President Bush tells base to "get LOST"

Center for Security Policy ^ | May 10, 2007 | CSP Decision Brief

[upchuck]

The Law of the Sea Treaty will impede the U.S.'s ability to defend its interests in time of war.

President Bush is expected shortly to announce his determination to secure the early ratification of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, better known as the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST).  This treaty, which was rejected by President Ronald Reagan and bottled up by the Republican Senate in the last Congress, promises further to weaken the President's already plummeting support among his political base, on and off of Capitol Hill.

LOST has long been the crown-jewel of a community known as the transnational progressives ("transies") found in various quarters of this and foreign governments, international bureaucrats and non-governmental organizations.   The transies seek to have supranational institutions govern world affairs, circumscribing the freedom of action and undermining the sovereignty of the American people and those of other freedom-loving nations.  

The Bush Administration's strong enthusiasm for subjecting this country to such an accord compounds concerns about its penchant for other Transie initiatives, including the North American Union/Security and Prosperity Partnership (NAU/SPP) now being stealthily negotiated between U.S., Canadian and Mexican officials and interest groups.

A Bill of Particulars

Among the problems inherent with the Law of the Sea Treaty are the following:

• U.S. ratification of LOST would give real substance to the supranational organization it established, the International Seabed Authority, an entity charged with governing activity on 2/3 of the earth's surface. The Authority (as it is ominously known) has powers unprecedented in the history of multilateral institutions – for example, the power to levy what amount to international taxes, with the intention of transferring wealth from developed nations, like the United States, to the developing ones.
  
  
• LOST has its own court – called the Law of the Sea Tribunal – that will be able to dictate to this country on a host of matters bearing on our security, our sovereignty and our economic well-being.  The United States may not even be represented on this politicized, multinational court, let alone be able to prevent its adverse rulings.   For similar reasons, the Bush Administration has wisely worked to keep its interests and officials out of the clutches of another such panel, the International Criminal Court.
  
  
• The Law of the Sea Tribunal determines its own jurisdiction.  It is reasonable to expect that it will feel free to assert authority over U.S. naval activities that: allegedly affect whales; involve intelligence and submerged operations in territorial waters; and attempt to prevent terrorist attacks and proliferation by stopping and searching ships on the high seas.  The Tribunal has already claimed jurisdiction over a nuclear power plant ashore in Great Britain!
  
  
• LOST would oblige the United States to transfer possibly militarily significant technology and information to the UN's International Seabed Authority and its member states, including possibly America's adversaries.   This could result in the compromise of technologies that could be used, for example, in anti-submarine warfare and will afford them data (detailed imagery of underwater access routes, off-shore hiding places, etc.) that could be used to facilitate attacks on this country.  It is not consistent with either American principles or interests to provide enemies with tools to use against us.
  
  

• LOST is emboldening Communist China to become ever more aggressive , threatening regional and global security and economic interests.  China has used its own interpretation of LOST to assert control over much of the South China Sea in its quest for access to vast quantities of natural resources, potentially sparking conflict with its neighbors.  In addition, China has expressed its willingness to use LOST as a legal mechanism to prohibit other countries from coming to Taiwan's defense in the event that the mainland decides to attack the island.
  
  
• LOST sets a dangerous precedent that could be used to deny the U.S. "freedom of space."  Just as American naval power has assured and safeguarded "freedom of the seas" for many decades, this country's ability to have assured access to and use of space is vital for both our own national security and commercial interests and those of the Free World.  Adversaries recognize this reality, and as with the Law of the Sea Treaty and our planet's oceans, they are attempting to inhibit our dominant position in and control of space through the imposition of international laws and regulations.   LOST will be a model for a new multilateral regime to govern the last so-called "global commons": outer space.

The Bottom Line

One would think that the last thing President Bush needs at the moment is to alienate those who have stood beside him – through thick and thin – as he has striven to do the hard things needed to protect the security and (to a lesser extent) the sovereignty of the United States.  He is unlikely to get much credit from the transnational progressives, who detest him, for this concession to their agenda.  His embrace of that agenda, however, puts at grave risk the support the Administration could otherwise expect, and will certainly need, from those who have admired him and oppose what the transies have in mind for America.

[upchuck]

but it is not right to attack personally a great president.

Attack? ATTACK?

Funny, I don't recall attacking President Bush.

Please enlighten me by posting a link to my "attack."

[Coleus]

Pirates of the High Seas: Robbing with the Law of the Sea Treaty

Bush to pressure Senate to revive U.N. sea treaty

Bush to pressure Senate to revive U.N. sea treaty

Socialist was behind United Nations sea treaty

Secret Agenda: Law of the Sea Treaty Will Provide Key “Elements” of “World Government”

Freedom at Sea, Too!

'ISOLATIONIST' TAG STILL STINGS / GOP, Dems Debate Who's Most 'Internationalist'

Political Power and the Rule of Law (Outstanding Essay by Rep. Ron Paul)

Senators hear how UN Law of the Sea Treaty will cripple national security

Sink the Law of the Sea Treaty

Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty: A Not-So-Innocent Passage

Action Alert, Law of the Sea Treaty

(UN) Law of the Sea Treaty Threatens Sovereignty

BLAST FAX TO CONGRESS: DON'T SIGN LAW OF THE SEA TREATY

Global Deception - The UN's Stealth Assault on America's Freedom

Big Trouble for Law of the Sea

We Must Stop the UN's Law of the Sea Treaty!

We Lose If LOST Wins (UN Law of the Sea Treaty)

Bush Continues to Support UN "Law of The Sea" Treaty

Law of The Sea By Dark of Night

We Should Drown Law of the Sea

The Plan to Replace the Dollar With the 'Amero'

UN Constitution for the Oceans...a Done Deal

Sen. Inhofe Fights UN Pirates on Sea Treaty

UN Wants Control of the Seas with US Senate’s Help

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

An article here on FR a few months ago said that Bush, at best, would be as ineffective as Gerald Ford, and at worse, another Jimmy Carter.

It has come to pass Bush is the Republican’s Jimmy Carter and much worse I might add.

Jimmy had only 4 years to do harm. And a lot of harm he did.

The coconut head traitorous moron has had almost 7 years to wreck this country with 19 long months to go. After all, Bush said, the Constitution is just “a Goddamn piece of Paper.”

[NonValueAdded]

We’ve LOST.

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

“We’ve LOST.”

I think so too, unless there is a miracle out there somewhere.

Look at the bright side. Maybe he will go hunting with Cheney.

[thinking]

I would guess the next question could be: who will enforce the new world order, as applied to the seas, The UK, just downsized the navy...the Russian navy is finished....IMHO, another farce, similar to Kyoto

[Regulator]

and before I got to the next two words she said the exact same thing

!!!

Well, I guess it's not surprising. It's even more obvious than I thought...

[upchuck]

IMHO, another farce, similar to Kyoto

I pray you are correct.

[hedgetrimmer]

Bush has proposed a thousand ship navy, which would merge our navy with the navies of other countries like India.

[Tinian]

Is there a FR ping list for the totally anti-free trade, anti-anything foreign Isolationist Crowd?

If not, I think it would be worth starting because it would be mighty popular!

[zeugma]

You can thank the rest of the republican party officials as well as the President. They had 8 years to bring this up in the Senate and vote it down, but they didn’t. Funny how that never seems to happen isn’t it?

[Reaganwuzthebest]

If not, I think it would be worth starting because it would be mighty popular!

Sounds good, why don't you start one up and please put me on it. As long as there's politicians in high offices who prefer to hand over the candy store of America to every failed third world banana republic led by delusional generalissimos and other assorted loonies then I think we need to stay informed.

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

“Is there a FR ping list for the totally anti-free trade, anti-anything foreign Isolationist Crowd? If not, I think it would be worth starting because it would be mighty popular!”

I’m in.

[Major_Risktaker]

KOFI ANNAN has retired with all of that food for oil money.

[sanjacjake]

Jeb may do it the same?? It would be with alacrity
and you can bet on it....JK

[dcwusmc]

I agree with you that it would be wrong to launch personal attacks against a great president. However, HERE we are discussing George W. Bush and his Unconstitutional antics.

[Hop A Long Cassidy]

>>>One gets what one deserves..the saddest part of this
disappointment is that the one, really, great Bush
guy getting the short end of the stick..is JEB.

True, and great analysis. But after these actions of no borders and supporting global government, there should be no more Bushes in the White House — no matter how good Jeb might be. I think this realization is what made Bush I cry in public with his son Jeb at his side.

These actions also should pop the air out of the argument to vote for the “least bad” candidate. Bush II was the least bad, and look what it did to our borders and national spending. He’s ruining the GOP.

[Celtman]

SO NO MORE VOTING FOR THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS.

      Congratulations.  The lesser of two evils is still, after all, evil.

[WhiteGuy]

No offense taken. I’m certainly not an elitist, globalist tool. I can barely spell that. LOL!

Spell check is my secret spelling assistant............

[.30Carbine]

They had 8 years to bring this up in the Senate and vote it down, but they didn’t. Funny how that never seems to happen isn’t it?

Thank you for stating the obvious.