Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ed Meese: Reagan Would Still Oppose Law of the Sea Treaty
Human Events ^ | April 25, 2005 | Edwin Meese

Posted on 04/25/2005 7:56:31 AM PDT by bigsky

The so-called Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) is a bad idea whose time should never come up -- at least for the United States and for those who believe in economic liberty and national security. That was the view of President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s and would remain his view today if he were with us to express it.

The actual title of the treaty is “the United Nation’s Convention on the Law of the Sea.” As its name suggests, it gives to the United Nations, through its subordinate organizations established in the treaty, unprecedented economic powers and expansive authority over the commercial and maritime interests of the nations of the world.

As Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., former Defense Department executive and President of the Center for Security Policy, has stated, “…it is unimaginable that the United States would choose to expand the power and influence of the United Nations at a time when evidence of the latter’s corruption, malfeasance and inherent anti-Americanism is growing by the day.”

How did such an idea get started? It began in the 1970s, when Socialism was still raging and considered by some elitists as “the wave of the future.” The United Nations still wore the mantle of hope. Jimmy Carter claimed that the world’s energy supplies would be diminished in just 20 years. Time spent in our cars waiting for rationed gas gave some the sense that perhaps the world’s resources should be subject to greater regulation.

No doubt that to diplomats in Foggy Bottom or Manhattan’s East Side, the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) that they painstakingly negotiated, complete with its 17 Parts, 320 Articles, and nine Annexes, was the answer to their dreams.

Proponents of this giant step toward world-level bureaucracy probably could not imagine that the new American president, Ronald Reagan, could reject the treaty and fire the people responsible for negotiating it. But he did. LOST was the creature of a negotiation process dominated by the Soviet bloc and the “non-aligned movement.” It placed its hope on the United Nations bureaucracy. And it was out of step with the concepts of economic liberty and free enterprise that Ronald Reagan was to inspire throughout the world. Time has proven President Reagan right.

Less imaginable is that 23 years later LOST is again being seriously considered by a Republican president and a Republican Senate. It was a bad idea in 1982; it is an unconscionable one now as we protect against new enemies and the internationalist whims of our Supreme Court. A 1994 limited agreement pertaining to deep-sea mining, negotiated by the Clinton administration, but not part of the treaty itself does not make the treaty as a whole any more acceptable.

America’s adherence to this treaty would entail history’s biggest transfer of wealth and surrender of sovereignty. LOST vests in the new international entity the power to regulate seven-tenths of the world’s surface area; to impose production quotas for deep-sea mining, oil production and other harvesting; and to regulate ocean research and exploration.

LOST creates a multinational court system to render and enforce its judgments. This is particularly alarming after a majority of the United States Supreme Court, in Roper v. Simmons, included an unratified international convention as justification for the judicial revision of a portion of our Constitution. Soon the high court will decide whether to honor a decision by the International Court of Justice, under another treaty, that would challenge the conviction of 51 convicted felons and murderers in our prisons who are foreign nationals.

Significantly, LOST creates the authority for an international authority to levy taxes against member countries, ultimately to be paid by taxpayers. This brings the world closer to what United Nations bureaucrats have long wanted -- a source of unlimited income.

Most importantly, the treaty was drafted at a time when positions and actions of nations were relatively predictable. But today new enemies are involved. The sorts of at-sea interdiction efforts central to our new Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) would be prohibited under LOST. The treaty effectively prohibits two functions vital to American security: intelligence-collection in, and submerged transit of, foreign territorial waters. Mandatory information-sharing would afford enemies data that could be used to facilitate attacks. Obligatory technology transfers would equip adversaries with sensitive and militarily useful equipment and knowledge.

Why has a bad idea, once thought to be dead, now again raised its ugly head? Unfortunately, misguided internationalists have teamed with unrealistic business interests to support the resurgence of LOST.

Some advocates believe that this giant step toward the rigidity of world government would be beneficial for mankind. They minimize the importance of national sovereignty and the value of free market economic decision-making and individualized business negotiations.

There are those in the American oil industry who believe that an international organization will fairly allocate permits for the exploration and exploitation of undersea deposits and they like the idea that the U.S. taxpayers will pay the associated costs.

But experience and common sense demonstrates that whatever inconvenience and expense may be involved in negotiating drilling rights with individual governments on straight business principles cannot justify the creation of a massive international authority susceptible to ideological pressures and potential corruption.

Moreover, much of what the oil industry needs can be achieved through bilateral treaties and the involvement of the international financing system.

Representatives of the U.S. Navy claim that LOST would provide navigation rights that would benefit our country. But the existing 1958 Law of the Seat Treaty already provides such rights without subjecting our naval forces to the compulsory dispute resolution by a UN tribunal, as required by the new treaty. Indeed, LOST provides the opportunity for legal mischief by those forces, both foreign and domestic, who would seek to limit the Navy’s activities.

In short, LOST is an invitation to trial lawyers and their environmentalist front groups to go international, not only against the private sector but also against our military.

The challenge should be clear for those who would follow the principles and implement the vision of Ronald Reagan. The best interests of the United States and of global freedom and opportunity demand that the Law of the Sea Treaty proposed for ratification be sunk, never to surface again.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: ag; ed; lost; meese; reagan; republican; un

1 posted on 04/25/2005 7:56:35 AM PDT by bigsky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bigsky
You can't "fix" a treaty that is vague and ambiguous and ties into other horrendous UN treaties. It's not what this treaty will do immediately it's what it will do ultimately, in the future, and that is to turn over American sovereignty over to a world governing body. You can then put the final nail in the coffin of self government, and the opportunity to pursue anything beyond a protest. There will be so many regulations that all business opportunities will be only available to those with power, and world power at that. Fight this at all costs!
2 posted on 04/25/2005 8:11:52 AM PDT by Archon of the East ("universal executive power of the law of nature")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigsky

a lot of info here:

http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/lost.htm


3 posted on 04/25/2005 8:21:15 AM PDT by sdpatriot (remember waco and ruby ridge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Archon of the East
I already wrote to my congressmen. And of course, Sen. Roberts wrote back to say that he DOES NOT like it.

This treaty is a travesty. Given the horrendous performance of the UN, I cannot believe this issue has not received more attention.

4 posted on 04/25/2005 8:42:12 AM PDT by teenyelliott (Soylent green is made of liberals...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bigsky

The Law of the Sea Treaty: Still A Bad Idea (TM)

Any Republican that votes for it deserves to be dis-elected at the first possible chance.


5 posted on 04/25/2005 9:26:32 AM PDT by tdewey10 (Abortion is slavery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigsky
Well, it's good that he's coming out against it, but it's disappointing that there is no criticism of the Bush administration for pushing it. It's as if the treaty is somehow pushing itself.
6 posted on 04/25/2005 11:58:33 AM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: teenyelliott
Given the horrendous performance of the UN, I cannot believe this issue has not received more attention.

Very little in politics ever gets attention unless Democrats and Republicans disagree on it. If the leadership of both parties agree, then it gets completely swept under the rug.

7 posted on 04/25/2005 12:00:50 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Correction to #6: There was a vague reference to the "Republican president" who's "seriously considering" it. Sorry Ed, he's more than "seriously considering" it; he's actively (though quietly) pushing it.
8 posted on 04/25/2005 12:05:23 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: bigsky

this treaty sucks BIG TIME bump. thx for the post.


9 posted on 04/25/2005 4:40:44 PM PDT by the crow (I'm from the government. I'm here to help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigsky

This makes good sense and I've heard nothing from the President, Dr. Rice or any other advocate for LOST, to convince me it has any value to America.
Rice told Congress "we very much want to see it go into force."


10 posted on 07/16/2005 12:09:00 PM PDT by Graymatter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigsky

Given that a good many Republicans believe the UN should be dissolved, or that the US should abandon it, it's very puzzling that the President has not seen fit even to argue his case for LOST, which would give the UN such extraordinary power.
And given how the UN has abused what authority it already has, it's worse than puzzling that anyone would think of giving it so much more. But I don't like to use such words as I'm thinking, on people I otherwise respect. :(


11 posted on 07/16/2005 12:18:13 PM PDT by Graymatter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tdewey10

Some will vote for it, especially those of the Big Tent RINO/Liberal/Moderate cabal. Count on it.


12 posted on 07/16/2005 12:34:58 PM PDT by Czar (StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson