left in America," says the Senator. "Let's hold onto it." With the kind of wide ranging support the Law of the Seas Treaty enjoys, however, that kind of atavistic opposition to the treaty cannot hold for too much longer.

As noted below, the Security Council approved a new resolution establishing the 26,000-strong United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur, UNAMID. Remember that acronym, because for the next many months the central tasks facing the international community on Darfur will center around: 1) actually raising the requisite troops for UNAMID; 2) providing UNAMID with a steady funding stream; 3) making sure Khartoum actually permits UNAMID troops to enter Darfur.

None of these challenges will be easy. The Secretary General cannot wave a magic wand and summon peacekeepers -- rather, he must depend on the contributions of member states. Also, at $2 billion this mission will be the most expensive peacekeeping operation in the world -- and cash is not exactly in surplus at UN Peacekeeping. Still, this resolution presents a major step forward. In every previous Security Council resolution on Darfur, China (which has extensive financial and business relations with Khartoum)had helped to water down the text, only to abstain in the end. But this time, China voted for, rather than abstained from the resolution.

To be sure, at China's request the council dropped the threat of sanctions. But it kept intact harsh language under Chapter VII of the UN Charter--which permits the use of force in the event of Khartoum's non-compliance. This is a big step forward in Chinese diplomacy toward Sudan.

The Security Council -- for the very first time -- is unified around sending peacekeepers to Darfur. With China finally on board, it will be much, much harder for Khartoum to resist signing a status of forces agreement with the UN.

Yesterday the United Nations Security Council voted unanimously to deploy up to 26,000 peacekeepers in an effort to stop the violence in Darfur.

The resolution will create the world's largest peacekeeping operation, costing about $2 billion in its first year and drawing on military and police forces from the African Union and the United Nations, a United Nations spokeswoman said.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called the mission "historic and unprecedented."

The New York Times has more.