THIS PAGE
TO A FRIEND
Sovereignty Sinking But Not Lost
Monday, May 17, 2004
By Paul M. Weyrich
Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL) chair the committees respectively for the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives that exercise oversight over foreign affairs. That they have in common. There is a difference in how they view their responsibilities.
When Lugar's committee considered the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), no serious attempt was made to include the viewpoints of those experts who harbor significant concern about the treaty's impact on our sovereignty. In fact, experts such as Dr. Peter Leitner and Frank Gaffney, President of the Center for Security Policy, believe with apparent good reason that the Senate committee's staff and Senator Lugar himself wanted to rush the treaty through and therefore the attempt to exclude dissenting viewpoints about the treaty.
Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL), on the other hand, took care to ensure his committee presented both viewpoints in a hearing held on Wednesday. Americans who believe in our sovereignty owe Rep. Hyde a thank you for doing his job properly. He made sure both sides were able to present their viewpoint at the hearing of the House International Relations Committee, demonstrating a respect for proper procedure and fairness that was absent in the way Senator Lugar and his staff handled their own hearing.
While only the Senate can vote to ratify a treaty, the fact is that the House still exercises some sway over foreign obligations, particularly when it comes to the implementation of a treaty. Back in the 1970s when the Panama Canal Treaty was being considered, hearings held in the House helped to make clear its faults. The Senate was clearly controlled by liberals back then, but the hearing definitely had an impact. Grassroots conservatives became aroused about the treaty and what it represented. Voters made liberal stalwarts in the U.S. Senate pay for the loss of the Canal at the ballot box in the 1978 and 1980 elections.
Like then, there are career bureaucrats in the State Department—and even some of the President's most trusted advisors—who would like to rush this treaty through. They care little about protecting our nation's sovereignty. They are aided and abetted by commentators in the national news media and liberal think tanks. The implications of the fine print contained within the Law of the Sea Treaty means nothing to them.
Fortunately the Senate is now under conservative control and its leaders want to make sure the pros and cons of this treaty are thoroughly vetted. Indeed, Senate Majority Leader William Frist (R-TN) has said this treaty will not be considered this year. A number of conservative leaders including myself have urged him in a letter dated May 12th not to take up the issue on the full Senate floor in this session. However, we do not want to win this year's battle only to lose next year's war.
This treaty is like a vampire who sucks the life and livelihood out of people. It will be a destabilizing force, not only bad for our nation's companies, but also for our own ability to protect ourselves.
Dr. Peter Leitner, author of Reforming the Law of the Sea Treaty, in prepared testimony submitted to the House International Relations Committee noted that the Center for Naval Analysis, in its review of the documents relating to LOST, believes that the International Seabed Authority (ISA), the organization charged with implementing the treaty, may one day be able to "take on a variety of new low-intensity policing functions in support of international agreements. This is especially important in areas of international straits because attempts to police straits could lead to disputes, perhaps even conflicts."
It is important to realize that despite claims of treaty supporters that we will have a "seat at the table" the fact is that we would be only one of well over a hundred nations with a seated representative on the ISA's Assembly. It is "one nation, one vote" and we have seen how that works in the United Nations. It will be no different at the ISA. Even if we have a seat on the ISA's executive council, we would be just one of the 34 nations represented, the membership limited to four-year rotating terms.
That's why Ambassador J. William Middendorf, a former Secretary of the Navy, told a hearing held by the Senate Armed Services Committee that in reality the Law of the Sea Treaty "represents the establishment of the rule of law over sovereign states more than establishing a rule of law made by them." He predicted that if our country "became a participant in the treaty we would regret it for years to come."
Our nation's naval policies, and even the awarding of contracts for mineral exploration in non-territorial waters, will be decided by nations that mean us no good, particularly when you keep in mind that activities carried outside territorial waters are to be conducted for the “benefit of mankind.” Don't believe for a moment that the deciding votes on such activities will come from humanitarians. Votes will come from representatives of nations such as the People's Republic of China, Sudan, and Saudi Arabia.
Furthermore, as Ambassador Middendorf stated, the LOST convention would require U.S. companies to share the revenue that is generated by mineral production outside our country's exclusive economic zone (EEZ), the 200-mile shoreline that is considered our territorial waters
"The U.S. will be forced to pay a contribution to the ISA granted by the treaty based on production -- percent of production…To my mind there is no other precedent of any treaty we've signed in the world till now, " Middendorf told the Armed Services Committee before warning them not to be gulled, as some mining companies are, by the claim that the royalty will be modest. He's right. How could we be so naive when members of the lesser-developed world, countries such as Jamaica, Gabon, and Trinidad, can coalesce and set the policies for us?
The fine print contained within this treaty should concern us. Senator Inhofe asked one of its supporters, Admiral Vernon Clark, the Chief of Naval Operations, how this treaty would impact our airspace.
Unbelievably, Admiral Clark answered that the Law of the Sea Treaty's "provisions also do in fact apply to the air and that freedom to operate in the EEZ is critical to us."
Thus, a treaty that one would think is solely concerned with the sea impacts even airspace.
Amazingly, as the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing was ending, one of the proponents, Rear Admiral William L. Schachte, Jr., asserted: "This convention has nothing to do with the U.N. and everything to do with the preservation of our sovereignty, national security, and navigational rights."
The Admiral's statement defies credibility. Hans Correll, Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs at the United Nations has said: "At the highest level, the global and political, the UN General Assembly exercises a general oversight function over all matters related to ocean affairs and the Law of the Sea."
When Nigeria balked at abiding by an adverse finding by the International Court of Justice regarding a maritime boundary dispute, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan told the EEZ International Magazine: "The Secretary-General of the UN has been using his good offices to ensure that the judgment is applied by Nigeria."
Not only do these two incidents prove that the UN is clearly involved with this treaty but they clearly demonstrate that institutions such as the General Assembly and the International Court of Justice will undermine our sovereignty.
The more one reads the fine print of this treaty, the less there is to like. For that reason, concerned conservatives should visit the Senate Armed Services Committee website and find under hearings for April 8, 2004 the prepared testimony of Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Ambassador Middendorf.
More than debate on this treaty is needed. You’ve heard the term "buyer beware." Well, conservatives in the know have been warned about this treaty and its ominous implications for our sovereignty. Grassroots conservatives can perform a valuable role by making sure they inform their friends and neighbors as to just what the facts are about the Law of the Sea Treaty. It's up to us to make sure the public and the Senate gets the message that LOST can sink our nation's sovereignty.
(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