Replies

The fact that RINO Sen Lugar is endorsing the LOST treaty makes it even less appealing.

Agreed. Spotted this interesting "debate" where Lugar's points were made at a Brookings affair...with no rebuttal...the author remedied that strange omission by the policy wonks therein.

If these two had actually squared off ...I believe Lugar would have had his hat handed to him by the Lady...

Law Of The Sea Treaty - Debating Both Sides
By Gabrielle Reilly

Law of the Sea Treaty: The Law of Sea Treaty, like any Treaty, obviously has both those who are for it and those against it. I would like to counter the arguments of those who are for it and let you consider this critical decision.

Here is a rebuttal to abbreviated remarks that Senator Lugar made at the Brookings Institution conference on Law of the Sea Treaty:

Senator Lugar: Consequences of Not Joining the Convention
1. The United States would not have a seat at the table to protect against proposed amendments that would roll back Convention rights we fought hard to achieve.

Gabrielle Reilly: The seats are rotating so there is no guarantee of having a seat at the table.

Senator Lugar:
2. Some nations may press for restrictions on the movement of naval or commercial vessels near their coastline. Others may pursue the right to exclude nuclear-powered vessels from their territorial waters. (Under the Convention, a ship's propulsion system cannot be used as an argument to restrict its movements.) As a party, we will be in a very strong position to prevent harmful amendments. <

Gabrielle Reilly: Incorrect we will not be in a strong position. It is one vote, one nation. China and Pakistan together have more say than we do. Iran is also on this list of countries with accession to ratify. Want Iran someday to be voting on decisions that impact the US? We would have a 1 in 145 say. Currently we have the option of not abiding, which keeps our power. The Treaty gives our power away to countries who oppose us. In the event a nation does press to restrict movement we can deal with it then, but more to the point, not being part of the Treaty does not exclude us from negotiating directly with a country ourselves.

Senator Lugar:
3. In addition, the Convention's Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf will soon begin making decisions on claims to continental shelf areas that could impact the United States' own claims to the area and resources of our broad continental margin. Russia is already making excessive claims in the Arctic. Unless we are party to the Convention, we will not be able to protect our national interest in these discussions.

Gabrielle Reilly:There are other options to protecting our national interests and special interest groups should not determine the well being of our country. National security, and not being tied into a legal binding contract with a corrupt organization still trumps this point. At any rate, with the recent Yukos scandal and a move back toward government ownership again, Russia may find it hard pressed to find the capitol in requires to drill at sea when they have so many resources still undeveloped on the main land without such great risk, for the immediate future anyhow... and even if they do, we still have no guarantee we could stop them.

Senator Lugar:
4. Opponents seem to think that if the U.S. declines to ratify the Law of the Sea, it will evaporate into the ocean mists. Unlike some treaties, such as the Kyoto Agreement and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, where U.S. non-participation renders the treaty irrelevant or inoperable, the Law of the Sea will continue to form the basis of maritime law regardless of whether the U.S. is a party.

Gabrielle Reilly:We have been operating successfully for the past few decades without signing the Treaty. I still have not seen any information to justify the risk of changing that. In fact, in light of the extent of the UN corruption and anti-American sentiment that is all coming to light now, it would be completely foolish to sign at this point.

I don't completely exclude the possibility in the future... maybe 100 years when global shrinkage has allowed all the different tribes around the world to integrate a little more. But our forefathers came in boats fighting to get away from corrupt governments that rip food from peoples mouths. Now we plan to do a full circle and give authority to an international government that is riddled with corruption and people who do not have our best interest at heart? That makes no sense. The timing is very wrong.

Senator Lugar:
5. International decisions related to national claims on continental shelves beyond 200 miles from our shore, resource exploitation in the open ocean, navigation rights, and other matters will be made in the context of the treaty whether we join or not.

Gabrielle Reilly: Remember it is one nation, one vote. When you look at our land mass and population, then assess how many smaller countries who hate us, make up the Middle East alone, it puts us at a tremendous disadvantage. The Middle East would have far more political power of US interests than the US would. That is undoubtedly a recipe for disaster and would increase the pressure between nations that could lead us to war again.

Senator Lugar: Nonetheless, did the U.S. act in accordance with the provisions of the Convention?
Yes, with the exception of those related to deep seabed mining (i.e. offshore oil)

Gabrielle Reilly: Yes so why change it?

Senator Lugar: Many of the arguments they have made are patently untrue. Others are obsolete in that they attack the Convention as it existed in 1982-as if the re-negotiation of the Convention had never occurred.
For example, critics have contended that the Law of the Sea will give the United Nations control over oceans when the Convention provides no decision-making role for the U.N.

Gabrielle Reilly: This is just a play with words... the Convention is a UN agency. The Iraq Oil-For-Food Program was also supposedly separate from the UN and we are just seeing information that over $20 billion was embezzled from that program. Senator Lugar does not even address the track record of corruption which is paramount in accessing the feasibility of entering any contract, particularly such an extraordinary contract as the Law of the Sea Treaty.

Besides, here is just one of the ways they can get around that loop hole: "Under the dispute settlement mechanism of Special Arbitration (used for disagreements involving issues of navigation, fisheries, the environment and scientific research), both parties to the dispute choose two arbiters. The 5th – or, the swing arbiter – is chosen by the Secretary General of the UN! It can be expected (as we know) that he/she will make sure to appoint someone unsympathetic to U.S. interests. You’d see a lot of 3-2 decisions in favor of America’s adversaries." Center For Security Policy

Senator Lugar: Did the U.S. participate in a negotiated agreement?
Yes. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush initiated further negotiations to resolve U.S. objections to the deep seabed mining regime. These talks culminated in a 1994 agreement that comprehensively revised the regime and resolved each of the problems President Reagan identified in 1982.

Gabrielle Reilly: There is definitely a disagreement on that fact among many, including Frank Gaffney, "To be sure, President Clinton reached an accord called “The Agreement” in 1994 that purports to address some of President Reagan’s concerns. Since the Agreement does not actually replace or modify the relevant sections of LOST, however, the Treaty is still fatally flawed and objectionable on national security, sovereignty and legal grounds." Frank Gaffney Article

Senator Lugar: What is the current debate about?
Concerns have been expressed primarily by those who oppose multi-lateral agreements.

Gabrielle Reilly: Good ole partisan, political smokescreen... more rhetoric and a gross generalization. We make multi-lateral agreements all the time. We just try to be wise enough to make agreements that bind us with our allies and reserve serious judgment of signing agreements that give away any of our rights to our enemies. That is common sense.

I personally am actually not anti-UN. I think they have their role in rebuilding countries, but with the very firmly imposed guidelines that they cannot be in control of the money, nor our soldiers. The UN is filled with people who have some very good skill sets, and it is a way the world can share in the expense and co-ordinate the helping of poor, war torn, countries and in natural disasters, etc. Like in the case of the tsunami effort, all funds were outsourced from the UN for the first time to a reputable, independent accounting firm. Provided that long term measures are taken, like the financial auditors have to turn over every three years to prevent any long term partners in corruption developing, this could be a good fix to begin with.

Senator Lugar:In fact, most of the articles and statements opposing the Convention have avoided mentioning the military's longstanding and vocal support for Law of the Sea. This is because to oppose the Convention on national security grounds requires one to say that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Chief of Naval Operations, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and, indeed, the President of the United States are wrong about the security benefits of the Treaty.

Gabrielle Reilly: Incorrect, it is because we are dedicated to putting our view across. We recognize their support and disagree with the very fundamental aspects of the Treaty. That's what we do in politics... debate policy.

Senator Lugar: General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has written: "The Convention remains a top national security priority. It supports efforts in the War on Terrorism by providing much-needed stability and operational maneuver space, codifying essential navigational and overflight freedoms."

Gabrielle Reilly: With all due respect to General Richard Myers, the very premise that the UN offers "stability" after the Iraq sanctions were never enforced due to the extensive corruption and conflict of interest, lead us into a pre-emptive war. It would assume we are dealing with a legitimate organization. That is a very flawed and outdated foundation for supporting this Treaty. The very premise of why someone would support with this Treaty just 2 years ago has changed tremendously in light of the new information of the UN network of global corruption that is being peeled back layer by layer as we speak.

Those who adapt to changing circumstances rapidly, are the ones who survive. UN corruption is the new issue we have to adapt to after 9/11. How many people died on 9/11? How many people died in Iraq because the UN didn't enforce the sanction because it now clearly appears they were being paid off by Saddam?

Senator Lugar:Vern Clark, the Chief of Naval Operations, has stated that "the Convention supports U.S. efforts in the war on terrorism while leaving unaffected intelligence collection activities. Future threats will likely emerge in places and ways that are not yet known. For these and other as yet unknown operational challenges, we must be able to take maximum advantage of the established navigational rights codified in the Law of the Sea Convention to get us to the fight rapidly."

Gabrielle Reilly:Yes, "in ways not yet known." We didn't know the UN officials were in bed with Saddam on 9/11. Look how long it took to get into Iraq after the UN bureaucracy slowed us down most likely to avoid exposure of the corruption. That gave us no speed, and in fact hindered our ability to get WMD's before they could have been shifted out of the country. "Speed" is not what the UN has to offer. It would be wise to not give more legal control to an organization that sleeps with our enemies and is filled with officials are so philosophically opposed to us.

Senator Lugar: Admiral Clark also delivered impassioned testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee underscoring that U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea would reduce the need for dangerous operations in which the Navy threatens the use of force as a means of asserting navigational freedoms.

Gabrielle Reilly:I passionately don't want to have to seek the Convention's approval before dealing with an Al Qaeda or a North Korean ship on the high seas. I know the Al Qaeda and North Korea sure won't be abiding with the Treaty... in fact that is one of the problems also. We will be one of the few countries who will actually comply. Lets not have our hands tied behind our back in the event we have to go into the boxing ring. After all the UN's anti-US rhetoric I would lay odds they won't be covering our back, but inflaming our enemies to punch even harder.

Senator Lugar:Opponents are similarly reluctant to mention the unanimous support of affected U.S. industries. To oppose the treaty on economic grounds requires opponents to say that the oil, natural gas, shipping, fishing, boat manufacturing, exporting, and telecommunications industries do not understand their own bottom lines. It requires opponents to say that this diverse set of industries is spending money and time lobbying on behalf of an outcome that will be disadvantageous to their own interests.

The vast majority of conservative Republicans would support, in prospect, a generic measure that expands the ability of American oil and natural gas companies to drill for resources in new areas, solidifies the Navy's rights to traverse the oceans, enshrines U.S. economic sovereignty over our Exclusive Economic Zone extending 200 miles off our shore, helps our ocean industries create jobs, and reduces the prospects that Russia will be successful in claiming excessive portions of the Arctic. All of these conservative-backed outcomes would result from U.S. ratification of the Law of the Sea Convention.

Gabrielle Reilly: We already have rights to develop up to 200 miles off our shore. We are one of eight States that fought for that right decades ago. Most of the remaining countries had only 12 miles off their coast line they can call theirs, so it is an advantage to them, not us and... signing the Treaty would not guarantee we would prevent Russia from staking claims in the Arctic at any rate.

Senator Lugar:Yet the treaty is being blocked because of ephemeral conservative concerns that boil down to a discomfort with multi-lateralism.

Gabrielle Reilly: More political rhetoric. Senator Lugar could not convince me that putting a billion dollars of our defense money in a bank in Europe that is known for embezzling billions, no matter what the return, was a good idea either. Our opposition stems primarily from market confidence to put it in economic terms.

Senator Lugar: Multi-lateral solutions do not always work. Some multi-lateral agreements that have been brought before the Congress during the last decade were poorly conceived or impossible to verify. But our negotiators won in talks on Law of the Sea. We are hurting no one but ourselves by failing to exploit this hard-earned diplomatic victory.

Gabrielle Reilly: That's debatable, but they may not win on any issue once we sign and are legally bound to it.

Senator Lugar: With respect to the Law of the Sea, the discomfort with multi-literalism also fails to recognize the obvious: there is no unilateral option with regard to ocean policy. The high seas are not governed by the national sovereignty of the United States or any other country. If we are to establish order, predictability, and responsibility over the oceans-an outcome that is very much in the interest of the United States-we have to engage with other countries.

Gabrielle Reilly: It is covered under the Geneva Convention and has been working fine. One of the few things I would like to see is the international licensing of all ships to assist with our vulnerability, but the Sea Treaty does not cover that.

Senator Lugar:Consequently, the United States cannot insulate itself from the Convention merely by declining to ratify. There are 145 parties to the Convention, including every major industrialized country.

Gabrielle Reilly: It cannot insulate itself by joining either with one vote, one nation.

Senator Lugar: The Convention is the accepted standard in international maritime law.

Gabrielle Reilly:I will use President Reagan's reaction for that " "Well, Mr. Reagan shrugged, he was not going along with something "really stupid" just because 150 nations had done so for a decade."

Senator Lugar: At some point, a foreign nation will seek rule changes to the treaty that restrict passage by U.S. Navy vessels.

Gabrielle Reilly: Maybe, but that does not mean we cannot negotiate with the country ourselves directly and in fact, have more power by doing so with economic incentives etc than having to depend, and wait on, an international tribunal. Look at what we went through to go to Iraq. Timing is everything on the fight against terrorist groups getting their hands on WMD's. We cannot be held back from addressing problems in a timely manner by a huge international bureaucracy.

Senator Lugar: At some point, our oil and mining industries will want to prospect beyond the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone. They won't do that without the international legal certainty provided by the Law of the Sea that their claims and investments will be respected by other nations.

Gabrielle Reilly: With the way the Oil-For-Food program was run I doubt any corporation at this point would seriously consider doing business under such corrupt and unstable circumstances. Like Russia with the whole Yukos oil affair.

Senator Lugar: At some point, Russia or some other country will succeed in having excessive ocean claims recognized because we are not there to stop them.

Gabrielle Reilly:With one vote there is no guarantee we would be able to stop them anyway. We are at a great disadvantage with the amount of countries that make up Europe as an example. We are basically comparable in land mass to Europe who would get a vote for every European country, landlocked or not, to our basically 50 states (that could be compared to countries) within one country giving us only one vote. This is a very powerful political tool that could be used to severely disadvantage us.

Senator Lugar:Sen. Lugar addresses the issue of a "tax", in his http://lugar.senate.gov/sfrc/questions.html as follows:
The ISA has no authority to levy taxes. The Convention does contemplate the elaboration of rules for payments of royalties to the ISA from revenues generated from deep seabed mining. Under the Convention's rules, such royalty payments would be used to cover the ISA's expenses. (Section 7 of the Annex to the 1994 Agreement Implementing the Convention's deep seabed mining provisions).

Gabrielle Reilly:Another play with words... "royalties," "taxes," it is still money going to them. Didn't they use the same justification for the Oil-For-Food Program? Surely their track record needs to be paramount in this debate, but is not even being addressed.

Many ask a far more important question... was the UN corruption just about greed, or was it also potentially being used as a political tool by those who hate us and want to destroy America? Until that critical question is answered by all the investigations, we cannot sign this Treaty. The supporters of this Treaty were most likely supporting this prior to the knowledge we have now of the extent of the UN corruption. That information should be critical to them continuing to support the Law of the Sea Treaty now. Most of the people who oppose it were not even aware that is was back on the table so only one side of the story was told at any rate. It was an expertly orchestrated political maneurve. Don't let this Treaty proceed.

It is the stroke of every brush that creates a magnificent piece of art.
It is the quality of every ingredient that makes a fine gourmet meal.
And it is the effort of every citizen that creates an outstanding community.

Do one small thing and call your Representative to tell them to not support the Law of the Sea Treaty. Your voice counts. Take action and call:

____________________

You tell 'em Thats an Aussie girl for you !