Possibly the Final Push for the Law of the Sea Treaty
By Paul M. Weyrich
Oct 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 Senators—Minority Leader A. Mitchell (Mitch) McConnell, Jr. (R-KY), Trent Lott (R-MS), Jon L. Kyl (R-AZ) and Inhofe—oppose 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.
***
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 outpolled 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?
***
“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 lameduck 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.
FEEDS: News | Pop Culture | Ledger Pop | Ledger DC
