Watch Howard Phillips and Frank Gaffney Discuss the Dangers of the Law of the Sea Treaty

Excerpted from Howard Phillips Issues & Strategy Bulletin of February 15, 2008

BUSH FUNDS ENTITIES OF UNRATIFIED UNLOST TREATY

            America’s Survival, Inc. (ASI) “has blasted the Bush Administration for requesting almost $5 million for two Law of the Sea Treaty organizations, despite the fact that the treaty hasn’t been ratified by the Senate and is in serious trouble in that body.

“ASI President Cliff Kincaid called the budget request an affront to Congress and the Constitution.  ‘Under our system,’ Kincaid said, ‘treaties have to pass the Senate before they are implemented.  This budget request suggests that the administration is going forward with implementation of the treaty without a Senate vote.’ …

            “The category of ‘Contributions to International Organizations’ in the Bush budget includes a fiscal year 2009 request of $1,296,000 for the International Seabed Authority and $3,608,000 for the International Tribunal for the Law of the [Sea].  These are organizations established by the Law of the Sea Treaty, which has passed a Senate committee but not the full Senate.  The Senate’s top Republicans are opposed to the pact and have asked Bush to withdraw the treaty from Senate consideration.

            “ ‘If the budget request indicates a renewed push by the administration to get the treaty passed, it will destroy much of what is left of the conservative base of the Republican Party,’ Kincaid said.  ‘Conservatives nationwide have made the defeat of the measure one of their top priorities, on a par with derailing any illegal alien amnesty bill.’ ”  Source:  www.usasurvival.org, 2/11/08

Excerpted from Howard Phillips Issues & Strategy Bulletin of October 31, 2007

IT’S IMPORTANT TO REJECT UNLOST AND REBUILD U.S. NAVY

            “From the days of our Founding Fathers, history has shown no president wants to leave a legacy of surrendering U.S. national sovereignty to a supranational organization.  But this will become the case if the Senate – spurred by Delaware Democrat Joseph Biden – ratifies the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) now before it….

            “The power of the U.S. Navy, not some anonymous bureaucracy, has been this nation’s guarantee of our access to and freedom of the seas.  I can [cite] many maritime operations – from our blockade of Cuba in 1962, to the reflagging of ships in the Persian Gulf, to our submarine intelligence-gathering programs – that have been critical to maintaining our freedom of the seas and protecting our waters from encroachment.  All those examples would likely have to be submitted to an international tribunal for approval if we become a signatory to this treaty.

            “In a word, this is incomprehensible.  Given the current war on terror, we cannot deny our Navy the ability to carry out legitimate naval intercept operations against vessels carrying possible nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction.  But such actions would be subject to LOST’s arbitration deliberations – a process that in most cases would be decided unfavorably against the United States.” 

“Regardless of what is promised by LOST’s proponents, the Clinton administration did not fix the treaty’s objectionable clauses.  For example, ratification of LOST would subsequently require the United States to submit to mandatory dispute resolution with respect to the ability of the U.S. Navy to conduct its customary maritime operations unfettered.”

U.S. MILITARY AT RISK

“Further, although LOST allows a party to exempt itself from disputes concerning ‘military activities,’ the Treaty does not define such activities, and it is therefore far from certain any U.S. decision to exempt itself from such dispute resolution will be honored by the other parties or dispute resolution bodies – particularly in light of the fact any supposedly exempt ‘military activity’ can be framed as an ‘environmental activity’ by those hostile to the United States.

“The military’s supply chain is also vulnerable to compulsory dispute resolution in this regard.  The military can also be adversely affected by the LOST requirement that all state parties take all measures necessary to ‘prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from any source’ (Article 194).  This requirement could also adversely affect the military’s civilian supply chain and the industrial processes involved with supplying the military. …” 

SUBS CAN’T BE STEALTHY

            “LOST requires submarines to travel on the surface and show their flag in territorial waters.  This constraint would damage the Navy’s ability to conduct many of its vital intelligence-gathering operations.

            “Provisions of LOST will regulate how U.S. businesses can mine the seabed.  More important, the treaty requires U.S. companies to transfer strategic technologies to Third World countries, some of them declared or potential enemies of the U.S.” 

DIRECT SUBSIDIES TO U.N. WOULD MAKE IT A WORLD GOVERNMENT

            “The Treaty will impose a ‘globe-tax’ to finance a pseudo ‘second United Nations,’ complete with its own committees and councils.  LOST creates a bureaucracy that enforces a mandatory arbitration process that will by its nature be adverse to U.S. corporations and infringe on private property rights.

            “LOST provides a forum for China and Russia to pursue threatening territorial claims.  China has already manipulated LOST to claim sovereignty over the entire South China Sea, while Russia is pursuing its claim to the North Pole seabed by presenting its data to the LOST Continental Shelf Commission – a claim entertained by the commission though LOST clearly indicates that claims like Russia’s are groundless.

            “If the United States joins a treaty that allows for this sort of manipulation, we will still be subject to the Treaty’s requirements, and will not necessarily be able to influence decisions concerning China and Russia.  Mr. President, the United States will have only … one vote in all the various LOST committees.  We will have no veto power, as we do at the U.N. Security Council.”  Source:  James Lyons (U.S. Navy retired admiral, former commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, senior U.S. military representative to the U.N., and deputy chief of naval operations, where he was principal adviser on all Joint Chiefs of Staff matters), The Washington Times, 10/5/07, p. A16

Excerpted from Howard Phillips Issues & Strategy Bulletin of October 15, 2007

SENATOR DAVID VITTER EFFECTIVELY REBUTS UNLOST APOLOGISTS

             My recent meeting with Senator David Vitter (R-LA) in which I urged him to oppose the U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty (UNLOST) may have had an impact.  At the time, Senator Vitter said he had not yet fully examined the treaty and had not decided what he would do.  It now appears that he will be out front in trying to defeat UNLOST.

 BUSH BACKERS OF UNLOST OFFERED INACCURATE TESTIMONY

            As reported by Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media (9/28/07), “The media have been pummeling conservative Republican Senator David Vitter of Louisiana for apologizing for sexual indiscretions.  But America should be grateful he stayed in the Senate and did not resign in the wake of the media assault.  The senator demonstrated on Thursday, during a hearing into the U.N.’s Law of the Sea Treaty, that he is going to continue to do the job he was elected to do.  Vitter’s performance was so effective that he left State and Defense Department officials either speechless or caught up in embarrassing contradictions about the impact of this international agreement on America’s security and sovereignty.  It should now be perfectly obvious that Bush Administration officials, in collusion with liberal Senators, are trying to bamboozle the Senate into quickly ratifying a very dangerous pact.” 

USA COULD BECOME SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY UNLOST

“One area of concern is how other nations and international lawyers could use the treaty against the U.S. in a back-door effort to implement the (unratified) global warming treaty, with the result being higher gas prices for the American people and perhaps even energy rationing.  The Law of the Sea treaty creates a tribunal and various bodies, including dispute resolution or arbitral panels, to resolve conflicts which may arise.  Major parts of the treaty mandate international regulation of U.S. economic and industrial activities on land.  Greenhouse gases, for example, could be viewed under the terms of the treaty as contributing to pollution of the oceans.”

NEGROPONTE WAS POORLY PREPARED

“Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte told the Senate committee that the U.N. body established by the treaty has ‘no jurisdiction over marine pollution disputes involving land-based sources.’  He said, ‘that’s just not covered by the treaty.’  Negroponte’s sidekick, State Department Legal Adviser John B. Bellinger III, said, ‘It clearly does not allow regulation over land-based pollution sources.  That would stop at the water’s edge.’  But Vitter shot back, ‘…why is there a section entitled pollution from land-based sources?’  Not only is there a section by that name, Vitter pointed out, but there is a section on enforcement.  The section is Article 207, ‘Pollution from land-based sources.’  Anybody can look it up.  But apparently our top officials and lawyers have not.  Either that or they are trying to mislead the people about the ramifications of this treaty.  In either case, we are sunk if this treaty goes through.” 

UNLOST APOLOGISTS FORCED TO RETREAT

“It was absolutely clear to anyone paying attention that Negroponte and Bellinger either had no real understanding of what was in the treaty or didn’t want to tell the American people what was really in it.  In the end, under withering fire from Vitter, Bellinger insisted that the controversy was too ‘technical’ to discuss at the hearing and that he would submit something in writing.  Senator Jim Webb, chairing the hearing, suggested he do so, attempting to save Bellinger from further embarrassment.  Our liberal media favoring this treaty will, of course, not bother to point out that one of the top brains in the State Department had been caught in the act of trying to mislead the U.S. Senate.” 

FALSEHOODS AND EVASIONS FROM THE BUSHIES

            “This wasn’t the only exchange in which Vitter caught Bush Administration officials saying things that were untrue.  He caught them in evasions and obfuscations over the claim that U.S. military and intelligence activities on the high seas cannot be restricted by the treaty.  U.S. officials are making that claim in a declaration in the Senate resolution of ratification.  It is one of 24 declarations or understandings being made by the U.S. for a treaty that administration witnesses repeatedly claimed would provide ‘legal certainty’ about what nations can and cannot do on the high seas.

“If the treaty is so definitive and clear, then why is there a need for 24 declarations and understandings?  To make matters worse, these declarations and understandings have no legal validity under the treaty.  Here’s some of the exchange on this point: 

VITTER:  “ ‘Who decides what is and what is not a military activity?’

NEGROPONTE:  “ ‘We will decide that.  We consider that within our sovereign prerogative.’

VITTER:  “ ‘Where does the treaty say that we decide that and an arbitral body does not decide that?’ 

GORDON ENGLAND (Deputy Secretary of Defense):  “ ‘My understanding – and I’ll ask my lawyer behind me – that that’s in the treaty that we make that determination and that’s not subject to review by anyone else.’

VITTER:  “ ‘It’s not in the treaty because I point to Article 298 1b where it simply says disputes concerning military activities are not subject to dispute resolution.  But it doesn’t say who decides what is and what is not a military activity.’

ENGLAND:  “ ‘You’re right.’ 

“Once again, an administration witness had been caught saying something that was not true.  When Vitter asked whether the U.S. considered intelligence activities to be military activities, England said he thought so but quickly motioned for his lawyer to come forward.  But his lawyer didn’t seem to be in any rush to come to the microphone.  [State Dept. Legal Adviser] Bellinger piped in that it would be ‘up to us.’  Vitter countered that other signatories to the treaty will disagree, leading to inevitable disputes about what the U.S. could do.” 

SHOULD U.S. SECURITY BE ENTRUSTED TO STATE DEPARTMENT LAWYERS?

            “Exhibiting an arrogant streak, Bellinger told Senator Bob Corker that the U.S. had ‘effective lawyers’ and were likely to win most of the disputes.  He said each side picked arbitrators in a dispute but neglected to mention that the U.N. Secretary-General can pick some, too.  Most of the members of the U.N. Sea Treaty organization, like members of the U.N. itself, come from the anti-American bloc.”

UNDER UNLOST, U.S. HAS NO VETO

            “Despite Bellinger’s confidence in the ability of the legal profession, it is political power and anti-Americanism that will decide these outcomes.  That is why, except on the U.N. Security Council, where the U.S. has a veto, U.N. decisions almost always go against America and our economic and security interests.

“Bellinger told the Senate that the U.S. has a seat on the Council of the International Seabed Authority (ISA) and has a ‘veto’ over its decisions.  This is a body that collects taxes – dubbed ‘fees’ or ‘royalties’ by Bellinger and Negroponte – and then decides how to distribute them.  Later, however, Bellinger conceded that the decisions of the Council will be made through ‘consensus,’ which makes our so-called vote subservient to the dictates of the rest of the members.”

WHAT WOULD HILLARY DO?

“Of course, a liberal U.S. President such as Hillary Clinton, whose executive branch will determine the American vote on the Council, would most likely go along with the ‘consensus’ anyway.  Once it gets its hands on profits from the exploitation of oil, gas and minerals, the ISA could give billions of dollars to the anti-American Third World.  With this kind of money changing hands, it seems inevitable that another oil-for-food-type scandal could develop.  There are no provisions in the treaty for monitoring the ethical behavior of Law of the Sea treaty bureaucrats and employees.” 

UNLOST ADVANCES WORLD GOVERNMENT UNDER U.N.

“Administration officials falsely and repeatedly claimed that the international bodies set up by the treaty have no official involvement with the United Nations.  In fact, the International Seabed Authority and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea have written and formalized agreements with the U.N.  Their employees even belong to the U.N. pension fund.  The treaty itself has numerous references to the authority of the U.N., emphasizing how the pact is to be implemented in accordance with the U.N. Charter.” 

RHODES SCHOLAR LUGAR FLUNKS OUT

“Senator Richard Lugar, the top Republican on the Senate committee and long-time advocate of the treaty, turned in an embarrassing performance as well.  Lugar, who has accepted campaign contributions from the Citizens for Global Solutions, a pro-world government lobby, attacked critics of the pact as conspiracy theorists who were exaggerating the dangers of the pact.  He attacked an ad that my group, America’s Survival, had put in the Washington Times on Wednesday, saying it was misleading.  In fact, the claims were based on the text of the treaty and official U.N. documents.  I have been denied the opportunity to testify to set the record straight, which is another indication that the treaty is being rushed through before the American people can understand its ominous implications.” 

SENATOR JIM DeMINT ALSO CRITIQUES UNLOST

“Noting the outrage over the attempt to pass the Senate illegal alien amnesty bill, which also involved the issue of national sovereignty, Senator Jim DeMint said this was the wrong time to be trying to push the U.N.’s Law of the Sea Treaty through.

            “DeMint asked some tough questions of administration witnesses, focusing on the fact that while the U.S. would follow the treaty if ratified, other nations would not.  On the question of using the treaty to enforce international environmental accords, DeMint noted that Britain had been taken to court under the treaty for operating a nuclear plant on its own soil.  The South Carolina senator also rebutted the claim, mentioned often at the hearing, that President Reagan had rejected the treaty only because of its seabed mining provisions.  He read from the new book on Reagan’s diaries in which the former president says he would not have signed the treaty even without those provisions.”

21 UNLOST JUDGES COULD TRUMP HALF-SIZE U.S. NAVY

             “International Law:  Time was, Ronald Reagan’s 600-ship Navy gave us freedom of the seas.  But if Joe Biden and the Senate have their way, we’ll need the permission of 21 judges in Hamburg. …

            “Supporters say we must be a signatory to guarantee our share of the resources to be found under the world’s oceans and to avoid situations like the race to claim the sea bed under the Arctic between Russia, Canada and other states.  But experience suggests a Law of the Sea tribunal won’t protect interests we should be protecting ourselves.

            “LOST would create an International Seabed Authority (ISA) with the power to regulate and tax things like seabed mining, fishing rights and deep-sea oil exploration.  The ISA would decide who gets access to the sea’s resources, and the companies granted these rights would pay a royalty to the ISA.” 

UNLOST IS A GIANT STEP TOWARD WORLD GOVERNMENT

            “When he refused to sign ISA in 1982, President Reagan rightly decided the U.S. shouldn’t be a part of this global resource grab and redistribution of wealth.

            “It’s in the area of national security that LOST is most dangerous.  The administration cites military support for the treaty because of its uniform limit on territorial waters and its establishment of ‘rules of the road’ for littoral waters.  But current international law already protects nonaggressive passage of military ships.”

INSTEAD OF UNLOST, LET’S REBUILD U.S. NAVY

            “When Reagan vetoed the treaty, the U.S. Navy had 594 warships.  We could protect our own right of passage.  Today the fleet has withered to 276 vessels.  Is that why we need the treaty?

            “The answer is to build more warships.  Our access to the seas should be guaranteed by the Navy and not a U.N. bureaucracy. …” 

MUST U.N. GIVE PERMISSION FOR OUR DEFENSE?

            “According to George Mason University professor Jeremy Rabkin, many notable U.S. naval actions might have been considered illegal under the treaty.  Writing in the Weekly Standard, Rabkin notes a treaty like LOST might have prevented President Kennedy’s blockade of Cuba during the 1962 missile crisis.  We would’ve had to make our case before those Hamburg judges.

            “In the 1980s, Libya declared the entire Gulf of Sidra to be under Libyan authority, and ships entering the Gulf needed Libya’s permission first.  Reagan’s response was to dispatch a carrier task force that blew two Libyan patrol boats out of the water.  His, and our, point was made.

            “Since the days of John Paul Jones, our access to and freedom of the sea has been guaranteed by the power of the U.S. Navy.  If Joe Biden and the Senate have their way, our motto might soon be ‘We have not yet begun to negotiate.’ ”  Source:  Editorial, Investor’s Business Daily, 9/26/07, p. A15

Excerpted from Howard Phillips Issues & Strategy Bulletin of September 30, 2007

UNLOST IS A RECURRING NIGHTMARE

             “LOST stands for the ‘Law of the Sea Treaty.’  It’s an odious proposal that was first dreamed up by the advocates of world government several decades ago.  The treaty would give the United Nations vast new powers – and a vast new source of revenue.  LOST has been promoted, and rejected, many times in the past.  But like the villain in a Hollywood horror movie, it keeps coming back from the grave.

            “The treaty was originally drafted back in the 1970s, as part of a UN scheme to gain control of all of the resources on, in, and under the world’s oceans.  Not content to dictate such issues as fishing boundaries and navigation, the treaty would have given control of all oceanic mining, among other things, to the United Nations.”

VAST NEW POWERS AND RESOURCES WOULD GO TO U.N.

            “But even worse – and far more dangerous – the treaty would have provided the UN with a vast new source of funds.  It could actually make the UN independent of the national contributions that fund it today. I shudder to think of what the virulently anti-U.S. majority in the UN would do, once it has its own courts, its own military, and enough funds to finance all of its nastiest schemes.

            “LOST would give the UN the power to tax businesses that want to develop the oceans’ resources.  The treaty tries to conceal the fact that it would grant such powers to the UN by labeling the taxes with such euphemisms as ‘assessments,’ ‘fees,’ ‘permits,’ ‘payments,’ and (you gotta love this one) ‘contributions.’

            “Under the Law of the Sea Treaty, an ‘International Seabed Authority’ would be created, under the control of the United Nations, to decide who gets all of the minerals and other resources on the oceans’ seabeds.  Not only who gets them, but also how much they pay for them.

            “Think the ultra-corrupt ‘Food for Peace’ program was a disaster?  Just wait until the bureaucrats of world government have billions of dollars pouring in from their management of all the world’s oceans. …”

UNLOST MAY SOON BE A DONE DEAL

            “In rapid and short order, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice endorsed LOST.  So did the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the American Bar Association, and a host of other worthies.  Joe Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican, both declared their strong support for the measure.  Oh, and did I mention that President George W. Bush also agreed to put his influence, such as it is, behind the treaty?

            “Yes, folks, the Establishment is about to launch a full-court press to finally get the Law of the Sea Treaty ratified.  The word I get from Washington is that LOST will be brought up for a vote soon after Congress returns from its summer recess.”  Source:  Chip Wood, Straight Talk, 8/28/07

Excerpted from Howard Phillips Issues & Strategy Bulletin of March 15, 2005

"During her confirmation hearings, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was asked a question that got lost in the Barbara Boxer brouhaha: Did the administration favor the ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST?

"Rice said the administration ‘would certainly like to see it pass as soon as possible.’ Assuming she was authorized to say that by President Bush … the question is why?"

"LOST was a bad idea when President Reagan refused to sign it in 1982 and actually fired the State Department staff members who helped negotiate it. It was drafted at the behest of Soviet bloc and Third World dictators interested in a scheme to weaken U.S. power while transferring wealth to the developing world."

"The Convention on the Law of the Sea would do to our maritime activities – military and economic – what the ICC would have done to our system of criminal justice: place it under the thumb of a supranational body, in this case the discredited and corrupt U.N.

"… LOST would have created an agency to regulate 70% of the Earth’s surface, placing seabed mining, fishing rights and deep-sea oil exploration under the control of a global bureaucracy. Reagan didn’t think the U.S. should be a part of this global resource grab and redistribution of wealth. …"

"LOST would also crimp our use of naval power. Signatory Communist China contends, for example, that the treaty bans an initiative under which we can stop and search ships on the high seas suspected of transporting WMD on behalf of terrorists.

"Who’d decide such a dispute? An international court, of course, specifically a Law of the Sea Tribunal with power to compel changes in our military and economic policies. The likes of Sierra Leone and Sri Lanka would have a veto over our use of the seas."

"When John Kerry declared that U.S. actions be subjected to a ‘global test,’ Bush rightly responded that our national security was too important to be left to bodies such as the United Nations Security Council. So why the administration support for LOST? Deep-six this treaty, Mr. President." Source: Investor’s Business Daily editorial, 2/11/05, p. A14

Excerpted from Howard Phillips Issues & Strategy Bulletin of January 15, 2005

"President Bush yesterday ordered the creation of a new federal panel to coordinate oceanic policy. James L. Connaughton, who as chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality will head the new committee, said that among its early goals would be to expand the use of fishing quotas ‘in appropriate settings’ and to win ratification of the Law of the Sea, the international regulatory system that the Bush administration favors but that the Senate has long refused to endorse. …

"Mr. Connaughton said the new committee would consider how uses of coastal areas should be regulated, not just for oil and gas drilling but also for an array of activities, like a wind farm proposed for Nantucket Sound, south of Cape Cod. In many areas, he said, ‘there’s not a clear process for regulation.’ …

"He also said he was hopeful that Senate opposition to the Law of the Sea could be overcome." Source: Cornelia Dean, The New York Times, 12/18/04, p. A13