Opportunity
knocking: defeat Law of the Sea Treaty
Phyllis Schlafly
February 7, 2005
When Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., asked
Condoleezza Rice during her confirmation hearings about the Law of the Sea
Treaty, she replied that President George W. Bush "certainly would like to see
it passed as soon as possible." Assuming she was authorized to deliver that
shocking news, the president can no longer claim the mantle of Ronald Reagan's
conservative legacy.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was a terrible idea
when then-President Reagan refused to sign it in 1982 and fired the State
Department staff who helped negotiate it. It's an even worse idea today because
of the additional dangers it poses.
The acronym for the Law of the Sea Treaty - LOST - is apt. LOST is the
correct word for our sovereignty that would be lost under LOST.
Republicans who oppose this giant giveaway are looking at a stunning
historical model. Reagan became the conservative standard bearer when he led
the fight against the Panama Canal Treaty, which was supported by incumbent
Presidents Ford and Carter.
The battle to prevent the Panama Canal giveaway was lost in 1977 by one
vote in the U.S. Senate. But that battle made Reagan the undisputed leader of
the conservative movement and multiplied its activists.
Hindsight teaches us that the battle was well worth fighting because it
brought about the cataclysmic events of 1980: the election of a real
pro-American conservative president plus the defeat of most of the
internationalist senators who voted for the giveaway.
Conservatives are currently searching for a man of pro-American
principles whom they can support for President in 2008. The Republican senator
or governor who steps up to the plate can hit a home run if he leads the battle
against LOST's enormous wealth transfer to the unpopular United Nations.
The LOST is grounded in such un-American and un-Republican concepts as
global socialism and world government. There is not much of a constituency
today for giving more power and wealth to the United Nations, whose officials
just committed the biggest corruption in history (oil-for-food) and continually
use the United Nations as a platform for anti-American diatribes.
LOST is so bad that it is a puzzlement how anyone who respects American
sovereignty could support it with a straight face. LOST would give its own
creation, the International Seabed Authority, the power to regulate 70 percent
of the world's surface area, a territory greater than the Soviet Union ruled at
its zenith.
LOST would give the authority power to levy international taxes, one of
the essential indicia of sovereignty. This authority power is artfully
concealed behind direct U.S. assessments and fees paid by corporations, but the
proper word is taxes.
LOST would give the authority power to regulate ocean research and
exploration. The LOST would give the authority power to impose production
quotas for deep-sea mining and oil production.
LOST would give the authority the power to create a multinational court
system and to enforce its judgments. The authority's courts would have even
wider jurisdiction than the International Criminal Court - to which,
fortunately, we do not belong - or the World Trade Organization, which has
ruled against the United States a dozen times and forced us to change our tax
laws and import duties.
There is no guarantee that the United States would even be represented
on the authority's tribunals. The whole concept of putting the United States in
the noose of another one-nation-one-vote global organization, which reduces
America to the same vote as Cuba, is offensive to Americans.
In the post-9/11 world, the idea of signing a treaty that mandates
information-sharing with our enemies plus technology transfers is not only
dangerous but ridiculous.
Of course, former President Bill Clinton is for the LOST; he signed it
in 1994. The LOST meshes perfectly with his speech to the United Nations in
September 1997, in which he boasted of wanting to put America into a "web" of
treaties for "the emerging international system."
Of course, Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Lugar is for LOST. Like
Clinton, he is a Rhodes scholar and an internationalist who never saw a United
Nations treaty he didn't like.
Vice President Cheney is an advocate of LOST. He doesn't have to listen
to U.S. voters because he will never again run for office.
Lugar's Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing about LOST, held
without any publicity and with only advocates invited to testify, was an insult
to the American people. U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., will
forfeit his chance to be in the running for the Republican nomination for
president if he schedules a vote before all Senate committees affected by the
LOST hold hearings with both sides represented.
The real purpose of LOST is to force the United States to use our wealth
and technology to mine the riches of the sea and turn them over to a gang of
Third World dictators who are consumed with envy of America. Opportunity is
knocking for a Republican senator or governor who will lead the charge against
LOST.
©2005 Copley News Service [Non-text portions of this
message have been removed]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or
payment to those who have expressed prior interest in receiving this
information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For further
information please refer to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
|