Skip to comments.President Bush tells base to "get LOST"
Posted on 05/13/2007 9:59:47 AM PDT by upchuck
|The Law of the Sea Treaty will impede the U.S.'s ability to defend its interests in time of war.|
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:
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.
Between this latest national sovereignty killer and his do nothing approach to illegal aliens over running our country, I'm about ready to give up on W.
(I really, really hated writing that last paragraph.)
These are dark times indeed.
Long term Sea security is in the interest of the entire free world.
I don’t want it to be our Coast Guard that enforces that, do you?
It does seem that this president is staying up nights trying to figure out more ways to dissolve our national sovereignty. I hate to say that, too—but what else can we think after watching him for 7 years?
The ruling class in this country, with the assistance both political parties, is bound and determined to steer us to a one world government. The only differences are the ‘how’ and the ‘when’.
I find it interesting that those in the Bush Administration who are pushing this abomination buried this for the last couple years, after most leaders in the conservative movement made their opposition known in no uncertain terms, but NOW see fit to go for it. Why is that? My guess? They see that those who are their closest ideological kin are now in power. They’re called Democrats.
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. JK
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
This so-called treaty is nothing more than another try at a power grab that will favor only the international elites.
If JEB is so solid, why doesn’t he speak out for his country?
Opportunity Knocking: Defeat Law Of The Sea Treaty
When Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) asked Condoleezza Rice during her confirmation hearings about the Law of the Sea Treaty, she replied that President Bush “certainly would like to see it passed as soon as possible.” Assuming she was authorized to deliver that shocking news, George W. Bush can no longer claim the mantle of the Ronald Reagan legacy.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was a terrible idea when President Reagan refused to sign it in 1982 and fired the State Department staff who helped to 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. Ronald Reagan became the conservative standard bearer when he led the fight against the Panama Canal Treaty which was supported by incumbent Presidents Ford and then Carter.
We lost the battle to prevent the Panama Canal giveaway by one Senate vote in 1977. 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 UN as a platform for anti-American diatribes.
The 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 (ISA), the power to regulate seven-tenths of the world’s surface area, a territory greater than the Soviet Union ruled at its zenith.
The LOST would give ISA the power to levy international taxes, one of the essential indicia of sovereignty. This ISA power is artfully concealed behind direct U.S. assessments and fees paid by corporations, but the proper word is taxes.
The LOST would give ISA the power to regulate ocean research and exploration. The LOST would give ISA the power to impose production quotas for deep-sea mining and oil production.
The LOST would give ISA the power to create a multinational court system and to enforce its judgments. The ISA 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 ISA 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, 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, Foreign Relations Chairman Richard 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 American 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. Majority Leader Bill Frist 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 the LOST.
The worst thing about the LOST is that it grants the International Seabed Authority the power to tax.
Think about it.
A bunch of unelected internationalist progressives, with the authority to impose taxes?
From this follows, as certain as night follows day:
1. They’ll abuse that authority. They’re answerable to no one, why would they not.
2. Other unaccountable transnational authorities will also be given the authority to impose taxes.
3. They, also, will abuse their authority.
4. The process of ending that abuse will be long, expensive, and bloody.
The notion that any kind of international court or tribunal would have the ability to enforce anything at all against the U.S. is rather silly. The United States is the only country left that has the ability to project military force all over the world, and we have shown through our own violations of trade agreements that we don’t abide by any decision from an international body that we don’t agree with.
Is this a reliable source of information? I haven’t seen anything else to indicate this intention of the president. There are certainly people in the State Department who would support and leak this. But, the president? We’ll see.
Don’t forget Al.
UN treaties are effective means for US to help Third World
Gore said that agencies of the United Nations offer the US an effective means of doing our fair share to alleviate suffering in some of the most miserable corners of the globe. On treaties not signed by the United States, Mr. Gore gave unequivocal support to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Law of the Sea Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
Source: Barbara Crossette, NY Times Aug 20, 2000
The Law of the Sea Treaty
by Carrie E. Donovan
The Law of the Sea Treaty (”Treaty”) was conceived in 1982 by the United Nations (U.N.) as a method for governing activities on, over, and beneath the ocean’s surface. It focuses primarily on navigational and transit issues. The Treaty also contains provisions on the regulation of deep-sea mining and the redistribution of wealth to underdeveloped countries—as well as sections regarding marine trade, pollution, research, and dispute resolution. The Bush Administration has expressed interest in joining the International Seabed Authority and has urged the U.S. Senate to ratify the Treaty. However, many of former President Ronald Reagan’s original objections to the Treaty—while modified—still hold true today, and many of the possible national security advantages are already in place.
National Security Issues
Under the Treaty, a 12-mile territorial sea limit and a 200-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) are established. This sets a definitive limit on the oceanic area over which a country may claim jurisdiction. However, innocent passage—including non-wartime activities of military ships—is protected. Even without the Treaty, these boundaries, and the precedent of safe passage, are protected under multiple independent treaties, as well as traditional international maritime law. Additionally, given the United States’ naval superiority, few countries would attempt to deny safe passage. However, under the Treaty, intelligence and submarine maneuvers in territorial waters would be restricted and regulated.
Environmental and Economic Issues
Former President Reagan refused to sign the Treaty in 1982 due to its innate conflict with basic free-market principles (e.g., private property, free enterprise, and competition). Twelve years later, the Clinton Administration submitted to the U.S. Senate a revised version of the Treaty. This revised version allegedly corrected many of the original objections to the Treaty, but still failed to receive Senate ratification: Therefore, the United States’ provisional participation expired in 1998. The Treaty still requires adherence to policies that regulate deep-sea mining, as well as forcing participants to adopt laws and regulations to control and prevent marine pollution. Additionally, under the Treaty, a corporation cannot bring suit, but must rely upon its country of origin to address the corporation’s concerns before the U.N. agency.
Former President Reagan’s first objection to the Treaty was the Principle of the “Common Heritage of Mankind,” which dictates that oceanic resources should be shared among all mankind and cannot be claimed by any one nation or people. In order to achieve this goal, the Treaty creates the International Seabed Authority (”Authority”) to regulate and exploit mineral resources. It requires a company to submit an application fee of $500,000 (now $250,000), as well as a bonus site for the Authority to utilize for its own mining efforts. Additionally, the corporation must pay an annual fee of $1 million, as well as a percentage of its profits (increasing annually up to 7%), and must agree to share mining and navigational technology—thereby ensuring that opportunities aren’t restricted to more technologically advanced countries. The decision to grant or to withhold mining permits is decided by the Authority, which consists disproportionately of underdeveloped countries. Technology-sharing is no longer mandatory, however, there are remaining “principles” to guide its use and distribution. Additionally, the Council has been restructured so that the United States has a permanent seat, and developed countries can create a blocking vote.
Secondly, former President Reagan believed that the Treaty would restrict the world’s supply of minerals. The Treaty was originally designed to limit the exploitation of heavy minerals in order to protect the mineral sales of land-locked, developing nations. This is no longer a severe limitation, because production limits to preserve land-based mining have been removed.
The third—and still valid—objection is that mandatory dispute resolution restricts autonomy. Either a U.N. court or tribunal must mandate maritime issues involving fisheries, marine environmental protection, and preservation, research, and navigation. A country may opt out if the dispute involves maritime boundaries, military, or limited law enforcement activities. Submitting to external jurisdiction creates an uncomfortable precedent. Furthermore, it weakens the U.S. argument of autonomy when it refuses to submit to the International Criminal Court. Additionally, a country must petition to be excluded from mandatory jurisdiction requirements.
Carrie E. Donovan is Production and Operations Coordinator in the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
Bush is just following orders.
I gave up on the sob a long time ago. This is the 2nd time he’s tried to push the LOST treaty by us.
In spite of Frist being weak on several things...at least he knocked this one down last time it came around...
out of the archives:
[NRO Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.] Dont Get LOST: The White House Toys with Signing a Very Kerry Treaty
March 18, 2004, 11:56 a.m.
Dont Get LOST
The White House toys with signing a very Kerry treaty.
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
In the wake of international terrorism’s most-successful strategic attack since September 11, 2001, the differences between Sen. John Kerry and President Bush about how the war on terror should be waged have become as clear as, well, the differences between the outgoing Spanish premier and his successor.
To be sure, even before last Thursday’s murderous explosions in Madrid, Senator Kerry and his surrogates were denouncing the war in Iraq on the grounds that President Bush failed to get the U.N.’s permission for it and then was unable to turn the governance of the country post-Saddam over to the so-called “international community.” This theme has, however, received mantra-like repetition by the Democratic candidate and his echo chamber ever since the terrorists took down Spain’s government.
The good news is that the Bush administration has finally launched a powerful counterattack. Just about every senior national-security official from President Bush on down has suddenly been made available to explain the logic of removing Saddam Hussein from power as an indispensable part of the war on terror. They and key legislators (like Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee) have at last gone on offense in response to the ceaseless, direct, and indirect attacks on the Bush team’s integrity as it made the case for draining the “swamp” that was Saddam’s terrorist-sponsoring, WMD-wielding Iraq.
Perhaps most importantly, President Bush and his advocates have directly challenged Senator Kerry, et.al., with respect to what may prove to be the most important foreign-policy issue of the 2004 campaign: John Kerry’s worldview that U.S. freedom of action around the world can safely and, indeed, as a practical matter must be subordinated to the U.N.’s superior judgment. In a powerful example of the assault now being inflicted on the Kerry record and candidacy, Vice President Cheney declared yesterday at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library: “The United States will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country.”
The bad news is that the Bush administration risks grievously blurring where it stands on the appropriate, limited role of the United Nations in determining our security and other interests with its advocacy of a treaty that President Reagan properly rejected 22 years ago. As was noted in this space on February 26, the administration’s declared support for the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) caused it to be approved unanimously by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee even though this accord would constitute the most egregious transfer of American sovereignty, wealth, and power to the U.N. since the founding of that “world body.” In fact, never before in the history of the world has any nation voluntarily engaged in such a sweeping transfer to anyone.
This is the case because LOST creates a new supranational agency, the International Seabed Authority (ISA), which will have control of seven-tenths of the world surface area, i.e., the planet’s international waters. That control will enable the ISA and a court created to adjudicate and enforce its edicts the right to determine who does what, where, when, and how in the oceans under its purview. This applies first and foremost to exploration and exploitation of the mineral and oil and gas deposits on or under the seabeds an authority that will enable the U.N. for the first time to impose what amount to taxes on commercial activities.
LOST, however, will also interfere with America’s sovereign exercise of freedom of the seas in ways that will have an adverse effect on national security, especially in the post-9/11 world. Incredibly, it will preclude, for example, the president’s important new Proliferation Security Initiative. PSI is a multinational arrangement whereby ships on the high seas that are suspected of engaging in the transfer of WMD-related equipment can be intercepted, searched, and, where appropriate, seized. Its value was demonstrated in the recent interception of nuclear equipment headed to Libya.
Similarly, LOST will define intelligence collection in and submerged transit of territorial waters to be incompatible with the treaty’s requirements that foreign powers conduct themselves in such seas only with “peaceful intent.” The last thing we need is for some U.N. court or U.S. lawyers in its thrall to make it more difficult for us to conduct sensitive counterterrorism operations in the world’s littorals.
Since my last column on this subject, there have been several notable developments with respect to the Law of the Sea Treaty:
It has become clear that one of the prime movers behind the Bush administration’s support for this U.N.-on-steroids treaty is none other than John Turner, a man property-rights activists kept from assuming a senior position in the Interior Department. Correctly seen by that community as a wild-eyed proponent of conservation at the expense of landowners’ equities, he was given a consolation prize: a seemingly innocuous post as the State Department’s assistant secretary for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs. It turns out that in that position and thanks to his longtime friendship with Vice President Cheney Turner has greatly advanced what is arguably the most egregious assault on property rights in history.
The United States Navy has trotted out arguments for this treaty that reflect what might be called the River Kwai Syndrome. Like the British senior POW in World War II who couldn’t bring himself to blow up a bridge his captors would use to their military advantage, Navy lawyers seem convinced that a bad deal is better than none.
Even though this accord will manifestly interfere with important peacetime naval operations, JAG types tell us they think it will be good for their business if freedom of the seas is guaranteed by a new, U.N.-administered international legal system rather than by U.S. naval power. They speciously assert that a 1994 agreement negotiated by President Clinton fixes the problems that caused President Reagan to reject LOST never mind that the Clinton accord does not amend or otherwise formally modify one jot of the treaty.
Fortunately, this nonsense will be exposed to critical examination in coming weeks as two Senate committees, Environment and Public Works and Armed Services, hold hearings on LOST. Their chairmen, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R., Okla.) and John Warner (R., Va.), respectively, deserve credit for inviting critics of the treaty (including this author) to provide testimony Indiana Republican senator Richard Lugar refused to permit the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to hear before it approved the resolution of ratification. (Other committees that have equities in this fight like Governmental Affairs, Commerce, Energy, Intelligence and Finance have yet to be heard from.)
The prospect these hearings and the attendant public scrutiny of the Law of the Sea Treaty will precipitate a time-consuming and politically costly debate has prompted Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R., Tenn.) to say that he sees no opportunity for the foreseeable future to bring this accord to the floor. Assuming he is good to his word, still more time will be available to awaken the American people to what is afoot.
Most importantly, one of those people, President George W. Bush, may recently have been awakened to the dangers political, as well as strategic and economic inherent in this treaty. In response to a question recently put to him by Paul Weyrich, the legendary conservative activist and president of the Free Congress Foundation, President Bush indicated that he was unaware of the Law of the Sea Treaty and his administration’s support for it. It can only be hoped that, as he conducts the promised review of LOST, he will make clear he does not want it ratified, now or ever.
Better yet, President Bush should assign his trusted undersecretary of Arms Control and International Security, John Bolton, the job of arranging for LOST to be “unsigned” just as he did with respect to the fatally flawed treaty that created the International Criminal Court. Secretary Bolton would be particularly appropriate for this job, since he was also the prime architect of the Proliferation Security Initiative that the Law of the Sea Treaty would eviscerate.
While such developments are generally welcome, one thing curiously has not happened. The alarm about the defective Law of the Sea Treaty has still not been sounded by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. It can only be hoped that, as the Senate hearings on LOST start next week, this oversight will be corrected, ensuring that the treaty is deep-sixed, once and for all.
Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy and a contributing editor to NRO.
I only voted for GWB as the lesser of two evils in 2000, and again, even more unwillingly, in 2004. Bush, like Fred Thompson, is a globalist, one world government, New World Order - whatever you want to call it, just like GHWB is. I didn’t vote for “dad” the second time around, but worked for Pat Buchanan’s nomination. SO NO MORE VOTING FOR THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS. I’d rather die a quick death than a slow one.
Since she wrote this a little over two years ago, it seems almost prophetic when she wrote:
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 LOSTs enormous wealth transfer to the unpopular United Nations.Hmmm... I wonder where Fred Thompson is on this? I suspect against. Anybody have more info?
Lost? I guess the big question now is “what’s the deal with Jacob?” Locke wont die from Ben shooting him, the island will heal Locke, as it also allowed him to walk. Meanwhile, which side will Juliet ultimately work for? My guess is the Lostaways, she really does hate Ben after all.
It does seem that this president is staying up nights trying to figure out more ways to dissolve our national sovereignty.
following in daddys footsteps.....remember that it was daddy who (AFTER losing the 92 election) committed the US to “fast-track” legislative action on the NAFTA matter, forcing the issue during the klinton debacle.....THAT BUSH had only 2 months as a lame-duck......THIS BUSH has 2 YEARS as a lame-duck!
elitist, globalist tool.
There is something wrong with G W Bush.
When was Mr. Bush ever able to make such a claim? When he teamed up with Sen. Kennedy on the education bill, or when he bloated government spending in the agriculture bill?
Sorry, I didn’t mean you. I was referring to gw
The link is at the bottom of my post #13.
Thought this might interest you. I haven’t read it or the whole thread yet, will get to it later. Looks like the kind of think you (and I) hate.
LOST WILL GUARANTEE THAT THE UN NEVER HAS TO BOW AND SCRAPE FOR MONEY!!
“None of these concerns about sovereignty matter in a post-9/11 world. The only thing that matters is the WOT “
IMO its probably the work of a very few large corporations trying to cut out the small business.
I’ve been checking for Hunter on this. Have not found anything, I’ll look for Fred.
Reagan didn’t like it.
Law of the Sea Treaty threatens sovereignty
November 23, 2004
In 1982, President Reagan decided LOST was a Treaty that would not be in our country’s best interest to ratify, primarily because of his concern regarding the provisions governing deep seabed mining. However, our concern should extend well beyond that. LOST would have our country surrender its sovereignty on the seas to a body called the International Seabed Authority (ISA), whose membership is stacked in favor of Third World nations. If the Senate ratifies LOST, we will have given the ISA the authority to determine what rights our country will have to mine minerals located on the ocean floor and the right to tax their extraction. More than that, we also will have granted the ISA the right to regulate our transfers of military technology, even the right to determine in what situations our Navy can stop a vessel.
Conflicts involving LOST will not be settled by our country’s courts but by an international tribunal.[snip]
Another fine example of Bush the globalist.
Ding dong, ding dong ......
You got it. LOST is the giving away of the game to the U.N.
LOST is what will put the UN Charter at the top of the heap above the US Constitution!
Bush is a traitor and there is no way around it.
LOST establishes a new nation; the Ocean-sea. LOST confirms the UN as the sovereign power over the Ocean-sea.
It’s that simple. It’s that terrible!
Keep in mind as you both get up to speed on LOST that it applies to continents too.
The way it is intended to be used on Continents is by controlling the entire atmosphere and the environment of that atmosphere. If there are emissions emanating from the USA to Europe over the ocean, the LOST governing body can impose penalties on the USA.
LOST really is the UN’s agenda law for imposing its will on America.
I haven’t written my congress critters in years. Just fired off three letters opposing LOST.
I don’t think they’ll oppose the President, though. Myrick & Dole seem to be firmly behind him on every topic.
"The LOS Treaty establishes a sweeping claim of jurisdiction over the seabed and all its mineral wealth. It creates an International Seabed Authority in which it vests control of two thirds of the Earths surface.
Under the LOS Treaty the power of the Seabed Authority would be vested in an Assembly made up of all participating states and an Executive Council of 36 members elected by the Assembly to represent investors, consumers, exporters of affected minerals, developing states, and all the geographical areas of the world.
The formula for representation guaranteed that the industrialized producer countries would be a permanent minority. And they would have a majority of obligations. Most importantly, votes of the Assembly would be on the basis of one vote/one country, with a two-thirds majority binding on all parties.
A company desiring to get a contract for seabed exploration would be required to identify two promising sites, one of which would be claimed by the Authority to mine itself or to otherwise dispose of, the other of which may be given to the company. The company would be required to provide its technology to the Authority, which would also be provided to members with the capital necessary for mining.
Special taxes would be imposed and special care would be taken to protect existing producers of minerals against competition from minerals available in sea. Worst of all, there was no guarantee that qualified applicants ready to meet these requirements would be granted permission for mining.
From the Reagan Administrations point of view, the most disturbing aspect of the LOS Treaty was the structure of decision making. We felt the U.S. role in decisions should reflect our political and economic interests in the Treaty and our contributions to UN operations. The G-77 was determined to treat all nations alike, and the U.S. as one nation among 180. We were not guaranteed a seat on the 36 member executive council.
The notion that the oceans or space are the common heritage of mankind wasand isa dramatic departure from traditional Western conceptions of private property. ....
The Reagan Administration also saw serious constitutional questions. How could the constitutional requirement that treaties be ratified by the Senate be met if the contents of the agreement could be altered by a two-thirds vote of the members? This provision for easy amendment by an Assembly majority made the Treaty an open ended commitment. Henceforth, the United States would be bound by what two-thirds of the Assembly said we should be bound by...