Law Of The Sea - Three Commentaries.....

John A. Quayle blueoval57 at VERIZON.NET
Tue Oct 30 23:40:59 MDT 2007


Free Congress Foundation Commentary:
Possibly the Final Push for the Law of the Sea Treaty
By Paul M. Weyrich
October 29, 2007

         The Law of the Sea Treaty (“LOST” to 
opponents, “UNCLOS” to supporters) is up for a 
vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 
this Thursday, November 1. The State Department 
pushed this treaty in 1981 when Ronald Reagan was 
President. He rejected it, primarily because of 
Part XI of the Treaty, which regulates minerals 
on the seabed outside any sovereign state's 
territorial waters. It establishes an 
International Seabed Authority (ISA) to authorize 
seabed exploration and mining and collect and 
distribute the seabed mining royalty. President 
Reagan strongly objected to the provisions of 
Part XI, saying that they were unfavorable to 
America's economy and security. The provisions of 
the Treaty were not free-market friendly and were 
designed to favor the economic systems of the Communist states.

         During the Presidency of George H. W. 
Bush the Treaty was not considered. President 
William J. (Bill) Clinton supported the Treaty 
but never forcefully enough to secure 
ratification in the Senate. The fact that he had 
a Republican Senate for six of the eight years of 
his Presidency was a consideration.

         Then came the Presidency of George W. 
Bush. During his first term he did not push the 
Treaty. His second term has been different, 
however. Beginning in 2005 Bush made a determined 
effort to ratify LOST. Fortunately, Senate 
Majority Leader William H. (Bill) Frist, M.D. 
(R-TN) did not permit the Treaty to reach the Senate floor.

         Now the Treaty is up for consideration 
again. Things have changed. The Democrats control 
the Senate and have held several hearings on LOST 
in the Foreign Relations Committee. Many thought 
the Treaty would pass through the Committee 
without difficulty. But Senator David B. Vitter 
(R-LA) had a different idea. He asked tough 
questions of the witnesses at the hearings. In 
fact, the word “tough” is not adequate to 
describe what Vitter did to those witnesses. They 
could not answer Vitter’s questions. It was an embarrassment.

         The result of those hearings was to slow 
passage of LOST. Vitter has asked for more 
hearings. He does not know if he will receive 
them. Senator James M. Inhofe (R-OK) is pushing 
for hearings before the Senate Armed Services 
Committee. Some even want hearings before the 
Senate Finance Committee because the Treaty gives 
the United Nations authority to tax economic 
activities in the deep seabed, the first time in 
American history that an entity outside of the 
United States Government could demand taxes from 
American citizens arising from activity in the deep seabed.

         Meanwhile, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., 
President of the Center for Security Policy, 
investigative reporter Cliff Kincaid, and a dozen 
conservative organizations have begun a campaign 
to educate Americans about LOST. Many state 
legislators also are lobbying their U.S. 
Senators. Conservative organizations believe that 
if their supporters understand the substance of 
the Treaty they will revolt, as they did with the 
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007.

         The Establishment consistently has 
sought to pass legislation through the Congress 
when the American people are unaware. The Senate 
Majority Leader has the capacity to do so. The 
Senate Minority Leader has the capacity to slow 
legislation. It remains to be seen how LOST will 
be handled once on the Senate Calendar. That 
largely will be determined by the strength of the 
opposition in the Foreign Relations Committee. It 
also depends upon whether there are hearings before other committees.

         The key to defeating the Treaty is to 
secure 34 votes against it. Years ago the 
Majority Leader could withdraw a Treaty upon 
seeing the signatures of 34 Senators. That Leader 
was a Democrat and we had to obtain the 
signatures of Senators from both parties.

         That will be the key to ensuring that 
this Treaty is not ratified. The Bush 
Administration does not want an international 
embarrassment. So if the conservative movement 
and other realists are able to produce the 
signatures of a third of the Senate, you will 
hear nothing of it but the Treaty will be pulled 
quietly from the Senate Calendar.

         A clear minority presently is against 
the Treaty. Most Senators have not heard much 
about it nor focused upon it. One reason the 
Treaty was not considered during Frist’s 
four-year tenure was that the Senators elected in 
2000, 2002 and 2004 also had not focused upon it. 
So, while Frist kept his word that the Treaty 
would not come up for consideration, many 
Senators never learned of the loss of sovereignty 
that the Treaty would create nor of the taxing 
authority of the proposed ISA. Considering which 
nations have ratified the Treaty, it is likely 
that several avowed enemies of the United States would sit on the ISA.

         Should Americans place their future in 
the hands of their enemies? This is the main 
concern. I must believe that there are 34 
Senators who would oppose the Treaty once they 
fully learned about it. So the effort has begun. 
Conservatives are now in the process of educating 
their Senators. Some Senators refuse to change their minds about LOST.

         Will LOST be defeated? The odds are 
slightly against its defeat. Currently, four 
leading Republican Senators­Minority Leader A. 
Mitchell (Mitch) McConnell, Jr. (R-KY), Trent 
Lott (R-MS), Jon L. Kyl (R-AZ) and Inhofe­oppose 
LOST. It is too early to give up. These Senators 
are tireless workers who never give up, so why should we?

         Further LOST background is set out in 
this column May 29, 2007 and October 3, 2007, which follow.


Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.

--------------------------------------------------
Free Congress Foundation Commentary:
An Establishment Push For The Law of The Sea Treaty
By Paul M. Weyrich
October 3, 2007

         How well I recall the Panama Canal 
Treaty fight of thirty years ago. The political 
establishment was adamantly in favor of the 
Treaty. The people were against it. There were 
two political consequences of the ratification of 
the Treaty. Many Democratic Senators insisted 
they knew better than the people. The first of 
these was Senator Thomas J. McIntyre (D-NH). “I 
was elected by the people. I know more than they 
do. Of course, I am in favor of the Treaty.” 
Well, no. The people knew better than he did. He 
made that statement in 1977. The following year a 
co-pilot for Allegheny Airlines, Gordon J. 
Humphrey, upset McIntyre in the biggest story of 
that election. Likewise in Iowa, Senator Richard 
Clark campaigned for the Treaty. His opponent, 
former Lieutenant Governor Roger Jepsen, upended 
Clark in the second biggest story of 1978. Other 
incumbents likewise lost their seats in the Senate that year.

         It was the beginning of the election 
cycle in which the establishment challenged 
popular opinion and lost. In 1980 Ronald W. 
Reagan was running for President. But in many 
states the Republican Senatorial candidate 
out-polled Reagan, who himself was popular. So 
many states used the Panama Canal as an issue 
that Republicans won control of the Senate for 
the first time since the 1952 election. A few of 
these Senatorial candidates might have won 
without the Panama Canal issue but not a 
sufficient number to control the Senate. Many 
incumbent Senators, such as Senator George S. 
McGovern (D-SD) were amazed. “We could have had a 
decent debate over our role in that part of the 
world but Abdnor (then Senator-elect James B. 
Abdnor) kept harping that we gave away our Canal.”

         The matter also had consequences for 
Republicans. Senator Howard H. Baker, Jr. (R-TN), 
then Senate Minority Leader, also believed he 
knew better than the public. Had he been against 
the Treaty, he might have been considered by 
Ronald Reagan for Vice President. But because he 
supported the Treaty, Reagan declined to offer him the position.

         When the establishment wants something 
it usually prevails. Not that time. Indeed, not 
until the immigration fight of 2007 did we have 
such a clear-cut fight. That battle began with 
the establishment’s prevailing. Then at the end, 
Senator after Senator came aboard the 
anti-establishment cause. It was amazing to 
watch. Members of both parties changed sides. 
There was one very dramatic episode when Senate 
Minority Leader A. Mitchell (Mitch) McConnell, 
Jr. (R-KY), who had not committed, came aboard. 
McConnell, who manages 49 Senators to the Senate 
Majority Leader’s 51, is known as a very shrewd 
barometer of public opinion and also is one of 
the most effective Minority Leaders in modern 
times. He wanted to be with the people of 
Kentucky as was his colleague Senator, James P. (Jim) Bunning (R-KY).

         Now there is another people versus the 
establishment fight. There were thirty years 
between the Panama Canal Treaty and immigration 
fights. So it is nothing short of remarkable that 
there would be another in less than a year. I am 
not sure if the establishment is flexing its 
muscles, fearful that it had lost so much ground 
in the immigration contest or if the people feel 
now that they can take on the establishment and 
win, but either way it is a fight.

         I refer to the Law of the Sea Treaty 
(called “LOST” by opponents). True, former 
Senator William H. (Bill) Frist (R-TN), using his 
powers as Majority Leader, did not schedule a 
vote on ratification for consideration in the 
last Congress but that was hardly a fight. Don’t 
get me wrong. We were terribly grateful to 
Majority Leader Frist for delaying the measure. 
But as I say, this was not a real fight.

         Now the entire establishment is allied 
on one side and the people on the other. Every 
conservative organization, from CATO to the 
Family Research Council, some 75 organizations in 
all, is armed with knowledge and ready to fight. 
Most members of the establishment are lined up on 
the other side. All of the liberals in both 
parties are set to fight. It is strange indeed 
that President George W. Bush, who withdrew the 
U.S. from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and 
withdrew the country from the jurisdiction of the 
World Court, is fighting with the liberals on 
this issue. Reagan rejected the Treaty but now 
George P. Schultz, who served in the Reagan 
Cabinets, supports it. He is and always has been a member of the establishment.

         On the other hand, Frank J. Gaffney, 
Jr., President of the Center for Security Policy, 
is fighting LOST with everything he has. He, too, 
served in the Reagan Administration. He just 
released a 30-second commercial for television. 
Clifford Kincaid also has a 30-second commercial. 
Both are devastating. Talk radio? It is just 
gearing up, which is good because it played a 
crucial role in the immigration fight.

         Where are the Senators in this fight? 
They are just beginning to examine the issues. 
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has 
exactly two hearings scheduled on the matter. Yet 
several other major committees have some 
jurisdiction. If McConnell were Majority Leader 
he would surely schedule LOST for hearings before other committees.

         Unfortunately, he is not. He can’t 
schedule hearings beyond Foreign Relations. Yet 
many Minority Senators, including some ranking 
Senators, want jurisdiction. It will be 
interesting to see if Senate Majority Leader 
Harry M. Reid (D-NV) gives into the requests of 
these Senators. Reid is a member of the 
establishment; it is almost unthinkable that he would do so.

         Where is McConnell on this issue? He 
says he is studying it. As smart as he is I can't 
imagine he would be a modern-day Howard Baker. He 
is a good man who loves America. It would make no 
sense for him to pay tribute to an Administration 
that will soon be out of office. Supporting the 
Iraq War is one thing, but this Law of the Sea Treaty?


Free Congress Foundation Commentary:
“UNCLOS” or “LOST” – A Bad Idea Resurfaces
By Paul M. Weyrich
May 29, 2007

         No bad idea is ever completely defeated 
in this country, perhaps in other nations as 
well. I have seen bad ideas surface again and 
again in this country. When the right is defeated 
the right tends to stay defeated. I recall 
advocating a national right-to-work law when I 
worked in the Senate in the late 1970s. The 
member of the leadership to whom I pitched the 
idea exclaimed, “Oh, no. We can’t do that. It was 
defeated in 1958.” I merely was suggesting that 
we try to get a vote on the issue. I knew we 
couldn’t win at that time. I went on and said 
“So? There is hardly anyone here who was in the 
Senate then.” I didn’t work for this Senator so I 
felt that I could not go further but the point 
remains valid. No doubt if I tried to push the 
idea among conservatives in the Senate to this 
day someone would object because his father told 
him that the idea had been defeated in 1958 and therefore it could not be done.

         Not so with the liberals. My first 
encounter with the demand for gun control came in 
1968. It was shortly after Senator Robert F. 
(Bobby) Kennedy was assassinated. It seemed that 
every man and his brother was demanding gun 
control. Senator Gordon L. Allott, for whom I 
worked, told me “Just wait around. A few months 
from now almost no one will be talking about gun 
control. I’ve seen it all before [when President 
John F. Kennedy was assassinated]. This idea 
comes up here again and again although if you 
would ask the average man on the street, he 
almost would never demand gun control.” The good 
Senator was correct. He has been gone for more 
than 25 years, yet the issue has surfaced again 
and again. Most recently it has occurred 
following the tragic killings at the Virginia 
Polytechnical Institute and State University, 
known as “Virginia Tech.” With conservatives when 
an idea is defeated it by and large remains 
defeated. Does any current Senator push the Bricker Amendment?

         On the other hand liberals have no 
hesitancy in repeatedly pushing a bad idea after 
it has been defeated. We have a perfect 
illustration of this in the current Senate. When 
Ronald W. Reagan took office as President, more 
than 25 years ago, an issue surfaced known as the 
Law of the Sea Treaty. I had never heard of it 
and must admit when it was first mentioned I 
didn’t pay much attention. But thanks to Howard 
Phillips, Phyllis Schlafly and others I began to 
realize that this Treaty, sometimes disparagingly 
called “LOST,” approvingly called “UNCLOS,” would 
give our sovereignty away. That alarmed me.

         Through our Coalitions efforts we began 
to fight this Treaty. The battle seemed helpless 
until some of us discussed the matter with Edwin 
(Ed) Meese, III, then a key member of President 
Reagan’s White House Staff. Meese agreed that the 
Treaty was fatally flawed and invited the 
President’s attention to it.  President Reagan 
opposed it. Yet, would you believe that we still 
had to carry on the fight against the Treaty 
beyond his coming out against it. The Navy, it 
seems, despite Reagan’s opposition, still carried 
on until ordered to stop. Why, you ask, would the 
Navy be in favor of a treaty which would have 
given away our sovereignty? The reason, we were 
told, was that the Navy believed the Treaty if 
ratified would make it safer for our ships to 
operate. Who knows, but that was the argument advanced at the time.

         Once the Law of the Sea Treaty was put 
on ice by Reagan in the second year of his eight 
years in the Presidency it did not surface again. 
Nor did it surface during the Administration of 
President George H. W. Bush. After William J. 
(Bill) Clinton was in office for two years and 
faced a Republican Senate he never pushed the Treaty at all.

         Then came the Administration of 
President George W. Bush. During his first term 
the Treaty never was pushed. We assumed that it 
was dead. But during the first Congress of his 
second term it surfaced again. In fact, Chairman 
Richard G. Lugar (R-IN) of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee was so determined to push 
this Treaty that he permitted no opposition 
during the hearings. It was voted out unanimously.

         Thanks to extraordinary work by Senator 
James R. (Jim) Inhofe (R-OK), and then a 
commitment made by Senate Majority Leader Bill 
Frist (R-TN) at our Coalitions lunch, the Law of 
the Sea Treaty again was put on ice. While 
supposedly Vice President Richard B. (Dick) 
Cheney was for the Treaty, President Bush never supported it.

         Now that Bush is a lame duck President 
and at the lowest polling rating of his 
Presidency (28% favorably), Bush at last has come 
out in favor of the Treaty. We have an uphill 
fight to defeat the Treaty. The Democrats are in 
control of the Senate and almost all of them 
favor the Treaty. Many of the six GOP Senators 
who were defeated in 2006 were opponents of the 
Treaty. So if Senator Inhofe is to drum up 
opposition he would need 35 Senators. That would 
be next to impossible. Whereas Majority Leader 
Frist kept his commitment to be against the 
Treaty, his successor, Senator Mitch McConnell 
(R-KY) has not yet taken a position of which we are aware.

         Again, when conservatives are defeated 
they regard their defeat as final. When liberals 
are defeated they wait around until the next 
opportunity presents itself. Meanwhile, 
the  extraordinary researcher Cliff Kincaid has 
produced a monograph linking global warming with 
the Treaty and demonstrates that if the Treaty 
were ratified it would be far easier to bring 
cases against the United States. In another 
paper, “The Secret Agenda behind the Law of the 
Sea Treaty,” he says the Treaty is so extreme 
that former UN Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick 
stated that “it was viewed as the cornerstone of 
Marxist-oriented New International Economic 
Order.”  According to Kincaid, “This was 
conceived as a scheme to transfer money and 
technology from the United States and other 
developed countries to the Third World.” He 
points out that Kirkpatrick strongly opposed the Law of the Sea Treaty.

         According to Kincaid, the Treaty would 
open the U.S. up to international lawsuits and 
climate-change legislation, providing a back door 
for implementation of the ungratified and costly 
global warming treaty. This is because the Treaty 
would establish a new international legal regime, 
including a new international court, to govern 
activities on, over and under the oceans, 
seven-tenths of the world’s surface. The 
provisions of the Treaty would also permit 
international rules and regulations governing 
economic and industrial activity on the remaining 
land area of the world in order to combat global 
warming and other perceived pollution dangers.

         There you have it. Another bad idea, 
long defeated, about to be ratified unless there is a real revolt against it.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20071031/fd1eff00/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.14/1100 - Release Date: 10/30/2007 6:26 PM


More information about the Rushtalk mailing list