Senator Vitter Delivers Speech on Law of the Sea Treaty
Press Release
Office of U.S. Senator David Vitter
November 13, 2007 -
http://vitter.senate.gov/?module=pressroom/pressitem&ID=576674df-cb2c-44d6-ae6b-abf51a119f0c#
(Washington, D.C.) – U.S. Sen. David Vitter again today voiced his concerns with the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, speaking out against key provisions on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Vitter has repeatedly called for a further and more thorough review of LOST before it is voted on by the U.S. Senate, and despite its recent approval by the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs he has remained an outspoken critic of the treaty’s potential impact on the United States.
“The impact of this treaty on American sovereignty and security cannot be understated. Ratifying LOST would signal our intent to hand a portion of our national security matters over to the United Nations and similar international bodies – which are not accountable to any higher authority and often hold less than friendly views of the United States,” said Vitter.
LOST carves the sea into zones and, in certain cases, dictates what actions sovereign states may be permitted to engage in under its terms, including those relating to national security, science, trade and the environment. These restrictive activities, and the strengthening of powers granted to the United Nations by the treaty, are among some of Sen. Vitter’s principal concerns.
“LOST attempts to govern the use of the seabed, the airspace above it and the topsoil below it – infringing on the ability of sovereign nations to explore the oceans, conduct scientific research or collect military intelligence vital to national defense. It also allows international courts and tribunals to define what constitutes U.S. ‘military’ or ‘intelligence-gathering activities,’ a subjective power that could routinely lead America into disputes with other nations,” Vitter added.
“This “lawfare” holds grave repercussions for our rights as a country and provides the U.N. with simply too much authority over American interests and concerns,” Vitter said.
Vitter has repeatedly called for further debate on this issue and recently sent letters to the U.S. Senate Committees on Environment and Public Works and Foreign Relations requesting that a panel of experts from present and past administrations be allowed to appear before the committees to answer detailed questions from the members. Vitter also noted that previous questions raised by senators have not yet been adequately addressed.
International treaties must be ratified by the U.S. Senate and LOST must receive full Senate floor consideration before being formalized. It was approved by the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs last month by a vote of 17-4, with Vitter being only one of four who voted in opposition to the treaty.
“LOST holds significant, unseen consequences for the United States and could affect our sovereignty and environmental and commercial policies. This treaty needs to be reviewed carefully, and we need a full and open debate on its merits and flaws before moving forward,” said Vitter.
Showing posts with label u.s. sovereignty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label u.s. sovereignty. Show all posts
Friday, January 18, 2008
Scuttle LOST
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/archive/s_536618.html
Pittsburgh Tribune Review
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Any day now, the full U.S. Senate could approve the Law of the Sea Treaty, better known as LOST. But should the required two-thirds majority adopt this abomination, lost will be a large chunk of U.S. sovereignty and wealth.
The treaty, reported out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week and supported by President Bush, is rife with contradictions that render it a nightmare for America but a gold mine for the United Nations bureaucracy that designed it.
Worse, many in the Bush administration, pressed in congressional hearings, were poorly versed in the treaty's nuts and bolts and abysmally ignorant of its ramifications.
A treaty sold as the kumbaya of better seabed management, more liberal navigational rights and streamlined dispute resolution truly is a godsend for the one-worlder aficionados. Largely drafted by an avowed Marxist, there are world taxes, restrictions on land-based activities in the U.S. and rules that actually make it more difficult for this country to defend itself against attack.
Even worse, a treaty that further empowers a U.N. that regularly abuses its power can be amended without the approval of the signatories.
LOST is a blank check that places this nation in jeopardy. And approval by the full Senate would be nothing less than an abdication of the senators' oaths of office. The Law of the Sea Treaty must be scuttled.
Pittsburgh Tribune Review
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Any day now, the full U.S. Senate could approve the Law of the Sea Treaty, better known as LOST. But should the required two-thirds majority adopt this abomination, lost will be a large chunk of U.S. sovereignty and wealth.
The treaty, reported out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week and supported by President Bush, is rife with contradictions that render it a nightmare for America but a gold mine for the United Nations bureaucracy that designed it.
Worse, many in the Bush administration, pressed in congressional hearings, were poorly versed in the treaty's nuts and bolts and abysmally ignorant of its ramifications.
A treaty sold as the kumbaya of better seabed management, more liberal navigational rights and streamlined dispute resolution truly is a godsend for the one-worlder aficionados. Largely drafted by an avowed Marxist, there are world taxes, restrictions on land-based activities in the U.S. and rules that actually make it more difficult for this country to defend itself against attack.
Even worse, a treaty that further empowers a U.N. that regularly abuses its power can be amended without the approval of the signatories.
LOST is a blank check that places this nation in jeopardy. And approval by the full Senate would be nothing less than an abdication of the senators' oaths of office. The Law of the Sea Treaty must be scuttled.
Senate panel OKs sea treaty, but fight looms
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071101/NATION/111010044/1001
By Stephen Dinan
The Washington Times
November 1, 2007
By Stephen Dinan - The Senate Foreign Relations Committee easily approved the Law of the Sea convention yesterday, brushing back conservatives' objections and setting up a bruising ratification fight on the Senate floor, where Republicans say they can defeat it.
Ratification of treaties takes a two-thirds vote. Republican leaders are trying to secure 34 signatures on a letter to show they have the support to block it and hope this will persuade President Bush and Senate Democrats to put off a vote until at least next year.
"Our leadership is united. This is something we shouldn't go forward with right now," said Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican. "I think we've got a good shot of getting 34 on it."
The committee voted 17-4 to approve the treaty. All four votes in opposition came from Republicans: Mr. DeMint and Sens. Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Johnny Isakson of Georgia and David Vitter of Louisiana.
Mr. Bush, oil and gas companies, Senate Democrats and some key Senate Republicans support the treaty.
Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., Delaware Democrat and committee chairman, said it presents a clear choice: "Do we join a treaty that establishes a framework to advance the rule of law on the oceans, that is clearly in our military, economic and environmental interests, and that has broad acceptance among the major maritime powers? Or do we remain on the outside, to the detriment of our national interests?"
The treaty, negotiated in the 1970s and early 1980s, establishes rules for mining rights, navigation and territorial waters and sets up several new international bodies to oversee its implementation.
The U.S. already acts in accordance with much of the treaty, but President Reagan objected to specific provisions on seabed mining and refused to submit it for ratification. President George H.W. Bush started a new round of negotiations, and President Clinton submitted it to Congress in 1994.
The current administration says the treaty's navigational rights will help the Navy, while the mining businesses say the treaty would provide the legal certainty they need to explore seabed resources. They argue that the treaty already has been in force for 13 years and that the U.S. is missing a chance to take part in the negotiations and decisions that are defining how it is working.
But an array of conservative national security groups is trying to block the treaty, arguing it tramples U.S. sovereignty and could create an international taxing regime. They also fear the international bodies will be hostile to the U.S. and will expand their mandate to try to control land-based businesses.
The treaty has passed the committee before, in 2004, on a 19-0 vote, though Republican leaders refused to bring it to the floor.
Now, Democratic leaders who control the schedule say they want a floor vote, but it's not clear whether one can happen this year.
A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said his party is "hopeful" of holding a vote, but the schedule is crowded.
Several Republican aides said they were surprised by Sen. Bob Corker, Tennessee Republican, who voted by proxy yesterday to approve the treaty. In a statement read by Sen. Richard G. Lugar, the committee's top Republican, Mr. Corker said that his vote was only to move the process along, and that he would study the issue before a final floor vote.
Mr. Coleman voted against the treaty but said he wants to see if his questions can be answered. For now, he said he was swayed by former U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, who was a vehement opponent of the treaty before she died.
Mr. DeMint said he sees opposition growing as more senators look at the treaty, and as they hear from constituents.
"We've gotten enough input in our office to know there's a rising tide on this," he said.
Speaking to reporters last week, Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican and his party's conference chairman, said Republicans can block it on the floor.
"There aren't the votes to pass it," he told reporters.
At one point in yesterday's committee meeting, Mr. Vitter tried to block the vote, calling for another round of hearings.
Sen. Bill Nelson, Florida Democrat, told Mr. Vitter that his motion was going to fail and that by offering it he was violating the collegiality of the Senate. Several of Mr. Vitter's Republican allies on the committee also said they would vote against his motion, and he was forced to withdraw it.
"I don't think another hearing is going to make a difference," Mr. Coleman told him.
LAW OF THE SEA TREATY
The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea has been in force for 13 years. The treaty has been submitted to the U.S. Senate, which has yet to ratify it.
Among its provisions, the convention:
•Establishes territorial waters extending 12 miles from a country"s shore, within which a country has complete control over resources and vessels" passage.
•Recognizes a 200-mile economic zone extending from a country"s shore in which that country has sole rights to natural resources.
•Establishes an International Seabed Authority, responsible for overseeing deep seabed mining.
•Establishes an International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to settle disputes stemming from the treaty.
•Sets out requirements to prevent ocean-dumping and other environmental damage.
•Recognizes naval and commercial passage rights through other countries" territorial seas and straits used for international navigation.
By Stephen Dinan
The Washington Times
November 1, 2007
By Stephen Dinan - The Senate Foreign Relations Committee easily approved the Law of the Sea convention yesterday, brushing back conservatives' objections and setting up a bruising ratification fight on the Senate floor, where Republicans say they can defeat it.
Ratification of treaties takes a two-thirds vote. Republican leaders are trying to secure 34 signatures on a letter to show they have the support to block it and hope this will persuade President Bush and Senate Democrats to put off a vote until at least next year.
"Our leadership is united. This is something we shouldn't go forward with right now," said Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican. "I think we've got a good shot of getting 34 on it."
The committee voted 17-4 to approve the treaty. All four votes in opposition came from Republicans: Mr. DeMint and Sens. Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Johnny Isakson of Georgia and David Vitter of Louisiana.
Mr. Bush, oil and gas companies, Senate Democrats and some key Senate Republicans support the treaty.
Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., Delaware Democrat and committee chairman, said it presents a clear choice: "Do we join a treaty that establishes a framework to advance the rule of law on the oceans, that is clearly in our military, economic and environmental interests, and that has broad acceptance among the major maritime powers? Or do we remain on the outside, to the detriment of our national interests?"
The treaty, negotiated in the 1970s and early 1980s, establishes rules for mining rights, navigation and territorial waters and sets up several new international bodies to oversee its implementation.
The U.S. already acts in accordance with much of the treaty, but President Reagan objected to specific provisions on seabed mining and refused to submit it for ratification. President George H.W. Bush started a new round of negotiations, and President Clinton submitted it to Congress in 1994.
The current administration says the treaty's navigational rights will help the Navy, while the mining businesses say the treaty would provide the legal certainty they need to explore seabed resources. They argue that the treaty already has been in force for 13 years and that the U.S. is missing a chance to take part in the negotiations and decisions that are defining how it is working.
But an array of conservative national security groups is trying to block the treaty, arguing it tramples U.S. sovereignty and could create an international taxing regime. They also fear the international bodies will be hostile to the U.S. and will expand their mandate to try to control land-based businesses.
The treaty has passed the committee before, in 2004, on a 19-0 vote, though Republican leaders refused to bring it to the floor.
Now, Democratic leaders who control the schedule say they want a floor vote, but it's not clear whether one can happen this year.
A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said his party is "hopeful" of holding a vote, but the schedule is crowded.
Several Republican aides said they were surprised by Sen. Bob Corker, Tennessee Republican, who voted by proxy yesterday to approve the treaty. In a statement read by Sen. Richard G. Lugar, the committee's top Republican, Mr. Corker said that his vote was only to move the process along, and that he would study the issue before a final floor vote.
Mr. Coleman voted against the treaty but said he wants to see if his questions can be answered. For now, he said he was swayed by former U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, who was a vehement opponent of the treaty before she died.
Mr. DeMint said he sees opposition growing as more senators look at the treaty, and as they hear from constituents.
"We've gotten enough input in our office to know there's a rising tide on this," he said.
Speaking to reporters last week, Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican and his party's conference chairman, said Republicans can block it on the floor.
"There aren't the votes to pass it," he told reporters.
At one point in yesterday's committee meeting, Mr. Vitter tried to block the vote, calling for another round of hearings.
Sen. Bill Nelson, Florida Democrat, told Mr. Vitter that his motion was going to fail and that by offering it he was violating the collegiality of the Senate. Several of Mr. Vitter's Republican allies on the committee also said they would vote against his motion, and he was forced to withdraw it.
"I don't think another hearing is going to make a difference," Mr. Coleman told him.
LAW OF THE SEA TREATY
The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea has been in force for 13 years. The treaty has been submitted to the U.S. Senate, which has yet to ratify it.
Among its provisions, the convention:
•Establishes territorial waters extending 12 miles from a country"s shore, within which a country has complete control over resources and vessels" passage.
•Recognizes a 200-mile economic zone extending from a country"s shore in which that country has sole rights to natural resources.
•Establishes an International Seabed Authority, responsible for overseeing deep seabed mining.
•Establishes an International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to settle disputes stemming from the treaty.
•Sets out requirements to prevent ocean-dumping and other environmental damage.
•Recognizes naval and commercial passage rights through other countries" territorial seas and straits used for international navigation.
UNCLOS Alchemy
UNCLOS Alchemy (c)
By Lawrence A. Kogan, Esq.*
U.S. State Department Legal Adviser John B. Bellinger III’s recent letter to the editor (“LOST will benefit U.S.” – Washington Times 10/31/07)[1] reflects but another example of the true battle in which we are all, in one way or another, now engaged - namely, the battle against ignorance, apathy and bad ideas.
The letter to the editor proclaims that US ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) will provide “enormous national security...advantages to the United States, including clear legal rights of navigation for our military through and over the world’s oceans”. Yet it fails to mention the severe economic, legal and security-related costs associated with subjugating the US military’s absolute customary international law right to freedom of navigation to environmental concerns. Much to the contrary, the US military’s right to freedom of navigation has been steadily eroding since the1990’s as the result of the Clinton-Gore administration’s ‘enlightened’ “military operations other than war” policy[2] and the ‘lawfare’ tactics employed by other UNCLOS parties [3] with the help of environmental extremist groups. The European Union and its member states, for example, have continued to convert their economic rights over their exclusive economic zones (EEZs) into legal sovereign claims by establishing environmental ‘Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas’ (PSSAs) all along European coastlines, a bad idea to which the president’s ill-informed advisers,[4] and apparently, some ignorant developing country governments,[5] have increasingly warmed. And, environmental extremist groups have continued to press for the creation of more and more public ocean trusts, consistent with the utopian ‘common heritage of mankind’ doctrine, within other coastal states’ EEZs, known as ‘Marine Protected Areas’ - at the expense of coastal state economic rights and flag states’ legal right to freedom of navigation. Consequently, US military and commercial vessels must now tread lightly when navigating through these environmental sanctuaries and may even be legally compelled to avoid them altogether, costing time, resources and perhaps US national security.[6] Environmentalists have also been working alongside liberal US federal judges to strictly reinterpret US environmental laws, consistent with Europe’s Precautionary Principle and UN Environment Program (UNEP) multilateral treaty law that the US has thus far refused to ratify, including those of UNCLOS, to preclude the US navy’s free deployment of sonar detection technology during essential routine military training exercises within US territorial waters and EEZs, all at the expense of our national security. This has occurred along both US coastlines and in the Hawaiian Islands and Puerto Rico despite the absence of scientific evidence demonstrating that the technologies used actually cause substantial harm to marine life.[7]
In addition, the letter to the editor declares that ratification of the UNCLOS is necessary to provide the US with “economic sovereign rights over enormous oil, gas and other resources” in light of the ‘gold rush’ claims now being staked by Russia and other countries...to Artic resources.” However, it neglects to mention how legal commentators agree that the contest between Russia, Norway, Denmark, Canada and the US over the Artic continental shelf areas essentially amounts to a legal border dispute among contiguous and/or adjacent states that need NOT be resolved through the redistributionist mechanisms of the UNCLOS.[8] Contrary to an August Financial Times article the battle for Artic oil[9] does NOT hinge on a UN panel. UNCLOS jurisdiction is necessary in this case only to preserve the legal authority of the otherwise unsustainable bureaucracies established by the treaty – the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, to ensure the legal existence of a global commons in the Artic – ‘the Area’ - , the living and nonliving resources of which could then be regulated and taxed by the International Seabed Authority and later reallocated and distributed among other UNCLOS parties.[10] In other words, the State Department should be candid with the American people, and not promote the false pretense that the US government needs to ratify the UNCLOS to peaceably resolve in America’s favor this apparent race over Artic resources. The US may pursue diplomatic negotiations with the Russian government or, if necessary, resort to a mutually agreed upon international legal forum to sort out competing claims, without the US ever ratifying the UNCLOS. Indeed, the Government of Peru recently chose to pursue this course of action in an effort to resolve its territorial sea dispute with neighboring Chile, noting along the way, its express lack of desire to sign and ratify the UNCLOS. In other words, Peru was determined NOT to subject its local and regional affairs to the scrutiny and oversight of the world body.[11]
Lastly, the letter to the editor states that the US would not be committed to implement Kyoto standards, presumably within US sovereign territory (land, air, internal and territorial waters), if it were to ratify the UNCLOS, even though practically ALL other UNCLOS parties are also parties to the underlying UN Framework Convention on Climate Change which the Kyoto Protocol is designed to implement. The letter makes this bold assertion, furthermore, although it is more likely than not that the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol will be construed by other UNCLOS parties as extending to the global commons, namely to the ‘Area’, consistent with UN Agenda 21, in order to protect the marine environment from the potential environmental hazards associated with oil, gas and mining exploitation. If the US government does not intend, in the future, either to ratify the Kyoto Protocol or to adopt federal Kyoto-style (-lite) greenhouse gas emissions cap and trade regulatory measures within the territorial US, and does not plan for US government and/or commercial vessels, platforms and/or other man-made structures (e.g., rigs) operating on the high seas to submit to international greenhouse gas emissions standards developed, administered and enforced by the International Maritime Organization,[12] expressly referred to as an ‘expert’ UNCLOS international standards body,[13] for purposes of implementing the UNCLOS obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment consistent with international law and standards, including the Kyoto Protocol, why then would the US oil and gas industries work so diligently, silently and unobtrusively to secure a special amendment to the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and other Matter (London Protocol 1996) (IMO - LC-LP.1/Circ.11)?[14] Shouldn’t the U.S. Congress be afforded the opportunity to investigate whether the US oil and gas industry trade associations especially sought this amendment because it would allow their members to sequester (pump back into the seabed floor) the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted during the process of oil and gas drilling and extraction, which would entitle them not only to escape liability for ‘pollution dumping’ under the prior terms of the convention’s protocol, but also to economically profit under forthcoming US greenhouse gas regulations from the resulting offset credits that such sequestration would generate? Isn’t public transparency and accountability, consistent with US constitutional due process, called for in this situation?
Here is a timeline / table which readers may find helpful in visualizing the following sequence of events from which they may then draw their own conclusions:
As noted, the London Protocol amendment went into force on February 10, 2007. On April 30, 2007, the White House issued a press release proclaiming the 2007 EU-US transatlantic summit a political ‘success’. On May 15, 2007, approximately two weeks later and 90 days following the entering into force of the London Protocol amendment, the White House announced President Bush’s desire to seek U.S. Senate ratification of the UNCLOS. On May 14th, 2007, one day before the issuance of the White House press release, an unsubstantiated but thought-provoking entry entitled, “Bush Will Push the Law of the Sea”, appeared on the internet-based Washington Note blog. It corroborated a recommendation contained within a recent April 2007 report issued by the Atlantic Council of the United States and co-authored by a former State Department legal adviser.
Reasonable persons may find, in light of all of the above information, that the US State Department had unwisely pursued greater short-term transatlantic economic and regulatory integration in the mistaken belief that it would restore America’s positive image abroad and improve US national security. State Department and other government officials have effectively testified in support of this objective. [20] [21] [22] Unfortunately, the facts also reveal that the price to be paid to secure Europe’s cooperation on promoting and expanding the President’s Proliferation Security Initiative. [23] will likely be far too high, especially if it entails the long-term surrender to Europe of America’s unique constitutional sovereignty over its own economic, legal and political affairs upon the ratification of the UNCLOS.[24]
The fundamental question then that all Americans should now ask themselves and their elected representatives is why have the various congressional committees possessing oversight jurisdiction thus far refused to hold open public hearings to consider whether the benefits are commensurate with the costs that US ratification of the UNCLOS is likely to generate. Arguably, if such hearings had already been commenced, the congress might now be, in the words of former Congressman Lee H. Hamilton, engaged in the throes of an “extensive debate [of the kind] written into the very structure of our congressional system.” [25] I believe that Mr. Hamilton is not only correct, but that he would also agree that, no matter the shape a serious and constructive debate over UNCLOS ratification ultimately assumes, the American people, in the end, will have greatly benefited from it - by both avoiding the onset of political apathy and by witnessing the conversion of truly bad or misconceived ideas into good and useful ones.
***********************************************************************
[1] See John B. Bellinger, III, “LOST will benefit U.S.”, Washington Times Letter to the Editor (Oct. 31, 2007) at: http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071031/EDITORIAL/110310008/1013/EDITORIAL&template=printart .
[2] See “Myths & Realities #2: U.S. Naval Freedom of Navigation and Avoidance of LOST Tribunal Jurisdiction Despite Europe’s Aggressive Use of the Precautionary Principle?”, ITSSD Journal on the Law of the Sea Treaty at: http://itssd.blogspot.com/2007/10/myth-realities-2-concerning-un-law-of_31.html .
[3] See Lawrence A. Kogan, “U.S. Military Review of the Law of the Sea Treaty Lacking”, ITSSD Journal (Oct. 4, 2007) at: http://itssd.blogspot.com/2007/10/us-military-review-of-law-of-sea-treaty_04.html .
[4] “...I have instructed the U.S. delegation to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to submit a proposal for international measures that would enhance protection of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, the area including the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Last June, I issued a proclamation establishing the Monument, a 1,200-mile stretch of coral islands, seamounts, banks, and shoals that are home to some 7,000 marine species. The United States will propose that the IMO designate the entire area as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA) –- similar to areas such as the Florida Keys, the Great Barrier Reef, and the Galapagos Archipelago –- which will alert mariners to exercise caution in the ecologically important, sensitive, and hazardous area they are entering. This proposal, like the Convention on the Law of the Sea, will help protect the maritime environment while preserving the navigational freedoms essential to the security and economy of every nation.” See “President's Statement on Advancing U.S. Interests in the World's Oceans” White House Press Release (May 15, 2007) at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070515-2.html .
[5] See Sam Bateman,“UNCLOS and its Limitations as the Foundation for a Regional Maritime Security Regime” Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, Nanying Technological University, Singapore (April 2006) at pp. 14-18, at: http://www.isn.ethz.ch/pubs/ph/details.cfm?lng=en&id=27159 .
[6] This subject matter will be addressed in a forthcoming entry of the ITSSD Journal’s Myths & Realities on the Law of the Sea Treaty series.
[7] Id.
[8] See, e.g., Julian Ku, “Peru Will Not Ratify Law of the Sea Treaty”, Opinio Juris (9/5/07) at: http://www.opiniojuris.org/archives/archive_2007_09_02-2007_09_08.shtml .
[9] See Michael Peel and Daniel Dombey, “Battle for Artic Oil Hinges on UN Panel”, Financial Times (Aug. 10, 2007) at: http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto081020071404008525 .
[10] See Lawrence A. Kogan, “Myths & Realities Concerning the UN Law of the Sea Treaty: LOST Does Incorporate Europe’s Contra-WTO Precautionary Principle!”, ITSSD Journal (Oct. 6, 2007) at: http://itssd.blogspot.com/2007/10/myths-and-realities-concerning-un-law_06.html .
[11] See “Peru Will Not Sign U.N. Law of the Sea in Border Dispute with Chile”, LivinginPeru.com (Sept. 4, 2007) at: http://www.livinginperu.com/news-4632-politics-peru-will-not-sign-u-n-law-sea-border-dispute-with-chile .
[12] See Lawrence A. Kogan, “Myths & Realities #4 Concerning UN Law of the Sea Treaty: LOST, Land-Based Activities & Sources of Marine Pollution, and the Precautionary Principle” (Oct. 17, 2007) at fn#s 12 and 13, at: http://itssd.blogspot.com/2007/10/myths-realities-4-concerning-un-law-of_5097.html .
[13] See UNCLOS Annex VIII, “Special Arbitration”, Articles 1 and 2: “Article 1 - Subject to Part XV, any party to a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the articles of this Convention relating to...(2) protection and preservation of the marine environment... may submit the dispute to the special arbitral procedure provided for in this Annex by written notification addressed to the other party or parties to the dispute. The notification shall be accompanied by a statement of the claim and the grounds on which it is based. Article 2 - A list of experts shall be established and maintained in respect of each of the fields of...(2) protection and preservation of the marine environment... The lists of experts shall be drawn up and maintained, in the field of... in the field of navigation, including pollution from vessels and by dumping, by the International Maritime Organization...” The Bush Administration, within its resolution of ratification to UNCLOS, has expressly stated that it has chosen to submit to jurisdiction under UNCLOS Annex VIII Special Arbitration for matters other than those deemed to constitute ‘military activities’.
[14] See “Notification of Entry into Force of the ‘CO2 Sequestration’ Amendments to Annex 1 to the London Protocol 1996”, 1996 PROTOCOL TO THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION OF MARINE POLLUTION BY DUMPING OF WASTES AND OTHER MATTER (LONDON PROTOCOL 1996) LC-LP.1/Circ.11 (Feb. 16, 2007) at: http://www.imo.org/includes/blastDataOnly.asp/data_id%3D17756/11.pdf .
[15] Id., at p. 1.
[16] While reasonable persons could disagree about the meaning and veracity of this statement it does, nevertheless, suggest that the White House might have followed one of the key recommendations made by former Department of State Legal Adviser, William H. Taft IV contained within a recently released April 2007 report issued by the Atlantic Council. In the report entitled, Law & the Lone Superpower: Rebuilding a Transatlantic Consensus on International Law, Mr. Taft and his co-author recommended that, “The United States and Europe should make clear their commitment to working together to strengthen the international legal system through a public declaration... The United States and European Union should further demonstrate their commitment to this declaration through some additional actions. The United States should join at least one multilateral agreement that will enhance its reputation as a leader in the international legal field while also furthering U.S. interests. In particular, securing ratification of the UN Convention on Law of the Sea would reinforce the U.S. position as a leader not only in legal, but also environmental matters — topics on which the U.S. reputation has dropped considerably in recent years, especially in Europe” (emphasis added) See William H. Taft IV and Frances G. Burwell, “Law & the Lone Superpower: Rebuilding a Transatlantic Consensus on International Law”, The Atlantic Council of the United States Policy Paper (April 2007) at pp. 13-14, at: http://www.acus.org/docs/070417_Law%20_&%20_The_Lone_Superpower.pdf .
[17] See “EU/US Summit: April 30, 2007, White House, Washington, DC” European Union, Delegation of the European Commission to the USA at: http://www.eurunion.org/partner/summit/20070430sum.htm . See, e.g., “2007 EU-U.S. SUMMIT STATEMENT ENERGY SECURITY, EFFICIENCY, AND CLIMATE CHANGE” at: http://www.eurunion.org/partner/summit/Summit20070430/EnergSecur&ClimChnge.pdf ; “Joint Report on the Roadmap for US-EU Regulatory Cooperation” at: http://www.eurunion.org/partner/summit/Summit20070430/JtReptRoadmapUSEURegCoop042007.pdf .
[18] See Scott Paul “Big News: Bush Will Push Law of the Sea”, The Washington Note (May 14, 2007) at: http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002128.php . Despite its questionable nature, the entry seems to place Mr. Bellinger at a then-recent meeting with high-level European diplomats speaking about the UNCLOS. The curious entry was made by Mr. Scott Paul, Deputy Director of Government Relations at Citizens for Global Solutions, formerly known as the World Federalist Association See “About Scott Paul”, The Washington Note at: http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/about.php ; See “World Federalist Institute – About Us”, Citizens for Global Solutions website at: http://globalsolutions.org/wfi ; “The United States and the Law of the Sea: Time to Join”, In the Beltway – Citizens for Global Solutions at: http://globalsolutions.org/in_the_beltway/united_states_and_law_sea_time_join . According to Mr. Paul, “I recently heard a story about a meeting between [John] Bellinger and a group of high-level European diplomats that got me really fired up about UNCLOS. Bellinger promised the Europeans that the Bush Administration wanted to cooperate more closely and take a more multilateral approach in its foreign policy. The Europeans responded that so long as the US refuses to join the Law of the Sea – the most common-sense international agreement on the map – they will view these promises with a great deal of skepticism (for me, it’d take more than just UNCLOS to convince me of this supposed change of heart)” (emphasis added). See Scott Paul “Big News: Bush Will Push Law of the Sea”, The Washington Note, supra; “Big News: Bush Will Push the Law of the Sea” Securing America.com (May 14, 2007) at: http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12104#comment-210149 . .
[19] See “President's Statement on Advancing U.S. Interests in the World's Oceans” supra.
[20] See “Written Testimony of Deputy Secretary of Defense, Gordon England, Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee – Accession to the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention and Ratification of the 1994 Agreement Amending Part XI of the Law of the Sea Convention”, (Sept. 27, 2007) at pp. 3, 5-7, at: http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/testimony/2007/EnglandTestimony070927.pdf
[21] See WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF JOHN D. NEGROPONTE, DEPUTY SECRETARY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE BEFORE THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE ON SEPTEMBER 27th, 2007, ACCESSION TO THE 1982 LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION AND RATIFICATION OF THE 1994 AGREEMENT AMENDING PART XI OF THE LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION [Senate Treaty Document 103-39]
at pp. 2, 5-6, 18, at: http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/testimony/2007/NegroponteTestimony070927.pdf .
[22] See Statement of Admiral Patrick M. Walsh, U.S. Navy Vice Chief of Naval Operations Before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Hearing on the Law of the Sea Convention (Sept. 27, 2007) at pp. 6-8, 10, at: http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/testimony/2007/WalshTestimony070927pdf .
[23] According to US State Department lawyer Susan Biniaz, “Several countries, including Indonesia and Malaysia, have refused to join the US-led PSI unless and until the US joins UNCLOS”. See Peter Buxbaum, “US Administration Pushes UNCLOS” ISN Security Watch (8/23/07) at: http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=18027 . “During his confirmation hearings for Chief of Naval Operations before the Senate Armed Services Committee on September 27, Admiral Roughead stated that he saw in the Pacific that some countries would avoid participating with us in the proliferation security initiative because we are not party to the Law of the Sea Convention.” See STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR BERNARD H. OXMAN BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS (Oct. 4, 2007) at p.2, at: http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/testimony/2007/OxmanTestimony071004.pdf .
[24]Id. “Washington says that signing on to the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea will give the US more power in the war on terror, but some question at what expense...‘We want to get more countries involved,’ said Biniaz. ‘Joining UNCLOS will enable other countries to participate in PSI with the understanding we are following international law.’ Biniaz also noted that the US does not have a proxy fighting for its interests within UNCLOS or on the international tribunal” (emphasis added).*** Id.
[25] According to Mr. Hamilton, “Most people are uncomfortable with disagreement and debate. As individuals, this is fine; but as citizens, I would argue that we should not only get used to it, we should be pleased by it. It has been a constant in American politics, and let us hope it always will be. Extensive debate is written into the very structure of our congressional system. At every level, from subcommittees through committees to the floor of each chamber and then to the conference committees that bring members from each house of Congress together, there is the presumption of discussion, debate, disagreement and even argument. Our Founders understood the importance of conflict in the system, both as a way for all views to be represented, and as a process for building common ground among them. For the fundamental fact of our democracy is that Americans, despite all that unites us, nonetheless have much that divides us: different philosophies, different prospects in life, different backgrounds, different communities, different ways to define what is in our self-interest, what is in our community's interest, and what is in our nation’s best interest. It's true that these divisions can be exacerbated by special interests, the media and politicians all seeking to exploit them to their own ends, but that doesn't mean the initial differences don't exist. They do. And it is Congress' job to sort through them as it strives to find the majorities it needs to move forward on legislation. If there weren't conflict, Congress wouldn't be doing its job.” See Lee H. Hamilton, “Debate Good for the System”, The Washington Times Commentary (Oct. 31, 2007) at: http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071031/COMMENTARY/110310012/1028/election .
U.S. State Department Legal Adviser John B. Bellinger III’s recent letter to the editor (“LOST will benefit U.S.” – Washington Times 10/31/07)[1] reflects but another example of the true battle in which we are all, in one way or another, now engaged - namely, the battle against ignorance, apathy and bad ideas.
The letter to the editor proclaims that US ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) will provide “enormous national security...advantages to the United States, including clear legal rights of navigation for our military through and over the world’s oceans”. Yet it fails to mention the severe economic, legal and security-related costs associated with subjugating the US military’s absolute customary international law right to freedom of navigation to environmental concerns. Much to the contrary, the US military’s right to freedom of navigation has been steadily eroding since the1990’s as the result of the Clinton-Gore administration’s ‘enlightened’ “military operations other than war” policy[2] and the ‘lawfare’ tactics employed by other UNCLOS parties [3] with the help of environmental extremist groups. The European Union and its member states, for example, have continued to convert their economic rights over their exclusive economic zones (EEZs) into legal sovereign claims by establishing environmental ‘Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas’ (PSSAs) all along European coastlines, a bad idea to which the president’s ill-informed advisers,[4] and apparently, some ignorant developing country governments,[5] have increasingly warmed. And, environmental extremist groups have continued to press for the creation of more and more public ocean trusts, consistent with the utopian ‘common heritage of mankind’ doctrine, within other coastal states’ EEZs, known as ‘Marine Protected Areas’ - at the expense of coastal state economic rights and flag states’ legal right to freedom of navigation. Consequently, US military and commercial vessels must now tread lightly when navigating through these environmental sanctuaries and may even be legally compelled to avoid them altogether, costing time, resources and perhaps US national security.[6] Environmentalists have also been working alongside liberal US federal judges to strictly reinterpret US environmental laws, consistent with Europe’s Precautionary Principle and UN Environment Program (UNEP) multilateral treaty law that the US has thus far refused to ratify, including those of UNCLOS, to preclude the US navy’s free deployment of sonar detection technology during essential routine military training exercises within US territorial waters and EEZs, all at the expense of our national security. This has occurred along both US coastlines and in the Hawaiian Islands and Puerto Rico despite the absence of scientific evidence demonstrating that the technologies used actually cause substantial harm to marine life.[7]
In addition, the letter to the editor declares that ratification of the UNCLOS is necessary to provide the US with “economic sovereign rights over enormous oil, gas and other resources” in light of the ‘gold rush’ claims now being staked by Russia and other countries...to Artic resources.” However, it neglects to mention how legal commentators agree that the contest between Russia, Norway, Denmark, Canada and the US over the Artic continental shelf areas essentially amounts to a legal border dispute among contiguous and/or adjacent states that need NOT be resolved through the redistributionist mechanisms of the UNCLOS.[8] Contrary to an August Financial Times article the battle for Artic oil[9] does NOT hinge on a UN panel. UNCLOS jurisdiction is necessary in this case only to preserve the legal authority of the otherwise unsustainable bureaucracies established by the treaty – the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, to ensure the legal existence of a global commons in the Artic – ‘the Area’ - , the living and nonliving resources of which could then be regulated and taxed by the International Seabed Authority and later reallocated and distributed among other UNCLOS parties.[10] In other words, the State Department should be candid with the American people, and not promote the false pretense that the US government needs to ratify the UNCLOS to peaceably resolve in America’s favor this apparent race over Artic resources. The US may pursue diplomatic negotiations with the Russian government or, if necessary, resort to a mutually agreed upon international legal forum to sort out competing claims, without the US ever ratifying the UNCLOS. Indeed, the Government of Peru recently chose to pursue this course of action in an effort to resolve its territorial sea dispute with neighboring Chile, noting along the way, its express lack of desire to sign and ratify the UNCLOS. In other words, Peru was determined NOT to subject its local and regional affairs to the scrutiny and oversight of the world body.[11]
Lastly, the letter to the editor states that the US would not be committed to implement Kyoto standards, presumably within US sovereign territory (land, air, internal and territorial waters), if it were to ratify the UNCLOS, even though practically ALL other UNCLOS parties are also parties to the underlying UN Framework Convention on Climate Change which the Kyoto Protocol is designed to implement. The letter makes this bold assertion, furthermore, although it is more likely than not that the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol will be construed by other UNCLOS parties as extending to the global commons, namely to the ‘Area’, consistent with UN Agenda 21, in order to protect the marine environment from the potential environmental hazards associated with oil, gas and mining exploitation. If the US government does not intend, in the future, either to ratify the Kyoto Protocol or to adopt federal Kyoto-style (-lite) greenhouse gas emissions cap and trade regulatory measures within the territorial US, and does not plan for US government and/or commercial vessels, platforms and/or other man-made structures (e.g., rigs) operating on the high seas to submit to international greenhouse gas emissions standards developed, administered and enforced by the International Maritime Organization,[12] expressly referred to as an ‘expert’ UNCLOS international standards body,[13] for purposes of implementing the UNCLOS obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment consistent with international law and standards, including the Kyoto Protocol, why then would the US oil and gas industries work so diligently, silently and unobtrusively to secure a special amendment to the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and other Matter (London Protocol 1996) (IMO - LC-LP.1/Circ.11)?[14] Shouldn’t the U.S. Congress be afforded the opportunity to investigate whether the US oil and gas industry trade associations especially sought this amendment because it would allow their members to sequester (pump back into the seabed floor) the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted during the process of oil and gas drilling and extraction, which would entitle them not only to escape liability for ‘pollution dumping’ under the prior terms of the convention’s protocol, but also to economically profit under forthcoming US greenhouse gas regulations from the resulting offset credits that such sequestration would generate? Isn’t public transparency and accountability, consistent with US constitutional due process, called for in this situation?
Here is a timeline / table which readers may find helpful in visualizing the following sequence of events from which they may then draw their own conclusions:
As noted, the London Protocol amendment went into force on February 10, 2007. On April 30, 2007, the White House issued a press release proclaiming the 2007 EU-US transatlantic summit a political ‘success’. On May 15, 2007, approximately two weeks later and 90 days following the entering into force of the London Protocol amendment, the White House announced President Bush’s desire to seek U.S. Senate ratification of the UNCLOS. On May 14th, 2007, one day before the issuance of the White House press release, an unsubstantiated but thought-provoking entry entitled, “Bush Will Push the Law of the Sea”, appeared on the internet-based Washington Note blog. It corroborated a recommendation contained within a recent April 2007 report issued by the Atlantic Council of the United States and co-authored by a former State Department legal adviser.
Reasonable persons may find, in light of all of the above information, that the US State Department had unwisely pursued greater short-term transatlantic economic and regulatory integration in the mistaken belief that it would restore America’s positive image abroad and improve US national security. State Department and other government officials have effectively testified in support of this objective. [20] [21] [22] Unfortunately, the facts also reveal that the price to be paid to secure Europe’s cooperation on promoting and expanding the President’s Proliferation Security Initiative. [23] will likely be far too high, especially if it entails the long-term surrender to Europe of America’s unique constitutional sovereignty over its own economic, legal and political affairs upon the ratification of the UNCLOS.[24]
The fundamental question then that all Americans should now ask themselves and their elected representatives is why have the various congressional committees possessing oversight jurisdiction thus far refused to hold open public hearings to consider whether the benefits are commensurate with the costs that US ratification of the UNCLOS is likely to generate. Arguably, if such hearings had already been commenced, the congress might now be, in the words of former Congressman Lee H. Hamilton, engaged in the throes of an “extensive debate [of the kind] written into the very structure of our congressional system.” [25] I believe that Mr. Hamilton is not only correct, but that he would also agree that, no matter the shape a serious and constructive debate over UNCLOS ratification ultimately assumes, the American people, in the end, will have greatly benefited from it - by both avoiding the onset of political apathy and by witnessing the conversion of truly bad or misconceived ideas into good and useful ones.
***********************************************************************
[1] See John B. Bellinger, III, “LOST will benefit U.S.”, Washington Times Letter to the Editor (Oct. 31, 2007) at: http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071031/EDITORIAL/110310008/1013/EDITORIAL&template=printart .
[2] See “Myths & Realities #2: U.S. Naval Freedom of Navigation and Avoidance of LOST Tribunal Jurisdiction Despite Europe’s Aggressive Use of the Precautionary Principle?”, ITSSD Journal on the Law of the Sea Treaty at: http://itssd.blogspot.com/2007/10/myth-realities-2-concerning-un-law-of_31.html .
[3] See Lawrence A. Kogan, “U.S. Military Review of the Law of the Sea Treaty Lacking”, ITSSD Journal (Oct. 4, 2007) at: http://itssd.blogspot.com/2007/10/us-military-review-of-law-of-sea-treaty_04.html .
[4] “...I have instructed the U.S. delegation to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to submit a proposal for international measures that would enhance protection of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, the area including the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Last June, I issued a proclamation establishing the Monument, a 1,200-mile stretch of coral islands, seamounts, banks, and shoals that are home to some 7,000 marine species. The United States will propose that the IMO designate the entire area as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA) –- similar to areas such as the Florida Keys, the Great Barrier Reef, and the Galapagos Archipelago –- which will alert mariners to exercise caution in the ecologically important, sensitive, and hazardous area they are entering. This proposal, like the Convention on the Law of the Sea, will help protect the maritime environment while preserving the navigational freedoms essential to the security and economy of every nation.” See “President's Statement on Advancing U.S. Interests in the World's Oceans” White House Press Release (May 15, 2007) at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070515-2.html .
[5] See Sam Bateman,“UNCLOS and its Limitations as the Foundation for a Regional Maritime Security Regime” Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, Nanying Technological University, Singapore (April 2006) at pp. 14-18, at: http://www.isn.ethz.ch/pubs/ph/details.cfm?lng=en&id=27159 .
[6] This subject matter will be addressed in a forthcoming entry of the ITSSD Journal’s Myths & Realities on the Law of the Sea Treaty series.
[7] Id.
[8] See, e.g., Julian Ku, “Peru Will Not Ratify Law of the Sea Treaty”, Opinio Juris (9/5/07) at: http://www.opiniojuris.org/archives/archive_2007_09_02-2007_09_08.shtml .
[9] See Michael Peel and Daniel Dombey, “Battle for Artic Oil Hinges on UN Panel”, Financial Times (Aug. 10, 2007) at: http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto081020071404008525 .
[10] See Lawrence A. Kogan, “Myths & Realities Concerning the UN Law of the Sea Treaty: LOST Does Incorporate Europe’s Contra-WTO Precautionary Principle!”, ITSSD Journal (Oct. 6, 2007) at: http://itssd.blogspot.com/2007/10/myths-and-realities-concerning-un-law_06.html .
[11] See “Peru Will Not Sign U.N. Law of the Sea in Border Dispute with Chile”, LivinginPeru.com (Sept. 4, 2007) at: http://www.livinginperu.com/news-4632-politics-peru-will-not-sign-u-n-law-sea-border-dispute-with-chile .
[12] See Lawrence A. Kogan, “Myths & Realities #4 Concerning UN Law of the Sea Treaty: LOST, Land-Based Activities & Sources of Marine Pollution, and the Precautionary Principle” (Oct. 17, 2007) at fn#s 12 and 13, at: http://itssd.blogspot.com/2007/10/myths-realities-4-concerning-un-law-of_5097.html .
[13] See UNCLOS Annex VIII, “Special Arbitration”, Articles 1 and 2: “Article 1 - Subject to Part XV, any party to a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the articles of this Convention relating to...(2) protection and preservation of the marine environment... may submit the dispute to the special arbitral procedure provided for in this Annex by written notification addressed to the other party or parties to the dispute. The notification shall be accompanied by a statement of the claim and the grounds on which it is based. Article 2 - A list of experts shall be established and maintained in respect of each of the fields of...(2) protection and preservation of the marine environment... The lists of experts shall be drawn up and maintained, in the field of... in the field of navigation, including pollution from vessels and by dumping, by the International Maritime Organization...” The Bush Administration, within its resolution of ratification to UNCLOS, has expressly stated that it has chosen to submit to jurisdiction under UNCLOS Annex VIII Special Arbitration for matters other than those deemed to constitute ‘military activities’.
[14] See “Notification of Entry into Force of the ‘CO2 Sequestration’ Amendments to Annex 1 to the London Protocol 1996”, 1996 PROTOCOL TO THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION OF MARINE POLLUTION BY DUMPING OF WASTES AND OTHER MATTER (LONDON PROTOCOL 1996) LC-LP.1/Circ.11 (Feb. 16, 2007) at: http://www.imo.org/includes/blastDataOnly.asp/data_id%3D17756/11.pdf .
[15] Id., at p. 1.
[16] While reasonable persons could disagree about the meaning and veracity of this statement it does, nevertheless, suggest that the White House might have followed one of the key recommendations made by former Department of State Legal Adviser, William H. Taft IV contained within a recently released April 2007 report issued by the Atlantic Council. In the report entitled, Law & the Lone Superpower: Rebuilding a Transatlantic Consensus on International Law, Mr. Taft and his co-author recommended that, “The United States and Europe should make clear their commitment to working together to strengthen the international legal system through a public declaration... The United States and European Union should further demonstrate their commitment to this declaration through some additional actions. The United States should join at least one multilateral agreement that will enhance its reputation as a leader in the international legal field while also furthering U.S. interests. In particular, securing ratification of the UN Convention on Law of the Sea would reinforce the U.S. position as a leader not only in legal, but also environmental matters — topics on which the U.S. reputation has dropped considerably in recent years, especially in Europe” (emphasis added) See William H. Taft IV and Frances G. Burwell, “Law & the Lone Superpower: Rebuilding a Transatlantic Consensus on International Law”, The Atlantic Council of the United States Policy Paper (April 2007) at pp. 13-14, at: http://www.acus.org/docs/070417_Law%20_&%20_The_Lone_Superpower.pdf .
[17] See “EU/US Summit: April 30, 2007, White House, Washington, DC” European Union, Delegation of the European Commission to the USA at: http://www.eurunion.org/partner/summit/20070430sum.htm . See, e.g., “2007 EU-U.S. SUMMIT STATEMENT ENERGY SECURITY, EFFICIENCY, AND CLIMATE CHANGE” at: http://www.eurunion.org/partner/summit/Summit20070430/EnergSecur&ClimChnge.pdf ; “Joint Report on the Roadmap for US-EU Regulatory Cooperation” at: http://www.eurunion.org/partner/summit/Summit20070430/JtReptRoadmapUSEURegCoop042007.pdf .
[18] See Scott Paul “Big News: Bush Will Push Law of the Sea”, The Washington Note (May 14, 2007) at: http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002128.php . Despite its questionable nature, the entry seems to place Mr. Bellinger at a then-recent meeting with high-level European diplomats speaking about the UNCLOS. The curious entry was made by Mr. Scott Paul, Deputy Director of Government Relations at Citizens for Global Solutions, formerly known as the World Federalist Association See “About Scott Paul”, The Washington Note at: http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/about.php ; See “World Federalist Institute – About Us”, Citizens for Global Solutions website at: http://globalsolutions.org/wfi ; “The United States and the Law of the Sea: Time to Join”, In the Beltway – Citizens for Global Solutions at: http://globalsolutions.org/in_the_beltway/united_states_and_law_sea_time_join . According to Mr. Paul, “I recently heard a story about a meeting between [John] Bellinger and a group of high-level European diplomats that got me really fired up about UNCLOS. Bellinger promised the Europeans that the Bush Administration wanted to cooperate more closely and take a more multilateral approach in its foreign policy. The Europeans responded that so long as the US refuses to join the Law of the Sea – the most common-sense international agreement on the map – they will view these promises with a great deal of skepticism (for me, it’d take more than just UNCLOS to convince me of this supposed change of heart)” (emphasis added). See Scott Paul “Big News: Bush Will Push Law of the Sea”, The Washington Note, supra; “Big News: Bush Will Push the Law of the Sea” Securing America.com (May 14, 2007) at: http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12104#comment-210149 . .
[19] See “President's Statement on Advancing U.S. Interests in the World's Oceans” supra.
[20] See “Written Testimony of Deputy Secretary of Defense, Gordon England, Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee – Accession to the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention and Ratification of the 1994 Agreement Amending Part XI of the Law of the Sea Convention”, (Sept. 27, 2007) at pp. 3, 5-7, at: http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/testimony/2007/EnglandTestimony070927.pdf
[21] See WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF JOHN D. NEGROPONTE, DEPUTY SECRETARY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE BEFORE THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE ON SEPTEMBER 27th, 2007, ACCESSION TO THE 1982 LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION AND RATIFICATION OF THE 1994 AGREEMENT AMENDING PART XI OF THE LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION [Senate Treaty Document 103-39]
at pp. 2, 5-6, 18, at: http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/testimony/2007/NegroponteTestimony070927.pdf .
[22] See Statement of Admiral Patrick M. Walsh, U.S. Navy Vice Chief of Naval Operations Before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Hearing on the Law of the Sea Convention (Sept. 27, 2007) at pp. 6-8, 10, at: http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/testimony/2007/WalshTestimony070927pdf .
[23] According to US State Department lawyer Susan Biniaz, “Several countries, including Indonesia and Malaysia, have refused to join the US-led PSI unless and until the US joins UNCLOS”. See Peter Buxbaum, “US Administration Pushes UNCLOS” ISN Security Watch (8/23/07) at: http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=18027 . “During his confirmation hearings for Chief of Naval Operations before the Senate Armed Services Committee on September 27, Admiral Roughead stated that he saw in the Pacific that some countries would avoid participating with us in the proliferation security initiative because we are not party to the Law of the Sea Convention.” See STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR BERNARD H. OXMAN BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS (Oct. 4, 2007) at p.2, at: http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/testimony/2007/OxmanTestimony071004.pdf .
[24]Id. “Washington says that signing on to the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea will give the US more power in the war on terror, but some question at what expense...‘We want to get more countries involved,’ said Biniaz. ‘Joining UNCLOS will enable other countries to participate in PSI with the understanding we are following international law.’ Biniaz also noted that the US does not have a proxy fighting for its interests within UNCLOS or on the international tribunal” (emphasis added).*** Id.
[25] According to Mr. Hamilton, “Most people are uncomfortable with disagreement and debate. As individuals, this is fine; but as citizens, I would argue that we should not only get used to it, we should be pleased by it. It has been a constant in American politics, and let us hope it always will be. Extensive debate is written into the very structure of our congressional system. At every level, from subcommittees through committees to the floor of each chamber and then to the conference committees that bring members from each house of Congress together, there is the presumption of discussion, debate, disagreement and even argument. Our Founders understood the importance of conflict in the system, both as a way for all views to be represented, and as a process for building common ground among them. For the fundamental fact of our democracy is that Americans, despite all that unites us, nonetheless have much that divides us: different philosophies, different prospects in life, different backgrounds, different communities, different ways to define what is in our self-interest, what is in our community's interest, and what is in our nation’s best interest. It's true that these divisions can be exacerbated by special interests, the media and politicians all seeking to exploit them to their own ends, but that doesn't mean the initial differences don't exist. They do. And it is Congress' job to sort through them as it strives to find the majorities it needs to move forward on legislation. If there weren't conflict, Congress wouldn't be doing its job.” See Lee H. Hamilton, “Debate Good for the System”, The Washington Times Commentary (Oct. 31, 2007) at: http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071031/COMMENTARY/110310012/1028/election .
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Giuliani M.I.A. on LOST Treaty
http://newsmax.com/insidecover/law_of_the_sea_treaty/2007/10/27/44481.html
Newsmax
Saturday, October 27, 2007 10:01 AM
In a press release, the Coalition to Preserve American Sovereignty acknowledges the growing field of G.O.P. Presidential candidates who publicly have expressed opposition to the Law of the Sea Treaty or LOST. Former NYC mayor and GOP frontrunner Rudy Giuliani is notably missing from the field.
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, through a statement by his spokesperson published October 26, has become the latest Presidential candidate to oppose LOST, notes the group: "Governor Romney has concerns with the Law of the Sea Treaty. He believes giving unaccountable international institutions more power is a serious problem."
Other Presidential candidates who have recently come out against ratification of LOST, according to the group, include Senator John McCain, former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson, Congressman Duncan Hunter, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, and Congressman Tom Tancredo.
Senator McCain’s full statement was posted October 25 as follows:
"I’d like to make some changes to it. I think that we need a Law of the Sea. I think it’s important, but I have not frankly looked too carefully at the latest situation as it is, but it would be nice if we had some of the provisions in it. But I do worry a lot about American sovereignty aspects of it, so I would probably vote against it in its present form.
"I would like to see a treaty as far something to bring order, for example, in a place like the Arctic right now, where thanks to climate change, it’s going to be far more important than it was. You watch the Russians asserting their sovereignty over it, and I’d like to see some order out of that chaos. But I’m just too concerned about the aspect of United States sovereignty being handed over to some international organization. (Emphasis added)"
In a posting on his campaign website dated October 24, former Senator Thompson stated:
"I oppose the ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty at this time. The Treaty threatens U.S. sovereignty and gives a U.N.-affiliated organization far too much authority over U.S. interests in international waters. The American people also deserve ironclad assurances that the problems with the treaty highlighted by President Reagan more than two decades ago have been fixed.
"At a time when customary international law in this area has proven sufficient, I believe the efforts of treaty proponents would be better spent reforming the United Nations. Until such reforms are complete, I see little reason for the U.S. to move forward on the Law of the Sea Treaty."
Congressman Hunter made the following statement on LOST, which appeared October 22:
"It is imperative that our nation does not surrender decision making power for military navigation or resource extraction, especially in this age of terrorism with technology and weapons proliferation. And adding a new set of UN bureaucrats with license to tax and adjudicate disputes is the last thing this country needs."
Governor Huckabee has expressed opposition in a series of statements, including during an October 19th appearance on the Glenn Beck show, where he asserted that LOST was:
"…the dumbest thing we’ve ever done. It’s like taking our sovereignty and handing it over to some international tribunal. What’s wrong with us?...the Law of the Sea Treaty essentially would say that the United States would give up certain controls of its territorial waters, it would give up its sovereign understanding of what it can do within its own seas both at the surface and within the depths, and that we would virtually hand ourselves over to an international body of justice."
The website maintained by On The Issues identifies one of Congressman Tancredo’s foreign policy platform components as "Avoid Ratifying Law of the Sea Treaty (September 2007)."
The Coalition to Preserve American Sovereignty commends these candidates for expressing their opposition to LOST, and calls on Presidential candidates from both parties to insist upon a critical evaluation of the Treaty by each of the Senate’s nine relevant committees prior to any vote on this accord by the full body.
Newsmax
Saturday, October 27, 2007 10:01 AM
In a press release, the Coalition to Preserve American Sovereignty acknowledges the growing field of G.O.P. Presidential candidates who publicly have expressed opposition to the Law of the Sea Treaty or LOST. Former NYC mayor and GOP frontrunner Rudy Giuliani is notably missing from the field.
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, through a statement by his spokesperson published October 26, has become the latest Presidential candidate to oppose LOST, notes the group: "Governor Romney has concerns with the Law of the Sea Treaty. He believes giving unaccountable international institutions more power is a serious problem."
Other Presidential candidates who have recently come out against ratification of LOST, according to the group, include Senator John McCain, former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson, Congressman Duncan Hunter, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, and Congressman Tom Tancredo.
Senator McCain’s full statement was posted October 25 as follows:
"I’d like to make some changes to it. I think that we need a Law of the Sea. I think it’s important, but I have not frankly looked too carefully at the latest situation as it is, but it would be nice if we had some of the provisions in it. But I do worry a lot about American sovereignty aspects of it, so I would probably vote against it in its present form.
"I would like to see a treaty as far something to bring order, for example, in a place like the Arctic right now, where thanks to climate change, it’s going to be far more important than it was. You watch the Russians asserting their sovereignty over it, and I’d like to see some order out of that chaos. But I’m just too concerned about the aspect of United States sovereignty being handed over to some international organization. (Emphasis added)"
In a posting on his campaign website dated October 24, former Senator Thompson stated:
"I oppose the ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty at this time. The Treaty threatens U.S. sovereignty and gives a U.N.-affiliated organization far too much authority over U.S. interests in international waters. The American people also deserve ironclad assurances that the problems with the treaty highlighted by President Reagan more than two decades ago have been fixed.
"At a time when customary international law in this area has proven sufficient, I believe the efforts of treaty proponents would be better spent reforming the United Nations. Until such reforms are complete, I see little reason for the U.S. to move forward on the Law of the Sea Treaty."
Congressman Hunter made the following statement on LOST, which appeared October 22:
"It is imperative that our nation does not surrender decision making power for military navigation or resource extraction, especially in this age of terrorism with technology and weapons proliferation. And adding a new set of UN bureaucrats with license to tax and adjudicate disputes is the last thing this country needs."
Governor Huckabee has expressed opposition in a series of statements, including during an October 19th appearance on the Glenn Beck show, where he asserted that LOST was:
"…the dumbest thing we’ve ever done. It’s like taking our sovereignty and handing it over to some international tribunal. What’s wrong with us?...the Law of the Sea Treaty essentially would say that the United States would give up certain controls of its territorial waters, it would give up its sovereign understanding of what it can do within its own seas both at the surface and within the depths, and that we would virtually hand ourselves over to an international body of justice."
The website maintained by On The Issues identifies one of Congressman Tancredo’s foreign policy platform components as "Avoid Ratifying Law of the Sea Treaty (September 2007)."
The Coalition to Preserve American Sovereignty commends these candidates for expressing their opposition to LOST, and calls on Presidential candidates from both parties to insist upon a critical evaluation of the Treaty by each of the Senate’s nine relevant committees prior to any vote on this accord by the full body.
Euro-greens Nervous About the LOST's Changing Tide
Republican Rightwingers Find an Iraq-on-sea
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2199082,00.html
The UN law of the Sea is supported by everyone from environmentalists to George Bush - just not fulminating unilateralists in the Senate
Elana Schor in Washington
Thursday October 25, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Conservative senators and critics of the United Nations are attempting once again to stop the US joining an international treaty on access to the world's waters, despite support for it from the military and George Bush.
The UN's Convention of the Law of the Sea, already ratified by more than 150 countries, sets up a system to manage navigation and explore the oceans.
Environmental groups endorse the treaty's protection of global fish stocks, the US navy endorses its assurance of free movement and the oil industry's trade group endorses its promise of a level playing field for companies staking claim to drill in the Arctic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But Republican antagonists in the Senate, several of whom have derailed the treaty twice in the past, discount even the Bush administration's backing. They yesterday blocked a preliminary ratification vote, and in doing so declared it an auspicious date for foes of international institutions.
"There is no better time to celebrate the 62nd birthday of the United Nations than to say we don't want it," said Jim Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican senator who leads an annual effort to withhold US funds from the UN.
The treaty runs more than 200 pages, giving forces on both sides of the debate ample opportunity to divine its potential consequences. At its core, however, the clash recalls the ideological battles over invading Iraq, pitting America-first lawmakers against those who decry the consequences of "cowboy diplomacy".
Scott Paul, deputy director of government relations at the grassroots group Citizens for Global Solutions, noted the treaty's broad support among Democrats and pressed moderate Republicans to speak up.
"The fact we've been unable to ratify a treaty that's so strongly in our interests is, frankly, an indictment of our foreign policy," Mr Paul said.
Citing polls that show widespread support in the US for working with allied nations in the aftermath of Iraq, he added: "At times that will entail some measure of sacrifice. If we can't do it on the law of the sea treaty, which entails no sacrifice, how are we going to do it at any other time?"
The Senate foreign relations committee now is poised to approve the treaty next week, after which two-thirds of the full chamber must vote in favor to ensure ratification. Mr Bush has dispatched John Negroponte, the hawkish deputy secretary of state, and senior navy officials to help lobby Republicans.
That may not be enough to overcome the Republicans' famous mistrust of the UN. Trent Lott of Mississippi, the Republicans' second in command in the Senate, said he has studied seafaring treaties since law school. His advice to the military: "Have a strong and robust navy ... so you're not going to have somebody tell you where you can't go."
Republicans on the foreign relations panel, who suspect chair Joseph Biden and ranking member Richard Lugar of stacking hearings on the treaty with more advocates than critics, have begun scheduling their own private briefings on the law of the sea.
"We've reached out to a number of groups," said Bob Corker, freshman Republican from Tennessee. He declined to name the briefers, acknowledging that he had spoken so far only to opponents.
Outside the Capitol, the roster of foes looking to sink the treaty reads like a who's who of the Reagan era: Frank Gaffney, the former Richard Perle aide who now fronts the Center for Security Policy; Phyllis Schlafly of the Eagle Forum; Edwin Meese III, the Reagan attorney general embroiled in the Iran-Contra scandal; and Oliver North, the Marine officer indicted in that affair.
Indeed, critics of the 202-page treaty deride its tone as reminiscent of the Cold War. When Mr Lott referred to Russia's membership in the pact, Jeff Sessions of Alabama "corrected" him by noting that "the Soviet Union" had signed on.
Later Mr Sessions likened the treaty - which conservatives have dubbed LOST - to the tale of Gulliver and the Lilliputians, with the US in the starring role.
"You've got the giant, and they tie [him] down with this string, then this string. [He] is not able to move," Mr Sessions said.
Progressive commentators, such as Steve Clemons and Matt Stoller, have drawn attention to the treaty as a worthy cause.
Andrew Rice, the Democratic state senator aiming to unseat Mr Inhofe next year, chastised the Oklahoman for standing in the way of military priorities by blocking the treaty.
Treaty opponent Steven Groves of the conservative Heritage Foundation, where Mr Meese is a senior member, dismissed the contention that trusting the military's strategy - Republican rhetoric of the recent Iraq hearings with General David Petraeus - would oblige Republicans to back the treaty.
"Any senator who says, 'we'll support any policy position taken by any branch of the US military and not give it any second thought or critical study' is not the type of senator I would trust," Mr. Groves said.
When the treaty will come to a vote remains to be seen. Pending claims to the Arctic and Antarctic seabed planned by the UK, Australia, Russia and other signatories to the compact have added to its momentum, but Mr Lott and three other Republican leaders vowed that a final vote would not take place.
"I'm not going to get in a twit about what the Swiss or Belgians may think about us," Mr Lott said.
The treaty would come to the floor with procedural privileges that prevent a filibuster, leaving conservatives little choice but to broadcast their warnings as loudly as possible. In 2004, then-majority leader Bill Frist refused to bring the treaty for a vote, but new Democratic majority leader Harry Reid is unlikely to do the same.
In the meantime, the law of the sea has picked up steam as the conservative base evaluates Republican presidential candidates. Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas, and former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson have pointedly broken with Mr. Bush on the treaty. "At a time when customary international law in this area has proven sufficient, I believe the efforts of treaty proponents would be better spent reforming the United Nations," Mr. Thompson said yesterday.
John McCain, the Arizona senator and decorated navy pilot, declined to answer a question about the treaty.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2199082,00.html
The UN law of the Sea is supported by everyone from environmentalists to George Bush - just not fulminating unilateralists in the Senate
Elana Schor in Washington
Thursday October 25, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Conservative senators and critics of the United Nations are attempting once again to stop the US joining an international treaty on access to the world's waters, despite support for it from the military and George Bush.
The UN's Convention of the Law of the Sea, already ratified by more than 150 countries, sets up a system to manage navigation and explore the oceans.
Environmental groups endorse the treaty's protection of global fish stocks, the US navy endorses its assurance of free movement and the oil industry's trade group endorses its promise of a level playing field for companies staking claim to drill in the Arctic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But Republican antagonists in the Senate, several of whom have derailed the treaty twice in the past, discount even the Bush administration's backing. They yesterday blocked a preliminary ratification vote, and in doing so declared it an auspicious date for foes of international institutions.
"There is no better time to celebrate the 62nd birthday of the United Nations than to say we don't want it," said Jim Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican senator who leads an annual effort to withhold US funds from the UN.
The treaty runs more than 200 pages, giving forces on both sides of the debate ample opportunity to divine its potential consequences. At its core, however, the clash recalls the ideological battles over invading Iraq, pitting America-first lawmakers against those who decry the consequences of "cowboy diplomacy".
Scott Paul, deputy director of government relations at the grassroots group Citizens for Global Solutions, noted the treaty's broad support among Democrats and pressed moderate Republicans to speak up.
"The fact we've been unable to ratify a treaty that's so strongly in our interests is, frankly, an indictment of our foreign policy," Mr Paul said.
Citing polls that show widespread support in the US for working with allied nations in the aftermath of Iraq, he added: "At times that will entail some measure of sacrifice. If we can't do it on the law of the sea treaty, which entails no sacrifice, how are we going to do it at any other time?"
The Senate foreign relations committee now is poised to approve the treaty next week, after which two-thirds of the full chamber must vote in favor to ensure ratification. Mr Bush has dispatched John Negroponte, the hawkish deputy secretary of state, and senior navy officials to help lobby Republicans.
That may not be enough to overcome the Republicans' famous mistrust of the UN. Trent Lott of Mississippi, the Republicans' second in command in the Senate, said he has studied seafaring treaties since law school. His advice to the military: "Have a strong and robust navy ... so you're not going to have somebody tell you where you can't go."
Republicans on the foreign relations panel, who suspect chair Joseph Biden and ranking member Richard Lugar of stacking hearings on the treaty with more advocates than critics, have begun scheduling their own private briefings on the law of the sea.
"We've reached out to a number of groups," said Bob Corker, freshman Republican from Tennessee. He declined to name the briefers, acknowledging that he had spoken so far only to opponents.
Outside the Capitol, the roster of foes looking to sink the treaty reads like a who's who of the Reagan era: Frank Gaffney, the former Richard Perle aide who now fronts the Center for Security Policy; Phyllis Schlafly of the Eagle Forum; Edwin Meese III, the Reagan attorney general embroiled in the Iran-Contra scandal; and Oliver North, the Marine officer indicted in that affair.
Indeed, critics of the 202-page treaty deride its tone as reminiscent of the Cold War. When Mr Lott referred to Russia's membership in the pact, Jeff Sessions of Alabama "corrected" him by noting that "the Soviet Union" had signed on.
Later Mr Sessions likened the treaty - which conservatives have dubbed LOST - to the tale of Gulliver and the Lilliputians, with the US in the starring role.
"You've got the giant, and they tie [him] down with this string, then this string. [He] is not able to move," Mr Sessions said.
Progressive commentators, such as Steve Clemons and Matt Stoller, have drawn attention to the treaty as a worthy cause.
Andrew Rice, the Democratic state senator aiming to unseat Mr Inhofe next year, chastised the Oklahoman for standing in the way of military priorities by blocking the treaty.
Treaty opponent Steven Groves of the conservative Heritage Foundation, where Mr Meese is a senior member, dismissed the contention that trusting the military's strategy - Republican rhetoric of the recent Iraq hearings with General David Petraeus - would oblige Republicans to back the treaty.
"Any senator who says, 'we'll support any policy position taken by any branch of the US military and not give it any second thought or critical study' is not the type of senator I would trust," Mr. Groves said.
When the treaty will come to a vote remains to be seen. Pending claims to the Arctic and Antarctic seabed planned by the UK, Australia, Russia and other signatories to the compact have added to its momentum, but Mr Lott and three other Republican leaders vowed that a final vote would not take place.
"I'm not going to get in a twit about what the Swiss or Belgians may think about us," Mr Lott said.
The treaty would come to the floor with procedural privileges that prevent a filibuster, leaving conservatives little choice but to broadcast their warnings as loudly as possible. In 2004, then-majority leader Bill Frist refused to bring the treaty for a vote, but new Democratic majority leader Harry Reid is unlikely to do the same.
In the meantime, the law of the sea has picked up steam as the conservative base evaluates Republican presidential candidates. Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas, and former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson have pointedly broken with Mr. Bush on the treaty. "At a time when customary international law in this area has proven sufficient, I believe the efforts of treaty proponents would be better spent reforming the United Nations," Mr. Thompson said yesterday.
John McCain, the Arizona senator and decorated navy pilot, declined to answer a question about the treaty.
Law of Sea Treaty draws GOP focus
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071026/NATION/110260097/1002
By Stephen Dinan
October 26, 2007
The Law of the Sea convention, a relic of the 1970s, could become the next fight of this year's Republican presidential campaign, with some of the candidates trying to push it to the front of the debate.
Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor who is emerging as a top-tier challenger, has called it "one of the defining issues of our time" and used this weekend's Values Voter Summit in Washington to blast the treaty as a threat to U.S. freedom.
"Let's stop the Law of Sea Treaty," Mr. Huckabee said, drawing an ovation from religious conservatives as he listed it and judges who abide by international law as prominent dangers to U.S. sovereignty.
He has been joined by former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, both of whom this week announced their own fears about the convention, underscoring a wariness among Republican voters about international organizations and anything that expands the reach of the United Nations.
"Governor Romney has concerns with the Law of the Sea Treaty," said Mr. Romney's spokesman, Kevin Madden. "He believes giving unaccountable international institutions more power is a serious problem."
Mr. Thompson went even further, saying he opposes the convention because it "threatens U.S. sovereignty and gives a U.N.-affiliated organization far too much authority over U.S. interests in international waters."
The convention creates rules governing ocean navigation, conservation and seabed mining. Its official name is the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea though opponents call it the Law of the Sea Treaty because they like the acronym LOST.
It was negotiated between 1973 and 1982, stalled when President Reagan raised concerns in 1982, was revived through new negotiations under President George H.W. Bush and was sent to the Senate by President Clinton. The current White House has also called for ratification, arguing the convention would help preserve navigational freedom for the Navy, among other benefits.
But opponents worry the tribunal created to judge disputes would trample on U.S. rights and say the convention's new governing body would have taxing authority because it could take a percentage of revenue from oil, gas or other commercial exploration outside of territorial waters.
The issue is becoming a litmus test for Republicans.
The party's top leadership in the Senate announced Wednesday — which was United Nations Day, the anniversary of the international body's founding — they will try to defeat it if Democrats bring it to the floor.
Sen. Jeff Sessions said the treaty could become an issue in the Republican primary because it's the sort of thing Republican voters care about.
"I think it's pretty clear. I think this will be a strong issue," the Alabama Republican said.
But the treaty does have support of some of the most senior Republicans in the Senate, such as Sen. Richard G. Lugar, top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The convention was scheduled for a vote in that committee this week, but that was put off until next week.
Democrats would like to bring the measure to the floor this year, but it's not clear whether the schedule will allow that. Ratification would require a two-thirds vote by the full Senate.
If it does come to the floor, it could put Sen. John McCain, who is also running for the Republican presidential nomination, in a difficult position.
Mr. McCain has been one of the treaty's key backers, sending a letter in 1998 along with Sen. Olympia J. Snowe and then-Sens. John Chafee and Frank Murkowski urging ratification. He was also set to testify on behalf of the treaty before a Senate committee in 2003, though he had to cancel because of scheduling.
The issue may be too hot to handle for others.
White House hopeful Rudolph W. Giuliani's campaign didn't return repeated messages left Wednesday and yesterday seeking information on his position.
By Stephen Dinan
October 26, 2007
The Law of the Sea convention, a relic of the 1970s, could become the next fight of this year's Republican presidential campaign, with some of the candidates trying to push it to the front of the debate.
Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor who is emerging as a top-tier challenger, has called it "one of the defining issues of our time" and used this weekend's Values Voter Summit in Washington to blast the treaty as a threat to U.S. freedom.
"Let's stop the Law of Sea Treaty," Mr. Huckabee said, drawing an ovation from religious conservatives as he listed it and judges who abide by international law as prominent dangers to U.S. sovereignty.
He has been joined by former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, both of whom this week announced their own fears about the convention, underscoring a wariness among Republican voters about international organizations and anything that expands the reach of the United Nations.
"Governor Romney has concerns with the Law of the Sea Treaty," said Mr. Romney's spokesman, Kevin Madden. "He believes giving unaccountable international institutions more power is a serious problem."
Mr. Thompson went even further, saying he opposes the convention because it "threatens U.S. sovereignty and gives a U.N.-affiliated organization far too much authority over U.S. interests in international waters."
The convention creates rules governing ocean navigation, conservation and seabed mining. Its official name is the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea though opponents call it the Law of the Sea Treaty because they like the acronym LOST.
It was negotiated between 1973 and 1982, stalled when President Reagan raised concerns in 1982, was revived through new negotiations under President George H.W. Bush and was sent to the Senate by President Clinton. The current White House has also called for ratification, arguing the convention would help preserve navigational freedom for the Navy, among other benefits.
But opponents worry the tribunal created to judge disputes would trample on U.S. rights and say the convention's new governing body would have taxing authority because it could take a percentage of revenue from oil, gas or other commercial exploration outside of territorial waters.
The issue is becoming a litmus test for Republicans.
The party's top leadership in the Senate announced Wednesday — which was United Nations Day, the anniversary of the international body's founding — they will try to defeat it if Democrats bring it to the floor.
Sen. Jeff Sessions said the treaty could become an issue in the Republican primary because it's the sort of thing Republican voters care about.
"I think it's pretty clear. I think this will be a strong issue," the Alabama Republican said.
But the treaty does have support of some of the most senior Republicans in the Senate, such as Sen. Richard G. Lugar, top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The convention was scheduled for a vote in that committee this week, but that was put off until next week.
Democrats would like to bring the measure to the floor this year, but it's not clear whether the schedule will allow that. Ratification would require a two-thirds vote by the full Senate.
If it does come to the floor, it could put Sen. John McCain, who is also running for the Republican presidential nomination, in a difficult position.
Mr. McCain has been one of the treaty's key backers, sending a letter in 1998 along with Sen. Olympia J. Snowe and then-Sens. John Chafee and Frank Murkowski urging ratification. He was also set to testify on behalf of the treaty before a Senate committee in 2003, though he had to cancel because of scheduling.
The issue may be too hot to handle for others.
White House hopeful Rudolph W. Giuliani's campaign didn't return repeated messages left Wednesday and yesterday seeking information on his position.
Protecting Our National Sovereignty – Senator John Cornyn// Mike Huckabee denounces U.N. Power Grab
http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ForPress.TexasTimesWeeklyColumn&ContentRecord_id=c7ede392-802a-23ad-49c9-c0817d355fb4&Region_id=&Issue_id
Protecting Our National Sovereignty
By U.S. Senator John Cornyn
Our state and our country are struggling to keep up with the effects of globalization—the increasingly free flow of ideas, information, goods and capital across borders and around the world.
One major challenge is making certain that our national sovereignty is protected, even as international commerce increases. This is no small matter. Our sovereignty is the foundation for our freedom.
Sovereignty should rest strictly with the American people. We cannot allow a foreign country or an international organization to make decisions that should be our own exclusive province, based on our own national interests.
The U.S. Senate is currently debating the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), a document that I believe poses a threat to these concepts. The treaty has been signed by 155 countries. But President Reagan rejected it in 1982, and the Senate refused to ratify a different version approved by President Clinton in 1994. Now it’s back.
LOST sets up an international bureaucracy under the United Nations that would control the world’s oceans and everything in them as “the common heritage of mankind.” Any revenues produced by exploiting resources, such as oil discovered in international waters, would be allocated and divided by international tribunals.
LOST agencies would have authority to levy royalties and fees—effectively the first international tax. Some critics believe the treaty would lead to decisions by an international tribunal regulating the environment, not only in the ocean but all over the globe.
The Bush Administration is pushing the Senate to ratify the treaty this time. It’s needed to ensure that our Navy can navigate anywhere, it says, and to protect our ability to share in undersea resources, such as petroleum that might be found under the Arctic Circle.
In my view, our historical experience with international organizations has not been satisfactory. We are often outvoted, without good cause. The United Nations has earned a dismal and deteriorating record for corruption, highlighted by complicity in the largest fraud in history, the Iraq oil-for-food scandal. More recently, the U.N. has been accused of tolerating bribe s and kickbacks in dispensing aid to tsunami victims in Southeast Asia.
U.N. efforts have been particularly ineffectual in resolving real conflicts. I believe the best insurance for orderly management of the high seas—and effective protection of U.S. sovereign interests—is a strong U.S. Navy. This concept has served us well for 200 years.
* * *
In mid-October, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on a criminal case from Texas that poses yet another threat to our sovereignty. The case involved Jose Ernesto Medellin, a foreign citizen convicted and sentenced to death in 1994 in the brutal rape and murder of two teenage girls in Houston.
Long after his sentence was final, Medellin’s lawyers came up with a new appeal point. They argued that because Medellin was not a U.S. citizen, and under the Vienna Convention the Mexican consulate should have been notified when he was arrested, his appeal should be reopened. This argument was accepted in 2004 by a foreign tribunal, the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
Medellin was indeed born in Mexico, but lived in the U.S. most of his life. He speaks, reads and writes English, and attended U.S. schools. Disappointingly, the Bush Administration has issued a directive to Texas officials attempting to enforce the foreign court’s judgment, and also backed Medellin’s side at the U.S. Supreme Court.
I have argued that the President lacks constitutional authority to direct Texas to reopen Medellin’s conviction. In my opinion, the President cannot by himself tr ansform an international treaty, and especially a foreign court’s judgment, into domestic law.
* * *
In recent years, some Supreme Court Justices have shown a willingness to cite the law of other countries as support for their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. That’s yet another unwelcome trend, in my opinion.
The U.S. constitutional system is the product of our unique American experience. It has produced the most successful country in history, a nation that has been “the shining city on the hill” to the rest of the world.
We should do everything possible to protect that legacy. The world depends upon our leadership.
Sen. Cornyn serves on the Armed Services, Judiciary and Budget Committees. In addition, he is Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Ethics. He serves as the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee’s Immigration, Border Security and Refugees subcommittee and the Armed Services Committee’s Airland subcommittee. Cornyn served previously as Texas Attorney General, Texas Supreme Court Justice and Bexar County District Judge
******************************
Press Release: Mike Huckabee denounces U.N. Power Grab
Challenges Republican Candidates to Join Him in Opposing LOST
October 09, 2007
(Detroit, Michigan) On the eve of tonight’s GOP debate in Michigan, Republican presidential candidate and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee joined Ronald Reagan in opposition to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea – better known as the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). He called on his rivals for the nomination to join him in rejecting a treaty that would surrender control of seven-tenths of the world’s surface – its oceans – to a UN-affiliated organization. Gov. Huckabee declared today:
“The Law of the Sea Treaty is one of the defining issues of our time. Are we in favor of increasing the power and authority of the United Nations and its subsidiaries at the expense of American sovereignty and vital interests? Or are we opposed to world government, particularly the one envisioned by LOST, charged with implementing a hopelessly outdated and counterproductive socialist and redistributionist agenda from the 1970s? Republicans – starting with their presidential candidates – should stand with Ronald Reagan in rejecting the Law of the Sea Treaty, its threat to our sovereignty and its socialist agenda.”
Gov. Huckabee noted that two of President Reagan’s closest associates – his National Security Advisor, William P. Clark, and his Attorney General Edwin Meese – yesterday published an op.ed. article in the Wall Street Journal making clear the basis of President Reagan’s rejection of the Law of the Sea Treaty.
“Proponents of LOST want us to believe that Ronald Reagan would have supported ratification of this treaty with some tinkering at the margins. In fact, as Judge Clark and General Meese have made clear, Mr. Reagan recognized that the central concept behind this treaty – a supranational government with the authority to determine what can and cannot be done on, beneath and even above the seas – was not in America’s interests.”
Gov. Huckabee objected to the fact that the U.S. Senate is poised to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty with only one committee – the Foreign Relations Committee – having held hearings on it during this session of Congress and only two witnesses opposed to ratification being afforded the opportunity to testify. He noted that as many as eight other Senate committees have jurisdiction over areas affected by the Treaty and urged them to engage in rigorous oversight before any action is taken by the full Senate.
Gov. Huckabee called on his rivals for the GOP nomination to use the present campaign as an opportunity to educate the American people about LOST and to join him in making clear that, like Ronald Reagan, they will not submit U.S. sovereignty to a UN on steroids.
Protecting Our National Sovereignty
By U.S. Senator John Cornyn
Our state and our country are struggling to keep up with the effects of globalization—the increasingly free flow of ideas, information, goods and capital across borders and around the world.
One major challenge is making certain that our national sovereignty is protected, even as international commerce increases. This is no small matter. Our sovereignty is the foundation for our freedom.
Sovereignty should rest strictly with the American people. We cannot allow a foreign country or an international organization to make decisions that should be our own exclusive province, based on our own national interests.
The U.S. Senate is currently debating the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), a document that I believe poses a threat to these concepts. The treaty has been signed by 155 countries. But President Reagan rejected it in 1982, and the Senate refused to ratify a different version approved by President Clinton in 1994. Now it’s back.
LOST sets up an international bureaucracy under the United Nations that would control the world’s oceans and everything in them as “the common heritage of mankind.” Any revenues produced by exploiting resources, such as oil discovered in international waters, would be allocated and divided by international tribunals.
LOST agencies would have authority to levy royalties and fees—effectively the first international tax. Some critics believe the treaty would lead to decisions by an international tribunal regulating the environment, not only in the ocean but all over the globe.
The Bush Administration is pushing the Senate to ratify the treaty this time. It’s needed to ensure that our Navy can navigate anywhere, it says, and to protect our ability to share in undersea resources, such as petroleum that might be found under the Arctic Circle.
In my view, our historical experience with international organizations has not been satisfactory. We are often outvoted, without good cause. The United Nations has earned a dismal and deteriorating record for corruption, highlighted by complicity in the largest fraud in history, the Iraq oil-for-food scandal. More recently, the U.N. has been accused of tolerating bribe s and kickbacks in dispensing aid to tsunami victims in Southeast Asia.
U.N. efforts have been particularly ineffectual in resolving real conflicts. I believe the best insurance for orderly management of the high seas—and effective protection of U.S. sovereign interests—is a strong U.S. Navy. This concept has served us well for 200 years.
* * *
In mid-October, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on a criminal case from Texas that poses yet another threat to our sovereignty. The case involved Jose Ernesto Medellin, a foreign citizen convicted and sentenced to death in 1994 in the brutal rape and murder of two teenage girls in Houston.
Long after his sentence was final, Medellin’s lawyers came up with a new appeal point. They argued that because Medellin was not a U.S. citizen, and under the Vienna Convention the Mexican consulate should have been notified when he was arrested, his appeal should be reopened. This argument was accepted in 2004 by a foreign tribunal, the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
Medellin was indeed born in Mexico, but lived in the U.S. most of his life. He speaks, reads and writes English, and attended U.S. schools. Disappointingly, the Bush Administration has issued a directive to Texas officials attempting to enforce the foreign court’s judgment, and also backed Medellin’s side at the U.S. Supreme Court.
I have argued that the President lacks constitutional authority to direct Texas to reopen Medellin’s conviction. In my opinion, the President cannot by himself tr ansform an international treaty, and especially a foreign court’s judgment, into domestic law.
* * *
In recent years, some Supreme Court Justices have shown a willingness to cite the law of other countries as support for their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. That’s yet another unwelcome trend, in my opinion.
The U.S. constitutional system is the product of our unique American experience. It has produced the most successful country in history, a nation that has been “the shining city on the hill” to the rest of the world.
We should do everything possible to protect that legacy. The world depends upon our leadership.
Sen. Cornyn serves on the Armed Services, Judiciary and Budget Committees. In addition, he is Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Ethics. He serves as the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee’s Immigration, Border Security and Refugees subcommittee and the Armed Services Committee’s Airland subcommittee. Cornyn served previously as Texas Attorney General, Texas Supreme Court Justice and Bexar County District Judge
******************************
Press Release: Mike Huckabee denounces U.N. Power Grab
Challenges Republican Candidates to Join Him in Opposing LOST
October 09, 2007
(Detroit, Michigan) On the eve of tonight’s GOP debate in Michigan, Republican presidential candidate and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee joined Ronald Reagan in opposition to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea – better known as the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). He called on his rivals for the nomination to join him in rejecting a treaty that would surrender control of seven-tenths of the world’s surface – its oceans – to a UN-affiliated organization. Gov. Huckabee declared today:
“The Law of the Sea Treaty is one of the defining issues of our time. Are we in favor of increasing the power and authority of the United Nations and its subsidiaries at the expense of American sovereignty and vital interests? Or are we opposed to world government, particularly the one envisioned by LOST, charged with implementing a hopelessly outdated and counterproductive socialist and redistributionist agenda from the 1970s? Republicans – starting with their presidential candidates – should stand with Ronald Reagan in rejecting the Law of the Sea Treaty, its threat to our sovereignty and its socialist agenda.”
Gov. Huckabee noted that two of President Reagan’s closest associates – his National Security Advisor, William P. Clark, and his Attorney General Edwin Meese – yesterday published an op.ed. article in the Wall Street Journal making clear the basis of President Reagan’s rejection of the Law of the Sea Treaty.
“Proponents of LOST want us to believe that Ronald Reagan would have supported ratification of this treaty with some tinkering at the margins. In fact, as Judge Clark and General Meese have made clear, Mr. Reagan recognized that the central concept behind this treaty – a supranational government with the authority to determine what can and cannot be done on, beneath and even above the seas – was not in America’s interests.”
Gov. Huckabee objected to the fact that the U.S. Senate is poised to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty with only one committee – the Foreign Relations Committee – having held hearings on it during this session of Congress and only two witnesses opposed to ratification being afforded the opportunity to testify. He noted that as many as eight other Senate committees have jurisdiction over areas affected by the Treaty and urged them to engage in rigorous oversight before any action is taken by the full Senate.
Gov. Huckabee called on his rivals for the GOP nomination to use the present campaign as an opportunity to educate the American people about LOST and to join him in making clear that, like Ronald Reagan, they will not submit U.S. sovereignty to a UN on steroids.
Lou Dobbs / CNN, Dobbs: Beware the Lame Duck
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/16/Dobbs.Oct17/?iref=mpstoryview
Story Highlights Dobbs blasts Bush as a "neo-liberal"
Dobbs says U.S. shouldn't agree to U.N.'s Law of the Sea TreatyDobbs:
"This administration can do nothing straightforwardly"Lou Dobbs' commentary appears weekly on CNN.com.
NEW YORK (CNN) -- Diehard GOP faithful, the dwindling number of Bush loyalists and political pundits of every stripe and medium seem obsessed these days with defining or discerning the "legacy of George W. Bush."
Frankly, I spend more time worrying about whether or not the United States can survive the remaining 15 months of his ebbing presidency.There is little mystery about what future historians will consider to be the legacy of the 43rd president of the United States. Those historians are certain to describe the first presidential administration of the 21st century with terms such as dissipation and perversion.
Bush campaigned for the Republican Party's nomination eight years ago, styling himself as a compassionate conservative. He's amply demonstrated that he is neither.Although many conservatives refuse to accept the reality, George W. Bush is a one-world neo-liberal who drove budget and trade deficits to record heights while embracing faith-based economic policies that perversely require only blind allegiance to free markets and free trade, without regard for consequence.
This president pursues a war without demanding of his generals either success or victory and accepts the sacrifice of our brave young men and women in uniform while asking nothing of our people or the nation at a time of war.Sadly, this president has diminished a great nation and may diminish it further.President Bush has pressed hard for the Security and Prosperity Partnership, the first step toward a North American Union that will threaten our sovereignty.
This administration has permitted American businesses to hire illegal aliens, encouraged the invasion of 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens and has given Mexico and corporate America dominion over our borders and our immigration policy.Were it not for an outraged public, the Bush administration would have been happy to cede control of our ports to a Dubai government-owned company.
The assault on our national sovereignty continues: At a time when public approval of the White House and Congress is near historic lows, the president is urging the Senate to act favorably on our accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. One hundred fifty-five nations have ratified the Law of the Sea Treaty, which essentially codifies into law detailed rules about freedom of the seas and the extent of territorial waters. The treaty also establishes an international bureaucracy to regulate deep-sea mining.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee recently heard arguments on the 1982 Law of the Sea Treaty, which President Ronald Reagan rejected but President Bill Clinton submitted to the Senate in 1994. A vote is likely in the weeks ahead, and this Democratic-controlled Senate is the same institution whose leadership sought passage of the disastrous comprehensive immigration overhaul legislation.And just as this administration trotted out an Army general to support the Dubai Ports World fiasco and a Marine Corps general to support the administration's immigration proposal, it's now pressured the U.S. Navy to support this treaty.
Bush says the treaty "will secure U.S. sovereign rights over extensive marine areas, including the valuable natural resources they contain." The president could not be more wrong. This treaty will submit the United States to international tribunals largely adverse to our interests, and the dispute resolution mechanisms are stacked against the United States. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, astutely argues that nearly all the signatories "have voted against the United States over half the time [at the United Nations].
"This administration can do nothing straightforwardly and perverts language at every turn. Take, for example, the words of Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte arguing in support of the treaty. "As a non-party," he argues, "We are not currently in a position to maximize U.S. sovereign rights over the shelf in the Arctic or elsewhere."
Negroponte's tortured reasoning is entirely consistent with this administration's intellectual performance over almost two terms in office, but it serves neither the truth nor the national interest.
The Law of the Sea Treaty would undermine our national sovereignty and act as a back door for global environmental activists to direct U.S. policy. It would hold the United States to yet another unaccountable international bureaucracy and constrain our national prerogatives. Aside from that, the treaty is wholly unnecessary. The U.S. Navy already enjoys international navigation rights by customary practice.
Our elected officials in both political parties and the national media should worry less about the legacy of this lame-duck president and far more about the future of a great nation and people debilitated by his ruinous leadership.
Story Highlights Dobbs blasts Bush as a "neo-liberal"
Dobbs says U.S. shouldn't agree to U.N.'s Law of the Sea TreatyDobbs:
"This administration can do nothing straightforwardly"Lou Dobbs' commentary appears weekly on CNN.com.
NEW YORK (CNN) -- Diehard GOP faithful, the dwindling number of Bush loyalists and political pundits of every stripe and medium seem obsessed these days with defining or discerning the "legacy of George W. Bush."
Frankly, I spend more time worrying about whether or not the United States can survive the remaining 15 months of his ebbing presidency.There is little mystery about what future historians will consider to be the legacy of the 43rd president of the United States. Those historians are certain to describe the first presidential administration of the 21st century with terms such as dissipation and perversion.
Bush campaigned for the Republican Party's nomination eight years ago, styling himself as a compassionate conservative. He's amply demonstrated that he is neither.Although many conservatives refuse to accept the reality, George W. Bush is a one-world neo-liberal who drove budget and trade deficits to record heights while embracing faith-based economic policies that perversely require only blind allegiance to free markets and free trade, without regard for consequence.
This president pursues a war without demanding of his generals either success or victory and accepts the sacrifice of our brave young men and women in uniform while asking nothing of our people or the nation at a time of war.Sadly, this president has diminished a great nation and may diminish it further.President Bush has pressed hard for the Security and Prosperity Partnership, the first step toward a North American Union that will threaten our sovereignty.
This administration has permitted American businesses to hire illegal aliens, encouraged the invasion of 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens and has given Mexico and corporate America dominion over our borders and our immigration policy.Were it not for an outraged public, the Bush administration would have been happy to cede control of our ports to a Dubai government-owned company.
The assault on our national sovereignty continues: At a time when public approval of the White House and Congress is near historic lows, the president is urging the Senate to act favorably on our accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. One hundred fifty-five nations have ratified the Law of the Sea Treaty, which essentially codifies into law detailed rules about freedom of the seas and the extent of territorial waters. The treaty also establishes an international bureaucracy to regulate deep-sea mining.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee recently heard arguments on the 1982 Law of the Sea Treaty, which President Ronald Reagan rejected but President Bill Clinton submitted to the Senate in 1994. A vote is likely in the weeks ahead, and this Democratic-controlled Senate is the same institution whose leadership sought passage of the disastrous comprehensive immigration overhaul legislation.And just as this administration trotted out an Army general to support the Dubai Ports World fiasco and a Marine Corps general to support the administration's immigration proposal, it's now pressured the U.S. Navy to support this treaty.
Bush says the treaty "will secure U.S. sovereign rights over extensive marine areas, including the valuable natural resources they contain." The president could not be more wrong. This treaty will submit the United States to international tribunals largely adverse to our interests, and the dispute resolution mechanisms are stacked against the United States. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, astutely argues that nearly all the signatories "have voted against the United States over half the time [at the United Nations].
"This administration can do nothing straightforwardly and perverts language at every turn. Take, for example, the words of Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte arguing in support of the treaty. "As a non-party," he argues, "We are not currently in a position to maximize U.S. sovereign rights over the shelf in the Arctic or elsewhere."
Negroponte's tortured reasoning is entirely consistent with this administration's intellectual performance over almost two terms in office, but it serves neither the truth nor the national interest.
The Law of the Sea Treaty would undermine our national sovereignty and act as a back door for global environmental activists to direct U.S. policy. It would hold the United States to yet another unaccountable international bureaucracy and constrain our national prerogatives. Aside from that, the treaty is wholly unnecessary. The U.S. Navy already enjoys international navigation rights by customary practice.
Our elected officials in both political parties and the national media should worry less about the legacy of this lame-duck president and far more about the future of a great nation and people debilitated by his ruinous leadership.
Permission Slip for the Sea
By Oliver NorthFriday
October 12, 2007
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/OliverNorth/2007/10/12/permission_slip_for_the_sea
WASHINGTON -- In his 2004 State of the Union Address, President Bush said, "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country." Members of both parties and both houses of Congress applauded. But if the Senate votes to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea -- known as the Law of the Sea Treaty -- or its appropriate acronym -- LOST -- he and his successors are going to need lots of permission slips.
In 1982, Ronald Reagan, concerned about the treaty's implications for our sovereignty and national security, formally rejected LOST because it did "not satisfy the objectives sought by the United States." In 1994, William Jefferson Clinton, eager to appease One World Government advocates in his own party and at the United Nations, negotiated a parallel "agreement" that purported to address Mr. Reagan's concerns -- and urged ratification. Since then, LOST has gathered dust in the bowels of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee. All that may be about to change. The deeply flawed, Soviet-era agreement giving unelected, unaccountable international bureaucrats control over 71 percent of the Earth's surface is now on a fast track to ratification.
Advocates for LOST -- among them Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden, D-Del. -- claim that the Clinton-negotiated parallel "agreement" eliminates concerns about empowering international organizations to collect heavy fees or interfere with the U.S. military or intelligence collection. Yet a careful reading of LOST's 202 pages -- and the so-called agreement -- proves that's not true.
The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea already has created a Byzantine array of international organizations to administer the provisions of LOST. Everything from compliance with global environmental agreements, to the collection of "user fees" from private companies, to disputes about military operations above, on or under international waters are subject to mandatory dispute resolution by one or more of these international bodies.
According to the U.N., the purpose of LOST is to preserve international waters for peaceful purposes. But Articles 19 and 20 of the treaty would proscribe the U.S. Navy from training with weapons, collecting intelligence or interfering with enemy communications in the territorial waters of other countries without their expressed permission. Military aircraft are prohibited specifically from taking off and landing in these waters, and severe limitations would be imposed on loading and unloading "any commodity, currency or person" including military equipment. Submarines are required to travel on the surface and "show their flag in territorial waters." Article 30 states that warships not complying with the laws of a coastal nation can be forced to leave. Disputes about these issues would be adjudicated by international lawyers. Right.
LOST's proponents discount these concerns by claiming the U.S. simply will exempt military activities from the treaty's compulsory dispute resolution requirements. However, the "opt out" clause in Article 298 fails to define such operations. In our own Congress, intelligence functions are not considered to be military activities, so it is far from certain that the U.N. would accept the U.S. position that intelligence operations over, on or under the seas are indeed military activities. If there is a dispute as to what is or isn't a military activity, LOST requires the matter to be resolved by international arbitration.
In 2003, Navy Adm. Michael Mullen, now the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that rulings from these arbitration panels "could have an impact on operational planning and activities, and our security." Last week, in response to questions from Sen. David Vitter, R-La., during a committee hearing, professor Bernard Oxman, a witness supporting LOST, admitted that if the parties to a dispute can't agree on the arbitration panel, the U.N. secretary-general will chose the arbitrators. Lawyers in Pyongyang, Havana and Tehran: Call Turtle Bay.
LOST also opens the door to a long-sought U.N. goal: the redistribution of wealth by taxing Americans. The International Seabed Authority, a bloated, multinational bureaucracy headquartered in Jamaica, has the mandate to distribute revenues and "other economic benefits" on the basis of "equitable sharing criteria, taking into account the interests and needs of developing states." In addition to acting as a global IRS, the ISA also decides which companies from which nations will develop mineral resources on the seabed.
In urging ratification, former President Bill Clinton described LOST as "a far-reaching environmental accord" that would "harmonize" U.S. laws to "prevent, reduce and control pollution" in the "best practical means." But Article 213 requires nations to adopt "laws and regulations to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from land-based sources." Thus, LOST could become a means of enforcing another agreement we never ratified: the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. Al Gore, call your office.
Before casting a vote to ratify LOST, all 100 senators should read Article 314 of this onerous treaty and Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. The U.N.-crafted document specifies that amendments to the treaty can be adopted -- and therefore enforced -- without the consent of any signatory. Yet our Constitution requires that two-thirds of our Senate concur in any treaty. Do 67 members of this Senate now want to surrender that authority to foreign governments?
Oliver North is the founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance and author of The Assassins.Oliver North is the host of War Stories on the Fox News Channel and the founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance.
October 12, 2007
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/OliverNorth/2007/10/12/permission_slip_for_the_sea
WASHINGTON -- In his 2004 State of the Union Address, President Bush said, "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country." Members of both parties and both houses of Congress applauded. But if the Senate votes to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea -- known as the Law of the Sea Treaty -- or its appropriate acronym -- LOST -- he and his successors are going to need lots of permission slips.
In 1982, Ronald Reagan, concerned about the treaty's implications for our sovereignty and national security, formally rejected LOST because it did "not satisfy the objectives sought by the United States." In 1994, William Jefferson Clinton, eager to appease One World Government advocates in his own party and at the United Nations, negotiated a parallel "agreement" that purported to address Mr. Reagan's concerns -- and urged ratification. Since then, LOST has gathered dust in the bowels of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee. All that may be about to change. The deeply flawed, Soviet-era agreement giving unelected, unaccountable international bureaucrats control over 71 percent of the Earth's surface is now on a fast track to ratification.
Advocates for LOST -- among them Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden, D-Del. -- claim that the Clinton-negotiated parallel "agreement" eliminates concerns about empowering international organizations to collect heavy fees or interfere with the U.S. military or intelligence collection. Yet a careful reading of LOST's 202 pages -- and the so-called agreement -- proves that's not true.
The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea already has created a Byzantine array of international organizations to administer the provisions of LOST. Everything from compliance with global environmental agreements, to the collection of "user fees" from private companies, to disputes about military operations above, on or under international waters are subject to mandatory dispute resolution by one or more of these international bodies.
According to the U.N., the purpose of LOST is to preserve international waters for peaceful purposes. But Articles 19 and 20 of the treaty would proscribe the U.S. Navy from training with weapons, collecting intelligence or interfering with enemy communications in the territorial waters of other countries without their expressed permission. Military aircraft are prohibited specifically from taking off and landing in these waters, and severe limitations would be imposed on loading and unloading "any commodity, currency or person" including military equipment. Submarines are required to travel on the surface and "show their flag in territorial waters." Article 30 states that warships not complying with the laws of a coastal nation can be forced to leave. Disputes about these issues would be adjudicated by international lawyers. Right.
LOST's proponents discount these concerns by claiming the U.S. simply will exempt military activities from the treaty's compulsory dispute resolution requirements. However, the "opt out" clause in Article 298 fails to define such operations. In our own Congress, intelligence functions are not considered to be military activities, so it is far from certain that the U.N. would accept the U.S. position that intelligence operations over, on or under the seas are indeed military activities. If there is a dispute as to what is or isn't a military activity, LOST requires the matter to be resolved by international arbitration.
In 2003, Navy Adm. Michael Mullen, now the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that rulings from these arbitration panels "could have an impact on operational planning and activities, and our security." Last week, in response to questions from Sen. David Vitter, R-La., during a committee hearing, professor Bernard Oxman, a witness supporting LOST, admitted that if the parties to a dispute can't agree on the arbitration panel, the U.N. secretary-general will chose the arbitrators. Lawyers in Pyongyang, Havana and Tehran: Call Turtle Bay.
LOST also opens the door to a long-sought U.N. goal: the redistribution of wealth by taxing Americans. The International Seabed Authority, a bloated, multinational bureaucracy headquartered in Jamaica, has the mandate to distribute revenues and "other economic benefits" on the basis of "equitable sharing criteria, taking into account the interests and needs of developing states." In addition to acting as a global IRS, the ISA also decides which companies from which nations will develop mineral resources on the seabed.
In urging ratification, former President Bill Clinton described LOST as "a far-reaching environmental accord" that would "harmonize" U.S. laws to "prevent, reduce and control pollution" in the "best practical means." But Article 213 requires nations to adopt "laws and regulations to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from land-based sources." Thus, LOST could become a means of enforcing another agreement we never ratified: the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. Al Gore, call your office.
Before casting a vote to ratify LOST, all 100 senators should read Article 314 of this onerous treaty and Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. The U.N.-crafted document specifies that amendments to the treaty can be adopted -- and therefore enforced -- without the consent of any signatory. Yet our Constitution requires that two-thirds of our Senate concur in any treaty. Do 67 members of this Senate now want to surrender that authority to foreign governments?
Oliver North is the founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance and author of The Assassins.Oliver North is the host of War Stories on the Fox News Channel and the founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance.
U.S. LOST at sea?
By James Lyons
Washington Times
October 5, 2007
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071005/COMMENTARY/110050029
From the days of our Founding Fathers, history has shown no president wants to leave a legacy of surrendering U.S. national sovereignty to a supranational organization. But this will become the case if the Senate — spurred by Delaware Democrat Joseph Biden — ratifies the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) now before it without proper debate by the Armed Services or Appropriations committees.
Sen. Biden wants to cut off debate and fast-track LOST. He is misguided. It is inconceivable to this naval officer why the Senate would willingly want to forfeit its responsibility for America"s freedom of the seas to the unelected and unaccountable international agency that would be created by ratification of LOST.
The power of the U.S. Navy, not some anonymous bureaucracy, has been this nation's guarantee of our access to and freedom of the seas. I can site many maritime operations — from our blockade of Cuba in 1962, to the reflagging of ships in the Persian Gulf, to our submarine intelligence-gathering programs — that have been critical to maintaining our freedom of the seas and protecting our waters from encroachment. All those examples would likely have to be submitted to an international tribunal for approval if we become a signatory to this treaty.
In a word, this is incomprehensible. Given the current war on terror, we cannot deny our Navy the ability to carry out legitimate naval intercept operations against vessels carrying possible nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction. But such actions would be subject to LOST's arbitration deliberations — a process that in most cases would be decided unfavorably against the United States.
Regardless of what is promised by LOST's proponents, the Clinton administration did not fix the treaty's objectionable clauses. For example, ratification of LOST would subsequently require the United States to submit to mandatory dispute resolution with respect to the ability of the U.S. Navy to conduct its customary maritime operations unfettered.
Further, although LOST allows a party to exempt itself from disputes concerning "military activities," the Treaty does not define such activities, and it is therefore far from certain any U.S. decision to exempt itself from such dispute resolution will be honored by the other parties or dispute resolution bodies — particularly in light of the fact any supposedly exempt "military activity" can be framed as an "environmental activity" by those hostile to the United States.
The military's supply chain is also vulnerable to compulsory dispute resolution in this regard.
The military can also be adversely affected by the LOST requirement that all state parties take all measures necessary to "prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from any source" (Article 194). This requirement could also adversely affect the military's civilian supply chain and the industrial processes involved with supplying the military.
Signers must refrain from even the threat of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Both Iran and North Korea would fall under this requirement. LOST requires submarines to travel on the surface and show their flag in territorial waters. This constraint would damage the Navy's ability to conduct many of its vital intelligence-gathering operations.
Provisions of LOST will regulate how U.S. businesses can mine the seabed. More important, the treaty requires U.S. companies to transfer strategic technologies to Third World countries, some of them declared or potential enemies of the U.S.
The Treaty will impose a "globe-tax" to finance a pseudo "second United Nations," complete with its own committees and councils. LOST creates a bureaucracy that enforces a mandatory arbitration process that will by its nature be adverse to U.S. corporations and infringe on private property rights.
LOST provides a forum for China and Russia to pursue threatening territorial claims. China has already manipulated LOST to claim sovereignty over the entire South China Sea, while Russia is pursuing its claim to the North Pole seabed by presenting its data to the LOST Continental Shelf Commission — a claim entertained by the commission though LOST clearly indicates that claims like Russia's are groundless.
If the United States joins a treaty that allows for this sort of manipulation, we will still be subject to the Treaty's requirements, and will not necessarily be able to influence decisions concerning China and Russia.
Mr. President, the United States will have only have one vote in all the various LOST committees. We will have no veto power, as we do at the U.N. Security Council. You've accomplished many positives for America, Mr. President. Don't add a huge negative. Reject the Law of the Sea Treaty in its present form. You will be hailed by future generations as a hero for rejecting this faulty, dangerous, anti-U.S. document.
James Lyons, U.S. Navy retired admiral, was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations, and deputy chief of naval operations, where he was principal adviser on all Joint Chiefs of Staff matters.
Washington Times
October 5, 2007
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071005/COMMENTARY/110050029
From the days of our Founding Fathers, history has shown no president wants to leave a legacy of surrendering U.S. national sovereignty to a supranational organization. But this will become the case if the Senate — spurred by Delaware Democrat Joseph Biden — ratifies the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) now before it without proper debate by the Armed Services or Appropriations committees.
Sen. Biden wants to cut off debate and fast-track LOST. He is misguided. It is inconceivable to this naval officer why the Senate would willingly want to forfeit its responsibility for America"s freedom of the seas to the unelected and unaccountable international agency that would be created by ratification of LOST.
The power of the U.S. Navy, not some anonymous bureaucracy, has been this nation's guarantee of our access to and freedom of the seas. I can site many maritime operations — from our blockade of Cuba in 1962, to the reflagging of ships in the Persian Gulf, to our submarine intelligence-gathering programs — that have been critical to maintaining our freedom of the seas and protecting our waters from encroachment. All those examples would likely have to be submitted to an international tribunal for approval if we become a signatory to this treaty.
In a word, this is incomprehensible. Given the current war on terror, we cannot deny our Navy the ability to carry out legitimate naval intercept operations against vessels carrying possible nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction. But such actions would be subject to LOST's arbitration deliberations — a process that in most cases would be decided unfavorably against the United States.
Regardless of what is promised by LOST's proponents, the Clinton administration did not fix the treaty's objectionable clauses. For example, ratification of LOST would subsequently require the United States to submit to mandatory dispute resolution with respect to the ability of the U.S. Navy to conduct its customary maritime operations unfettered.
Further, although LOST allows a party to exempt itself from disputes concerning "military activities," the Treaty does not define such activities, and it is therefore far from certain any U.S. decision to exempt itself from such dispute resolution will be honored by the other parties or dispute resolution bodies — particularly in light of the fact any supposedly exempt "military activity" can be framed as an "environmental activity" by those hostile to the United States.
The military's supply chain is also vulnerable to compulsory dispute resolution in this regard.
The military can also be adversely affected by the LOST requirement that all state parties take all measures necessary to "prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from any source" (Article 194). This requirement could also adversely affect the military's civilian supply chain and the industrial processes involved with supplying the military.
Signers must refrain from even the threat of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Both Iran and North Korea would fall under this requirement. LOST requires submarines to travel on the surface and show their flag in territorial waters. This constraint would damage the Navy's ability to conduct many of its vital intelligence-gathering operations.
Provisions of LOST will regulate how U.S. businesses can mine the seabed. More important, the treaty requires U.S. companies to transfer strategic technologies to Third World countries, some of them declared or potential enemies of the U.S.
The Treaty will impose a "globe-tax" to finance a pseudo "second United Nations," complete with its own committees and councils. LOST creates a bureaucracy that enforces a mandatory arbitration process that will by its nature be adverse to U.S. corporations and infringe on private property rights.
LOST provides a forum for China and Russia to pursue threatening territorial claims. China has already manipulated LOST to claim sovereignty over the entire South China Sea, while Russia is pursuing its claim to the North Pole seabed by presenting its data to the LOST Continental Shelf Commission — a claim entertained by the commission though LOST clearly indicates that claims like Russia's are groundless.
If the United States joins a treaty that allows for this sort of manipulation, we will still be subject to the Treaty's requirements, and will not necessarily be able to influence decisions concerning China and Russia.
Mr. President, the United States will have only have one vote in all the various LOST committees. We will have no veto power, as we do at the U.N. Security Council. You've accomplished many positives for America, Mr. President. Don't add a huge negative. Reject the Law of the Sea Treaty in its present form. You will be hailed by future generations as a hero for rejecting this faulty, dangerous, anti-U.S. document.
James Lyons, U.S. Navy retired admiral, was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations, and deputy chief of naval operations, where he was principal adviser on all Joint Chiefs of Staff matters.
LOST Reality
October 8, 2007
By Lawrence A. Kogan, Esq.*
The United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (a/k/a the Law of the Sea Treaty -‘LOST’), the leviathan of all non-science and non-economics-based UN regulatory environmental treaties, has once again resurfaced and reared its ugly head, despite having been deep-sixed’ years ago by the Reagan Administration.
Unfortunately, a legacy-oriented White House is now shepherding it through a kumbaya Congress whose majority enthusiastically embraces collectivist European-style environmental activism and multilateral treaty-making at the expense of U.S. constitutionally protected individualism and private property rights.
Is the White House merely ill-informed, or has it intentionally chosen to ignore the lessons of history? Does it not recall the past decade of highly contentious trade disputes between the U.S. and an environmentally obsessed and protectionist European Union concerning the EU’s blatantly illegal use of the contra-WTO (‘I fear, therefore I shall ban’) Precautionary Principle? Does it not realize that LOST proponents now seek to have this controversial political philosophy incorporated and/or read into the LOST as an irrefutable international legal standard so that the United States will be compelled to adopt it as domestic law too?
If the administration had done its homework, it would have come across the prior congressional testimony of Roger T. Rufe, Jr., a die-hard proponent of the contra-WTO Precautionary Principle. Mr. Rufe is a retired U.S. Coast Guard Vice Admiral and a former CEO of The Ocean Conservancy (OTC), an environmental activist group. He is currently serving at the pleasure of the president as Director of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Operations Directorate. According to Mr. Rufe, although “the concept ‘precautionary principle’ did not exist at the time UNCLOS was negotiated and... did not appear in the Convention...we [the OTC] urged...the United States...to ensure the appropriate application of this principle to guide decision-making... in future Convention amendments... Fortunately, the convention as a constitution does establish some principles and tools that may provide a framework for future application of the precautionary principle. Moreover, subsequent multilateral agreements related to UNCLOS include the use of the precautionary principle, including the Straddling Stocks Agreement... We think that it ought to be part of the convention” (emphasis added).
The prior Senate testimony of other LOST proponents is also quite revealing. In addition to Mr. Rufe, former Senator Claiborne Pell and current Senator Richard Lugar previously referred to LOST as a new “constitution for the world’s oceans”. In addition, my former law professor, Bernard Oxman, previously testified that LOST is “the most important and comprehensive international environmental agreement in existence” (emphasis added). Also, current Senator John McCain previously testified that the LOST “serves as an umbrella convention under which rules governing all uses of the oceans and their resources are established” (emphasis added). And, a prior report prepared by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a very influential LOST standards body, explained that LOST is characterized as an ‘umbrella convention’ “because most of its provisions, being of a general kind, can be implemented only through specific operative regulations in other international treaties” (emphasis added). What their testimony does not reveal, however, is that LOST would also govern ALL U.S. commercial and private activities undertaken on dry land and in the air that could possibly affect the marine environment! International regulation/taxation of carbon dioxide emissions ala the Kyoto Protocol anyone??
Furthermore, Professor Oxman admitted in a recent telephone conversation that, “there is no foolproof way to prevent U.S. LOST treaty partners in the future from interpreting the LOST’s environmental provisions more stringently than required by the treaty’s express terms [i.e., pursuant to the contra-WTO Precautionary Principle], and thus, contrary to U.S. national interests”. In other words, he acknowledged that the U.S. would likely encounter stiff opposition from other LOST treaty parties, especially EU member states, and would be unable, for the foreseeable future, to secure more than a few like-minded allies that shared our understanding of the treaty.
Moreover, the prior testimony of Brooks Yeager of the World Wildlife Fund, a well known environmental activist group and proponent of the contra-WTO Precautionary Principle, reveals a plan to use the LOST dispute settlement mechanism to have this disputed principle read and incorporated into the treaty. According to Mr. Yeager, “The jurisprudence emerging out of the dispute settlement system of the LOS Convention has been considerably more promising from an environmental perspective than earlier case law generated by other adjudicative bodies, including the ICJ... Most importantly and consistent with its broad mandate over marine environmental cases, ITLOS has issued provisional measures on three occasions to protect marine environmental interests. And, in all these cases there has been at least implicit reliance upon the precautionary principle...ITLOS has attempted to implement the precautionary principle in several [three] of its provisional measures orders, while side-stepping difficult questions as to the content of the principle, and whether it has entered the pantheon of customary norms relating to environmental protection” since 1999 (emphasis added).
And, Mr. Yeager can surely recall that when he and his fellow activists promoted US ratification of the UN Stockholm Convention on ‘POPS’ back during 2004, they had then also endeavored to have the contra-WTO Precautionary Principle read and incorporated into not only that treaty, but also US federal law. They sought to achieve this result via enactment of implementing legislation that would have amended the US Toxic Substances and Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) so as to minimize the roles played by risk assessment and economic cost-benefit analysis.
Would Mr. Yeager, and those LOST proponents in the US military, the State Department and the congressional majority now have us believe that US LOST ratification will require no implementing legislation to amend the federal Clean Air and Water Acts, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the Deep Seabed Hard Minerals Resources Act, the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, the Oil Pollution Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act, CERCLA, the Invasive Species Act, etc. so that they directly or indirectly reflect the contra-WTO Precautionary Principle?
Please forgive me if I am being overly precautious, but, shouldn’t the U.S. and the American people properly prepare themselves before ratifying the LOST? Isn’t the U.S. Constitution the ‘supreme law of our land’, our territories and our territorial waters, including the continental shelf? Doesn’t the U.S. Constitution supersede and limit for U.S. citizens the scope and application of ALL international treaties to which the U.S. becomes a party? Are not our exclusive private property rights protected by the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment from uncompensated regulatory ‘takings’, outright expropriations and international taxation, whether emanating from our own government, foreign governments or the UN’s International Seabed Authority? And, what other UN environmental treaties, specific operative regulations and international standards susceptible to EU reinterpretation must the U.S. be concerned about? What have we not been told that needs to be heard? How much more of the LOST regulatory iceberg lurks below the ocean’s surface?
Independent research confirms a negative LOST reality. If ratified by the United States, LOST would likely expose U.S. small and medium-sized companies, individual citizens and the U.S. military’s civilian technology supply-chain to new significant costs and burdens to which they are NOT already subject under current U.S. environmental law. In particular, private property and due process rights would be lost, and military and civilian hi-technologies would be banned, restricted, and/or taxed by domestic and international bureaucracies not subject to U.S. control or oversight, if it is merely possible, without scientific proof being shown, that they pose some possible future hazard to the marine environment. In addition, the status and scope of intellectual property rights underlying products and processes derived and commercialized from discoveries of sea-based bio-organisms would also be governed by UN and other international tribunals rather than by the WTO or WIPO. As a result, the U.S. could undoubtedly lose its global economic competitiveness, and above all, its national sovereignty.
For these and other reasons, the Wall Street Journal appropriately criticized the LOST as being contrary to ‘the U.S. national interest’. It correctly emphasized that if the regulation-laden LOST were ratified, it would likely subject U.S. maritime and economic power “to the whims of a highly politicized U.N. bureaucracy often driven by an anti-American agenda”.
If there were any lingering doubts about the real risk that uncontrollable international bodies, such as the UN’s LOST Secretariat, Seabed Authority and Tribunal, could seriously threaten U.S. constitutionally protected private property rights concentrated along U.S. coastlines, one need only look to the International (U.S.-Canada) Boundary Commission (IBC)’s recent harassment of Washington state residents Shirley-Ann and Herbert Leu.
According to the Seattle, Los Angeles, and Washington Times newspapers, Mr. and Mrs. Leu received a hand-delivered letter this past February from IBC Commissioner Dennis Schornack. It ordered them to remove, at their own expense, a $15,000 concrete retaining wall built pursuant to Blaine, Washington municipal zoning ordinances, on their own clearly marked private property. Apparently, although the wall was 8 feet away from the Canadian border, it encroached 30 inches into a 20-foot boundary vista (ditch) running along their entire lot. In effect, the IBC, an international bureaucracy, claimed that it possessed the sole and absolute authority to condemn and regulate the development of the Leu’s property (and for that matter, all U.S. private property located along the U.S.-Canadian border) without providing the Leus with ‘just’ compensation and ‘due process’ (adequate notice), as required by the U.S. Constitution.
Most remarkably, Mr. Schornack and the commission have argued that since they are not a U.S. government agency subject to the laws of the United States and its Constitution, they are not obligated to compromise on these issues. And, when President Bush stepped in to fire Mr. Schornack, the sole acting U.S. commissioner on the IBC, for not representing the interests of the United States and its citizens, Schornack responded that he represented the international community, had been appointed for life and could not be fired!
What is really going on here? Have LOST proponents avoided discussing the treaty’s many hidden provisions because of the potential for situations like this? Why have they not explained to the American people the costs, risks and benefits associated with ratifying the LOST, or the nuances of the LOST ratification process itself? What are they afraid to tell us what we need to hear?
As the ultimate representative of the American people, both chambers of the U.S. Congress must hold open public hearings on LOST ratification before the Senate gives its advice and consent. It must educate Americans about how the expansive LOST regime, as it will likely be implemented by the U.S., the UN and foreign countries, would directly and indirectly impact their pocketbooks, their rights and their daily lives. Given what has befallen the Leus, a fresh sea breeze is needed to provide some reality and context to what might surely become a surreal experience for many other Americans in the future.
* Lawrence Kogan is President and CEO of The Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development (ITSSD), a non-partisan non-profit international legal research and educational organization that examines international law relating to trade, industry and positive sustainable development around the world. ITSSD studies are accessible online at: http://www.itssd.org/ .
By Lawrence A. Kogan, Esq.*
The United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (a/k/a the Law of the Sea Treaty -‘LOST’), the leviathan of all non-science and non-economics-based UN regulatory environmental treaties, has once again resurfaced and reared its ugly head, despite having been deep-sixed’ years ago by the Reagan Administration.
Unfortunately, a legacy-oriented White House is now shepherding it through a kumbaya Congress whose majority enthusiastically embraces collectivist European-style environmental activism and multilateral treaty-making at the expense of U.S. constitutionally protected individualism and private property rights.
Is the White House merely ill-informed, or has it intentionally chosen to ignore the lessons of history? Does it not recall the past decade of highly contentious trade disputes between the U.S. and an environmentally obsessed and protectionist European Union concerning the EU’s blatantly illegal use of the contra-WTO (‘I fear, therefore I shall ban’) Precautionary Principle? Does it not realize that LOST proponents now seek to have this controversial political philosophy incorporated and/or read into the LOST as an irrefutable international legal standard so that the United States will be compelled to adopt it as domestic law too?
If the administration had done its homework, it would have come across the prior congressional testimony of Roger T. Rufe, Jr., a die-hard proponent of the contra-WTO Precautionary Principle. Mr. Rufe is a retired U.S. Coast Guard Vice Admiral and a former CEO of The Ocean Conservancy (OTC), an environmental activist group. He is currently serving at the pleasure of the president as Director of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Operations Directorate. According to Mr. Rufe, although “the concept ‘precautionary principle’ did not exist at the time UNCLOS was negotiated and... did not appear in the Convention...we [the OTC] urged...the United States...to ensure the appropriate application of this principle to guide decision-making... in future Convention amendments... Fortunately, the convention as a constitution does establish some principles and tools that may provide a framework for future application of the precautionary principle. Moreover, subsequent multilateral agreements related to UNCLOS include the use of the precautionary principle, including the Straddling Stocks Agreement... We think that it ought to be part of the convention” (emphasis added).
The prior Senate testimony of other LOST proponents is also quite revealing. In addition to Mr. Rufe, former Senator Claiborne Pell and current Senator Richard Lugar previously referred to LOST as a new “constitution for the world’s oceans”. In addition, my former law professor, Bernard Oxman, previously testified that LOST is “the most important and comprehensive international environmental agreement in existence” (emphasis added). Also, current Senator John McCain previously testified that the LOST “serves as an umbrella convention under which rules governing all uses of the oceans and their resources are established” (emphasis added). And, a prior report prepared by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a very influential LOST standards body, explained that LOST is characterized as an ‘umbrella convention’ “because most of its provisions, being of a general kind, can be implemented only through specific operative regulations in other international treaties” (emphasis added). What their testimony does not reveal, however, is that LOST would also govern ALL U.S. commercial and private activities undertaken on dry land and in the air that could possibly affect the marine environment! International regulation/taxation of carbon dioxide emissions ala the Kyoto Protocol anyone??
Furthermore, Professor Oxman admitted in a recent telephone conversation that, “there is no foolproof way to prevent U.S. LOST treaty partners in the future from interpreting the LOST’s environmental provisions more stringently than required by the treaty’s express terms [i.e., pursuant to the contra-WTO Precautionary Principle], and thus, contrary to U.S. national interests”. In other words, he acknowledged that the U.S. would likely encounter stiff opposition from other LOST treaty parties, especially EU member states, and would be unable, for the foreseeable future, to secure more than a few like-minded allies that shared our understanding of the treaty.
Moreover, the prior testimony of Brooks Yeager of the World Wildlife Fund, a well known environmental activist group and proponent of the contra-WTO Precautionary Principle, reveals a plan to use the LOST dispute settlement mechanism to have this disputed principle read and incorporated into the treaty. According to Mr. Yeager, “The jurisprudence emerging out of the dispute settlement system of the LOS Convention has been considerably more promising from an environmental perspective than earlier case law generated by other adjudicative bodies, including the ICJ... Most importantly and consistent with its broad mandate over marine environmental cases, ITLOS has issued provisional measures on three occasions to protect marine environmental interests. And, in all these cases there has been at least implicit reliance upon the precautionary principle...ITLOS has attempted to implement the precautionary principle in several [three] of its provisional measures orders, while side-stepping difficult questions as to the content of the principle, and whether it has entered the pantheon of customary norms relating to environmental protection” since 1999 (emphasis added).
And, Mr. Yeager can surely recall that when he and his fellow activists promoted US ratification of the UN Stockholm Convention on ‘POPS’ back during 2004, they had then also endeavored to have the contra-WTO Precautionary Principle read and incorporated into not only that treaty, but also US federal law. They sought to achieve this result via enactment of implementing legislation that would have amended the US Toxic Substances and Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) so as to minimize the roles played by risk assessment and economic cost-benefit analysis.
Would Mr. Yeager, and those LOST proponents in the US military, the State Department and the congressional majority now have us believe that US LOST ratification will require no implementing legislation to amend the federal Clean Air and Water Acts, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the Deep Seabed Hard Minerals Resources Act, the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, the Oil Pollution Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act, CERCLA, the Invasive Species Act, etc. so that they directly or indirectly reflect the contra-WTO Precautionary Principle?
Please forgive me if I am being overly precautious, but, shouldn’t the U.S. and the American people properly prepare themselves before ratifying the LOST? Isn’t the U.S. Constitution the ‘supreme law of our land’, our territories and our territorial waters, including the continental shelf? Doesn’t the U.S. Constitution supersede and limit for U.S. citizens the scope and application of ALL international treaties to which the U.S. becomes a party? Are not our exclusive private property rights protected by the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment from uncompensated regulatory ‘takings’, outright expropriations and international taxation, whether emanating from our own government, foreign governments or the UN’s International Seabed Authority? And, what other UN environmental treaties, specific operative regulations and international standards susceptible to EU reinterpretation must the U.S. be concerned about? What have we not been told that needs to be heard? How much more of the LOST regulatory iceberg lurks below the ocean’s surface?
Independent research confirms a negative LOST reality. If ratified by the United States, LOST would likely expose U.S. small and medium-sized companies, individual citizens and the U.S. military’s civilian technology supply-chain to new significant costs and burdens to which they are NOT already subject under current U.S. environmental law. In particular, private property and due process rights would be lost, and military and civilian hi-technologies would be banned, restricted, and/or taxed by domestic and international bureaucracies not subject to U.S. control or oversight, if it is merely possible, without scientific proof being shown, that they pose some possible future hazard to the marine environment. In addition, the status and scope of intellectual property rights underlying products and processes derived and commercialized from discoveries of sea-based bio-organisms would also be governed by UN and other international tribunals rather than by the WTO or WIPO. As a result, the U.S. could undoubtedly lose its global economic competitiveness, and above all, its national sovereignty.
For these and other reasons, the Wall Street Journal appropriately criticized the LOST as being contrary to ‘the U.S. national interest’. It correctly emphasized that if the regulation-laden LOST were ratified, it would likely subject U.S. maritime and economic power “to the whims of a highly politicized U.N. bureaucracy often driven by an anti-American agenda”.
If there were any lingering doubts about the real risk that uncontrollable international bodies, such as the UN’s LOST Secretariat, Seabed Authority and Tribunal, could seriously threaten U.S. constitutionally protected private property rights concentrated along U.S. coastlines, one need only look to the International (U.S.-Canada) Boundary Commission (IBC)’s recent harassment of Washington state residents Shirley-Ann and Herbert Leu.
According to the Seattle, Los Angeles, and Washington Times newspapers, Mr. and Mrs. Leu received a hand-delivered letter this past February from IBC Commissioner Dennis Schornack. It ordered them to remove, at their own expense, a $15,000 concrete retaining wall built pursuant to Blaine, Washington municipal zoning ordinances, on their own clearly marked private property. Apparently, although the wall was 8 feet away from the Canadian border, it encroached 30 inches into a 20-foot boundary vista (ditch) running along their entire lot. In effect, the IBC, an international bureaucracy, claimed that it possessed the sole and absolute authority to condemn and regulate the development of the Leu’s property (and for that matter, all U.S. private property located along the U.S.-Canadian border) without providing the Leus with ‘just’ compensation and ‘due process’ (adequate notice), as required by the U.S. Constitution.
Most remarkably, Mr. Schornack and the commission have argued that since they are not a U.S. government agency subject to the laws of the United States and its Constitution, they are not obligated to compromise on these issues. And, when President Bush stepped in to fire Mr. Schornack, the sole acting U.S. commissioner on the IBC, for not representing the interests of the United States and its citizens, Schornack responded that he represented the international community, had been appointed for life and could not be fired!
What is really going on here? Have LOST proponents avoided discussing the treaty’s many hidden provisions because of the potential for situations like this? Why have they not explained to the American people the costs, risks and benefits associated with ratifying the LOST, or the nuances of the LOST ratification process itself? What are they afraid to tell us what we need to hear?
As the ultimate representative of the American people, both chambers of the U.S. Congress must hold open public hearings on LOST ratification before the Senate gives its advice and consent. It must educate Americans about how the expansive LOST regime, as it will likely be implemented by the U.S., the UN and foreign countries, would directly and indirectly impact their pocketbooks, their rights and their daily lives. Given what has befallen the Leus, a fresh sea breeze is needed to provide some reality and context to what might surely become a surreal experience for many other Americans in the future.
* Lawrence Kogan is President and CEO of The Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development (ITSSD), a non-partisan non-profit international legal research and educational organization that examines international law relating to trade, industry and positive sustainable development around the world. ITSSD studies are accessible online at: http://www.itssd.org/ .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
