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 Vitters 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 Frists
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 establishments 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 Leaders 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. Dont
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 cant
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 cant do that. It was
defeated in 1958. I merely was suggesting that
we try to get a vote on the issue. I knew we
couldnt win at that time. I went on and said
So? There is hardly anyone here who was in the
Senate then. I didnt 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. Ive 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
didnt 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
Reagans White House Staff. Meese agreed that the
Treaty was fatally flawed and invited the
Presidents 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 Reagans 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 worlds 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...
-------------- 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