THIS PAGE
TO A FRIEND
Sovereignty Under Siege By
International Sea TreatyWednesday, January 12, 2005
By Paul M. Weyrich
A new Congress is in session, but there will be a concerted effort by at least one United States Senator to take care of old business.
Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is intent on having the United States Senate ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty (“LOST”). Lugar steamrollered the treaty out of his committee in 2004 only to have it stall thanks to the vociferous opposition of conservative groups who realized how detrimental the LOST would be to our nation’s sovereignty. Conservatives who want to stop this treaty had better be prepared to be even more aggressive this time. Powerful interest groups, notably the oil industry, want to have this treaty ratified despite its fine print that would place their fate in the hands of a governing body called the International Seabed Authority (“ISA”) and ultimately the United Nations.
Conservatives have long made clear their opposition to this treaty because they realize that it puts the collective will of foreign countries in charge of us.
Remember: President Reagan decided in 1982 that the LOST was not in our country’s best interest to ratify. He cited concern about the provisions governing deep seabed mining. President Reagan cited a concern cited by modern-day critics of the Treaty in his statement about the LOST on July 9, 1982:
“On April 30 the conference adopted a convention that does not satisfy the objectives sought by the United States. It was adopted by a vote of 130 in favor, with 4 against (including the United States) and 17 abstentions. Those voting “no” or abstaining appear small in number but represent countries which produce more than 60% of the world’s gross national product and provide more than 60% of the contributions to the United Nations.”
Contemporary critics focus on the fact that the LOST would have our country surrender its authority on the seas to the ISA, the membership of which is stacked in favor of Third World nations. We would be only one nation among many in the ISA, which led Dr. Peter Leitner of George Mason University to remark at a forum held at the Brookings Institution last year that “somehow [LOST] supporters ignore the math of the one nation/one vote principle and the overwhelmingly anti-American agenda of at least 120 of the 150 seats that we are going to be sitting with.”
Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) has been a tireless defender of American sovereignty, using his chairmanship of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to inform his fellow Americans about the serious questions our participation in this treaty would raise. He knows that the stakes are being upped this year; the establishment wants this treaty passed. Inhofe does not walk away from a fight but is willing to swing back. That is why Senator Inhofe is expressing interest in having the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) conduct a study of the implications that ratification of LOST would hold for our country.
Inhofe wants the GAO to find answers to some tough questions, such as whether our accession to the LOST would “place constraints upon this country’s intelligence-gathering capabilities” and whether it would “undermine President Bush’s Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI)?”
The Proliferation Security Initiative enables our Navy’s ships to interdict vessels thought to be engaged in terrorism or that are suspected of furthering the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. However, China, India and Russia claim that the PSI violates the LOST. If that is the case, our accession to the LOST could seriously undermine our ability to successfully wage the War on Terrorism and to stop the spread of WMD. An accurate and forthright answer is needed to this question, only one of many which Senator Inhofe would like to have answered in a thorough and detailed manner before any serious Senate action is taken on the LOST.
Even with control of the United States Senate having shifted to the more conservative party in the 2004 election, the sad fact is that too many Senators are willing to go with the flow, not take the time to learn and do what is truly right by their country. That means unless they hear differently from their constituents they will vote to ratify the LOST. Now more than ever, the grassroots must become energized to make clear that there are plenty of Americans who care about protecting our nation’s sovereignty and that we will not be silent.
Seven new conservative U.S. Senators have just come to Washington. Many of the new Senators are not familiar with the LOST and they will no doubt be courted by Lugar to support it. No one can have more impact at overriding the wooing of the LOST lobby than the constituents of those new Senators. If you speak up they will listen. In order for that to happen, the opponents of LOST will have to write their Representatives and Senators, disseminate information through talk radio, letters to editors, and let other grassroots folks know about the serious threat to our sovereignty posed by LOST.
I’m betting that there are more Americans out there who are willing to come to the defense of our sovereignty than the LOST proponents realize. They do not want our country to enter into the “entangling alliances” that can serve to undermine our ability to fight the War on Terrorism. They do not want our country to be dictated to by the ISA about what we can and cannot do on the high seas. If they speak up in a voice loud enough that the Senate cannot ignore then the LOST will not be fast-tracked to the Senate Floor. Senator Inhofe’s desire for a serious study of LOST and its implications is indeed warranted and no Senate action in committee should be taken until the agency has issued a report. Senators had better understand the fine print of this treaty before they vote on it. With LOST it really is a case of “buyer beware.”
(Paul M. Weyrich is chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.)
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For further information please refer to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml