Posted on 10/29/2007 7:01:04 AM PDT by processing please hold
Will Americans rule themselves or be ruled by others — this is to be a great question of the 21st century. An opening scene is currently being played out in the U.S. Senate concerning international courts and supranational institutions.
The Bush administration and the leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee are pushing ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS or LOST). The U.N. convention established a transnational institution, the International Seabed Authority, to regulate maritime activities for over 70 percent of the earth’s surface.
Supporters contend that it is in America’s interests to join. The core argument is that we need “a seat at the table” to influence the rules. Thus, Sen. Richard Lugar (R., Ind.) declares, “we are allowing decisions that will affect our Navy, our ship operators, our off-shore industries . . . to be made without U.S. representation.” Most important, the supporters insist, is that sovereignty and security decisions remain in American hands.
Let us examine the details. Under UNCLOS, disputes between the United States and other parties are settled by “mandatory” (i.e., forced) arbitration. The final decisions are made either by a permanent International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Hamburg or by an ad-hoc court. The Hamburg tribunal consists of 21 judges chosen by member nations, many of them unfriendly to the United States. An ad-hoc court would consist of five judges, two chosen by the U.S., two chosen by the other party. The crucial fifth judge is chosen either by the secretary general of the United Nations or the Hamburg tribunal. The decisions are “final” and “binding” with no appeal.
International-law professor Jeremy Rabkin points out that when the Cambodian communists seized the USS Mayaguez in Cambodian waters in 1975, President Ford responded with military force to rescue American sailors and free the ship. He notes this type of action would be problematic under UNCLOS. For example, if a treaty signatory (e.g., China, Burma) seized a U.S. ship in its home waters, under the terms of Law of the Sea Treaty, the U.S. could not free her sailors by force, but would have to submit to mandatory arbitration by the Hamburg tribunal or an ad-hoc court, where the U.S. could very likely lose the case. In any event, vital decisions over American security and American lives would not be made by Americans, but by foreign judges, many of them unsympathetic to American interests (coming as they often do from third-world regimes or EU legal elites).
Supporters argue that member states can claim an exemption from binding arbitration for “military activities.” In addition, they point out that the U.S. will attach a special “understandings” to the treaty stating that any interpretation of what constitutes “military activities” will be “defined by the United States.”
However, the treaty explicitly forbids any “reservations” by a ratifying member state on substantive issues, and the special “understandings” that the Bush administration plans to add with our ratification will not fly. Under UNCLOS, the Hamburg judges will ultimately decide what is and is not a “military activity.”
For example, the U.S. could issue an “understanding” that intelligence-gathering against China is a legitimate “military activity,” but the transnational judges would have the last word. What is going to happen when an international tribunal rules against the U.S. and in favor of China in a naval dispute? Is a American administration going to suddenly withdraw from UNCLOS and alienate the so-called “international community”? Unlikely.
A phalanx of serious defenders of American sovereignty have risen to oppose LOST. Many are former Reagnauts including Edwin Meese, William Clark, John Lehman, John Bolton, and the indefatigable organizer, Frank Gaffney, Political opposition is growing. Senators Vitter (La.), Inhofe (Ok.), DeMint (S.C.), Kyl (Ariz.), Sessions (Ala.), Ensign (Nev.), Lott (Miss.), Cornyn (Tex.) and McConnell (Ky.) and Presidential candidates Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter have denounced the Treaty. John McCain said he “would probably vote against it.” Mitt Romney says that he “has concerns” about the treaty “giving unaccountable international institutions more power.”
Retired (and therefore free to speak his mind) admiral James “Ace” Lyons (former Pacific Fleet commander) declared that it is was “inconceivable” why the “Senate would willingly want to forfeit its responsibility for America’s freedom of the seas to . . . [an] unaccountable international agency.” At the philosophical level, Admiral Lyons speaks for the “warrior ethic” that is currently battling with the “lawyer ethic” for the soul of Navy (and the other armed services).
Indeed, the essential arguments of treaty supporters are pure international lawyerese —we are told that UNCLOS will somehow “guarantee” our maritime rights. Meanwhile the State Department would have a seat at the table with 155 other nations in a “one nation–one vote” situation at the International Seabed Authority. We would have as much influence as we do in the U.N. General Assembly, where we are constantly outvoted.
The ultimate question of democratic politics is who “decides.” If LOST is ratified, the “deciders” will be foreign courts, not American elected leaders. At the deeper level, the battle over the Law of the Sea Treaty is another round in what promises to be a century-long conflict over the meaning of democratic decision-making between the forces of American self-government and the supporters of “global governance,” the so-called “transnational progressives.”
Sink LOST!!
bbl
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst040504.htm
LOST at Sea
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD - April 7, 2004
Back in the 1970s the United Nations launched its plan for a global program of taxation without representation, called the “New International Economic Order.” The goal of this new economic order was not so new at all, however. It sought the involuntary transfer of wealth and technology from the developed world to the third world under the direction of the United Nations. A cornerstone of this dangerous attempt to loot the prosperous nations was the “Law of the Sea Treaty” (LOST).
Under the Law of the Sea Treaty, an “International Seabed Authority” would control the minerals and other resources of the oceans’ seabed. After taking its own cut, this UN body would transfer whatever is left to select third-world governments and non-governmental organizations.
The Law of the Sea Treaty also would give the UN power to tax American citizens and businesses, which has been a long-time dream of the anti-sovereignty globalists. LOST also would establish an international court system to enforce its provisions and rulings. Imagine not being able to do business internationally without the approval of the United Nations!
It all sounds like something out of a science-fiction novel, but it is real.
... continued at link...
Lugar should soak his head in the seabed.
If this is all true, then why is it supported by all major branches of the military, and why are so many military leaders in support of it. There has to be more to this.
Why are these American supporters of LOST SO EAGER to give away US sovereignty? Lose LOST!
Both 'warrior and philosophical' are one in the same. There is the 'warrior/philosophical' battle/discussion heating up as an all-out international scramble to lay claim to the North Pole and the Arctic resources around it is going on.
American Sovereignty at all costs.......!!!!!
The U.N. is in this for it’s own best interests. It is not in it for our best interests.
Department of Defense Directive 1344.10:
4.1.2. A member on active duty shall not:
4.1.2.1. Use his or her official authority or influence for interfering with an election; affecting the course or outcome of an election; soliciting votes for a particular candidate or issue; or requiring or soliciting political contributions from others.
Thanks for posting, a good read. I know Hunter, Tancredo and Paul have been ahead of this issue. Funny and sad at the same time that Newsmax only posted the rudy come lately to the issue. Mitt probably needs to see what his lawyers think (as bill clinton did) to decide what he thinks. McCain has become a fence sitter in the last 10 years. Guess waiting to see who/whom will be willing to give him $$$ before he makes a solid committment on the issue. Those top tier boys are the best. /s
This could be an even worse precedent than the illegal amnesty, and I’m not diminishing the importance of defeating that.
Either one would be a big step toward the loss of our national sovereignty and democratic freedoms.
Who rules the EU? Not the citizens, but a bunch of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels. Don’t like their arbitrary decisions? Too bad. No way to throw the bums out, such as we have here or even in the half-broken parliamentary governments of modern European nations.
One way of putting it is that after they reach a certain level, generals and admirals become politicians. They need to stroke the president and congress so their branch of the service gets proper attention and funding.
Another way of putting it is that the President is Commander in Chief, and you either go along with him or resign.
President Bush, for whatever reasons, has revealed late in his second term of office that he wants the LOST Treaty passed. So his top officers support it, or keep their mouths shut.
I don’t understand what this has to do with LOST. It isn’t an election, it is a treaty. I would think that Department of Defense participation in the ratifying this treaty would be necessary.
“soliciting votes for an ... issue”
This is still going on?
I remember learning about UNCLOS when I was doing my Masters in International Relations over 7 years ago. One would have thought that they’d have let the idea drop by now...
http://www.militaryconnection.com/news/september-2007/law-sea-treaty.html
The support of the military for this treaty seems far beyond political obligation. I don’t know too much about it, but I would be inclined to take the advice of those who charged with protecting our nation. If there is some clear evidence that the military is not in support of this treaty, I haven’t seen it.
In the interest of supporting the troops, with what they need for continued success, I would think this treaty should be ratified.
Will Americans rule themselves or be ruled by others —The time when 'Americans' were fit to rule themselves is L-O-N-G past. Check out Vance Packard's Hidden Persuaders, look at the shabby politicians who are DC landmarks, and consider anew how dumbed-down and brainwashed 'Americans' are!
As for our politicians, anyone voting for this should be impeached for violating their oaths.
We need to kill this monstrosity, and fast....
“If this is all true, then why is it supported by all major branches of the military, and why are so many military leaders in support of it.”
Because State and the Jag corps have sold them on it. I’m ashamed of our Naval leadership over this.
Yes, I’ve seen accounts of that, although your link gives a few more details. I have a low opinion of Negroponte, who is a typical denizen of Foggy Bottom. I don’t know the officers in question, so I can’t say what their thoughts or motives are. I would venture to say that they are simply helping to present the case given to them by the State Department and the Administration.
I don’t agree, however. The Law of the Sea and modern international thinking about it goes back to Oldham’s treatise, written in Holland around the beginning of the seventeenth century, which was carried forward by various international treaties and by the activities of the British Royal Navy and Parliament.
There is nothing in traditional thinking about the law of the sea that forbids a sovereign nation—meaning a nation with the POWER to do it—to freedom of the seas, including passage through narrow straits. For the most part, that freedom was defended, first by Britain and then by the U.S., against encroachments and piracy.
It has always been the case that if the nation holding the straits is more powerful than the nation wanting to get through can block passage, then it will, stopping traffic or charging tolls. And if, like the former Royal Navy or the present US Navy, the ships have the greater power, then they will pass through, if the sovereign nation to whom they belong backs them. Other countries agree to this, so long as aggression, open warfare, or piracy are not committed.
That was the true meaning of sovereignty in history. You are a sovereign nation if you can defend yourself against your enemies. Now, we have many so-called “sovereign” nations that are incapable of defending themselves, but rely on us, or the UN, or Britain, or someone else to be nice to them and defend them. That is not real sovereignty, however, it is a pretence. It relies on the good will of the U.S. or the blackmailing bureaucrats of the UN.
Many people resent the idea of sovereignty and freedom based on power, but that is the reality. Would we really do better to bow down to the UN, which is controlled by coteries of corrupt third-world dictators, Communist parties, Muslim tyrannts, and European NWO Socialists? I don’t think so.
Our sad experience with the various UN bodies supposed to represent “human rights” suggests what the dangers are. Which is better, to defend ourselves and the freedom of the seas for others, or to agree to let a committee governed by China, Uganda, and Libya, let’s say, give us permissions? It would be extremely naive to think that the UN solution would be better or fairer.
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.