Posted on 02/27/2004 2:18:47 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
John Kerry wants a world in which the United Nations calls the shots and U.S. freedom of action, in the absence of the U.N.'s permission, is sharply circumscribed. Most Americans recognize that this would be a formula for disaster — a world in which the lowest-common-multilateral-denominator would routinely trump, and often jeopardize, our security interests.
President George W. Bush's supporters believe that he rejects this Kerry-Clinton worldview. They look forward to a national election in which voters get to choose between his Reaganesque philosophy of peace through American strength and Kerry's U.N. uber alles.
So why would the Bush administration be pushing for the ratification of a treaty that will make a giant leap towards John Kerry's world?
On Wednesday, Sen. Kerry voted by proxy (since he can't take time off from running for president to do his day job in person) for a resolution of ratification that would make the U.S. a party to the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). He was able to do so, however, only because the Bush team decided to eschew President Reagan's 1982 judgment that LOST was irremediably defective, in favor of President Clinton's 1994 assessment that the accord was in America's interests. With the support of the Bush administration, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar brought the treaty to a unanimous favorable vote and promises to try to get the Senate to act on it "as soon as possible."
Unfortunately, as usual, Ronald Reagan was right and Bill Clinton was wrong. Here's why:
The treaty effectively prohibits two functions vital to American security: collecting intelligence in, and submerged transit of, territorial waters. Mandatory information sharing will afford U.S. enemies data that could be used to facilitate attacks on this country (e.g., detailed imagery of underwater access routes and offshore hiding places). Obligatory technology transfers will equip actual or potential adversaries with sensitive and militarily useful equipment and know-how (such as anti-submarine warfare technology).
The truth of the matter is that the Law of the Sea Treaty is so defective, so contrary to U.S. interests that the only way it could possibly be ratified is for it to be blown through the Senate when no one is looking. That is precisely what Sen. Lugar is trying to do. He has: prevented critics from testifying before his own committee; kept other committees from being briefed on the treaty; and is seeking to get it to the Senate floor before effective opposition can be organized and expressed. This abuse of traditional Senate practice and good governance must not be allowed to stand.
Alas, in addition to the wealth redistributors, one-worlders, environmentalists, international lawyers, and the other usual suspects on the Left, the U.S. Navy, the American oil industry and Vice President Cheney currently support LOST. Such support appears to be motivated by narrow, parochial, and shortsighted reasons (e.g., the belief that having internationally agreed "rules of the road" for the world's oceans will be good for the respective businesses of the Navy and the deep-sea "oil patch.")
Such myopic support is even more grievously misplaced and foolish than that given in 1997 by a powerful trade association — the Chemical Manufacturers Association — to another defective treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention. Thanks to the CMA's lobbying at the time, its members are today (as was predicted) being subjected to onerous international inspections, thereby risking, among other things, the loss of proprietary information to foreign spies masquerading as international inspectors. Now, too late, they wish the U.S. had not ratified the CWC.
The U.S. cannot afford once again to ignore the real and grave costs of an ill-conceived and strategically ill-advised treaty at the behest of parochial and misguided special interests. Their later regrets will pale beside those the rest of us will feel.
The bottom line is that the Law of the Sea is a prime example of the way people like Sen. Kerry would like the world to be ordered and run. It is not consistent with Republican governing principles and values — or, more importantly, this country's vital interests. If President Bush's base is upset, and properly so, over his immigration and spending-policy errors, they will be furious when they learn that his administration is willing to cede unprecedented American sovereignty, power, and control over who taxes and regulates U.S. businesses to the U.N.
Given what is at stake, Richard Lugar's efforts to ram the Law of the Sea Treaty through the Senate are all the more objectionable. It is imperative that other Senate committees whose jurisdictions will be affected by LOST (including Armed Services, Intelligence, Commerce, Environment and Public Works, Governmental Affairs, and Finance — and for that matter their House counterparts, which may have to consider enacting legislation) should be able to hold their own, far-more-balanced hearings before the full Senate is asked to consider John Kerry's treaty.
Hmm... well of course there is the executive order to, um . .
Oh, oh well cetainly. The E.O. for gays in the military . . erp . . . no.
Dang! I'm stumped.
Was there one?
fyi ...
I hadn't heard anything about this until now ...
Other's might question Kucinich's veracity. 8^O
"If the human race as a whole, rather than 50 states plus the District of Colombia, could cast a ballot this coming November, John Kerry would surely win the presidency by a landslide."Unfortunately for President Bush-haters around the world, only the 200 million United States citizens of voting age will have that right - and the outcome is anything but sure."
We are not allowed to post the Independent's articles on FR - I tried - but I thought all should be reminded of the Leftist Mindset concerning our democratic elections, our nation's sovereignty, and our Constitutional Republic. They are One-Worlders to a man. John Kerry is currently their American representative, and he voted for this LOST way of allowing the UN to tax American citizens, to control our military maneuvers, and to tell us what we can and can not do in international waters.
Says Frank J. Gaffney Jr.:
"The bottom line is that the Law of the Sea is a prime example of the way people like Sen. Kerry would like the world to be ordered and run. It is not consistent with Republican governing principles and values — or, more importantly, this country's vital interests."
Speaking of Law of the Sea, Kerry's Kerry ancestors "came over" to America on the ship Koenigin Luise in "First Class."
"Says Frank J. Gaffney Jr.:
"The bottom line is that the Law of the Sea is a prime example of the way people like Sen. Kerry would like the world to be ordered and run. It is not consistent with Republican governing principles and values — or, more importantly, this country's vital interests."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
At what point will U.N. "Law" overtake U.S. Law?
Is it even possible, or being contemplated by those in our own government to merge our national authority into that of the U.N. with the U.N. taking precedence?
Is this all just a Conspiracy theory or pipe dream of a few wacky militant rednecks?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"They are One-Worlders to a man. John Kerry is currently their American representative, and he voted for this LOST way of allowing the UN to tax American citizens, to control our military maneuvers, and to tell us what we can and can not do in international waters."
The United Nations Wants to TAX you!
"Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali ... urged the [UN] to consider imposing its own taxes to become less dependent on the United States...."
-Washington Times, January 16, 1996
Are you concerned that...
...numerous taxation schemes to finance the UN are being considered?
Economist James Tobin proposed in 1972 that the UN be the recipient of a tax of 0.05% on foreign exchange transactions. In 1993, the Ford Foundation produced Financing an Effective United Nations, a report containing recommendations that the UN tax airline traffic, shipping, and arms sales. In 1995, the UN-funded Commission on Global Governance suggested that the UN collect levies from those who use "flight lanes, sea lanes for ships, ocean fishing areas, and the electromagnetic spectrum." Ultimately, of course, the burden of all taxation falls on consumers.
Are you concerned that...
...a State Department study specifically proposed giving the UN taxing power and, ultimately, control of the world?
In 1962, the State Department financed a study entitled "A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations." The report outlined what would be needed for such a total world government: "a mandatory universal membership," an ability to use "physical force," and "compulsory jurisdiction" of its courts. One of the UN's "principle features," stated the report, would be "enforceable taxing powers." (Emphasis added.)
Are you concerned that...
...no matter how much our nation gives, the UN will never be satisfied?
In addition to hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars in foreign aid, our nation has provided the UN with tens of billions more for its programs since 1945. Currently, U.S. contributions make up 25% of the UN's annual budget. But, in his May 2001 speech at Notre Dame University, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan complained with a typical anit-American attitude, "It is shameful that the United States ... should be one of the least generous in terms of helping the world's poor."
Are you concerned that...
...taxing authority would fuel an unaccountable UN Superstate?
Former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali said of a UN tax: "We would no be under the daily financial will of member states who are unwilling to pay up." UN Founder Harlan Cleveland made the same point in Futures: Rather than relying on "the worn-out policy of year-to-year decisions by individual governments" (about how much to give the UN), "what's needed is a flow of funds for development which are generated automatically under international control." And there would be no Congress to limit the UN's appetite for your tax dollars!
The United Nations Wants to Take Your Land!
"Private land ownership ... contributes to social injustice.... Public control of land use is therefore indispensable."
- United Nations "Habitat I" Conference Report, 1976
- United Nations "Habitat I" Conference Report, 1976
I wonder, would that explain, at least in part, why the UN stands aside while farmers in Zimbabwe and Namibia are stripped of their property and the land awarded to "the poor". (Under state control of course.)
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.
