Bush's base splits over sea treaty

The Washington Times ^ | 02 July 2007 | David R. Sands

[BGHater]

There was nary a liberal in sight, but the ideological divisions were deep, pointed and at times personal at a recent Heritage Foundation debate on whether the United States should finally ratify the U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty.

The intramural dispute among conservatives may be a warning shot to President Bush, who once again will face a restive political base as he pushes for ratification of a treaty that has languished in the Senate for more than a dozen years.

Fears that the United States will lose valuable economic rights or military privileges under the treaty are "an insult to our intelligence," said conservative University of Virginia law professor John Norton Moore, a specialist in maritime-security law and a member of the U.S. negotiating team on the Law of the Sea Convention.

But sitting just to Mr. Moore's left at the Heritage session, Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, called the text Mr. Moore helped negotiate an "Orwellian paean to socialism."

"I'm sorry to see that the Bush administration is not being conservative and does not seem to care about its base," Mr. Gaffney said. "The only way this treaty will be enacted is if nobody reads it."

The 1982 pact, modified significantly in 1994 to meet U.S. concerns over deep-seabed minerals rights, is a vastly ambitious effort to codify and enforce the rules of the road on the high seas, touching on coastal sovereignty rights, navigation for commercial and military vessels, environmental protections and guidelines for mining, fishing, energy and other businesses that tap the wealth of the world's oceans.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

The bottom line to the Seabed treaty is a new unlimited funding source for the UN. WTF do we want that for ?

[AU72]

he pushes for ratification of a treaty that has languished in the Senate

Reagan's "There you go again" comes to mind.

[WhiteGuy]

Bush’s base splits over sea treaty

bush has a base?

[RexBeach]

The president has a “base” left?

[ClearCase_guy]

The entire world would change if we had a president who took a “New Tone” with both the Democrats and the UN: “You folks are the problem. I will cut you no slack, and I refuse to work with you to advance any agenda which you support. My mission is to tell the world exactly what you’ve been up to.”

[Red Badger]

The “BASE” never splits..........

[UCFRoadWarrior]

Bush needs to drop the anti-American Globalism. Stop catering to the Unpunished Nazis (UN)

[ken21]

exactly.

had we gone along with the european-american university left’s “higher morality”,

we’d been getting oil for food from saddam.

the u.n. is corrupt.

[Politicalmom]

PING!! *Sigh...*

[Vaquero]

Bush has split from the base a while back.

and he hasen’t look back in striving for his one world agenda.

the amnesty bill and his and Frists comments and attitude toward us is the last straw in my book. I can’t believe he has the nations best interests in view with anything he does from now on. Because of this I have lost faith in his Iraq policy too. I no longer trust him.

[Melchior]

John Norton Moore has been pushing an LOS treaty since the nineteen seventies. Since then, the United States has created its own fisheries regime, an exclusive economic zone, has denied the UN effort to claim for itself unclaimed seas, and has fought to reduce the overreaching limits in the seas claimed by other nations. It has done so without an LOS Treaty. It has done so despite the jeremiads issued by Moore and his East Coast cabal on a periodic basis. It is in the US best interest that the Senate avoid the LOS Treaty like the plague.

[Plains Drifter]

bump

[Politicalmom]

I can’t find the Law of the Sea Treaty on Thomas.gov , but here is a bit from the Heritage Foundation:

April 2, 2004
The Law of the Sea Treaty
by Carrie E. Donovan
WebMemo #470

The Law of the Sea Treaty (”Treaty”) was conceived in 1982 by the United Nations (U.N.) as a method for governing activities on, over, and beneath the ocean’s surface. It focuses primarily on navigational and transit issues. The Treaty also contains provisions on the regulation of deep-sea mining and the redistribution of wealth to underdeveloped countries—as well as sections regarding marine trade, pollution, research, and dispute resolution. The Bush Administration has expressed interest in joining the International Seabed Authority and has urged the U.S. Senate to ratify the Treaty. However, many of former President Ronald Reagan’s original objections to the Treaty—while modified—still hold true today, and many of the possible national security advantages are already in place.
National Security Issues

Under the Treaty, a 12-mile territorial sea limit and a 200-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) are established. This sets a definitive limit on the oceanic area over which a country may claim jurisdiction. However, innocent passage—including non-wartime activities of military ships—is protected. Even without the Treaty, these boundaries, and the precedent of safe passage, are protected under multiple independent treaties, as well as traditional international maritime law. Additionally, given the United States’ naval superiority, few countries would attempt to deny safe passage. However, under the Treaty, intelligence and submarine maneuvers in territorial waters would be restricted and regulated.
Environmental and Economic Issues

Former President Reagan refused to sign the Treaty in 1982 due to its innate conflict with basic free-market principles (e.g., private property, free enterprise, and competition). Twelve years later, the Clinton Administration submitted to the U.S. Senate a revised version of the Treaty. This revised version allegedly corrected many of the original objections to the Treaty, but still failed to receive Senate ratification: Therefore, the United States’ provisional participation expired in 1998. The Treaty still requires adherence to policies that regulate deep-sea mining, as well as forcing participants to adopt laws and regulations to control and prevent marine pollution. Additionally, under the Treaty, a corporation cannot bring suit, but must rely upon its country of origin to address the corporation’s concerns before the U.N. agency.
Reagan’s Objections

1. Former President Reagan’s first objection to the Treaty was the Principle of the “Common Heritage of Mankind,” which dictates that oceanic resources should be shared among all mankind and cannot be claimed by any one nation or people. In order to achieve this goal, the Treaty creates the International Seabed Authority (”Authority”) to regulate and exploit mineral resources. It requires a company to submit an application fee of $500,000 (now $250,000), as well as a bonus site for the Authority to utilize for its own mining efforts. Additionally, the corporation must pay an annual fee of $1 million, as well as a percentage of its profits (increasing annually up to 7%), and must agree to share mining and navigational technology—thereby ensuring that opportunities aren’t restricted to more technologically advanced countries. The decision to grant or to withhold mining permits is decided by the Authority, which consists disproportionately of underdeveloped countries. Technology-sharing is no longer mandatory, however, there are remaining “principles” to guide its use and distribution. Additionally, the Council has been restructured so that the United States has a permanent seat, and developed countries can create a blocking vote.
2. Secondly, former President Reagan believed that the Treaty would restrict the world’s supply of minerals. The Treaty was originally designed to limit the exploitation of heavy minerals in order to protect the mineral sales of land-locked, developing nations. This is no longer a severe limitation, because production limits to preserve land-based mining have been removed.
3. The third—and still valid—objection is that mandatory dispute resolution restricts autonomy. Either a U.N. court or tribunal must mandate maritime issues involving fisheries, marine environmental protection, and preservation, research, and navigation. A country may opt out if the dispute involves maritime boundaries, military, or limited law enforcement activities. Submitting to external jurisdiction creates an uncomfortable precedent. Furthermore, it weakens the U.S. argument of autonomy when it refuses to submit to the International Criminal Court. Additionally, a country must petition to be excluded from mandatory jurisdiction requirements.

Carrie E. Donovan is Production and Operations Coordinator in the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

Selected Studies

Marjorie Ann Browne, “The Law of the Sea Convention and U.S. Policy,” Congressional Research Service Issue Brief for Congress No. IB95010, updated January 15, 2004.

John Luddy, “The Law of the Sea Treaty: Unwise and Unnecessary,” Heritage Foundation Executive Memorandum No. 386, August 10, 1994.

Roger A Brooks, “The Law of the Sea Treaty: Can the U.S. Afford to Sign?” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 188, June 7, 1982.

Guy M. Hicks, “The Law of the Sea Treaty: A Review of the Issues,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 138, April 28, 1981.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/wm470.cfm

[stockpirate]

GWB = International Socialist.

[Guenevere]

bttt

[Guenevere]

bttt

[Spiff]

So, the last two Bush supporters can’t agree on the Sea treaty. Figures...

[Loud Mime]

The Law of the Sea Treaty is a United Nations treaty.

Here’s your starting point:

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htm

[mikeus_maximus]

Would someone please tell him to go sit quietly in the corner with the “dunce” hat on?