|
The Secret History of the Law of the Sea Treaty
By Cliff Kincaid, President, America’s Survival, Inc.
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton says the U.S. seeks “a revolution of reform” at the United Nations. [1] But whatever reforms are accomplished, the U.N. will continue to grow in power and influence if the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), with the backing of the Bush Administration, is ratified by the U.S. Senate.
UNCLOS is a Trojan horse that will give the U.N. unprecedented authority over international affairs and put the world body on the road to world government financed by global taxes.
America’s Survival, Inc. (ASI),a public policy group that monitors United Nations affairs, can now offer to the U.S. Senate and the public a unique insight into the secret history of the treaty.
While figures such as John Temple Swing of the Council on Foreign Relations [2] gave establishment support to the effort to pass UNCLOS, ASI has discovered documentary evidence that the treaty was viewed by many early supporters as part of a communist-supported New International Economic Order to undermine the U.S. Some key treaty backers were pacifists and proud members of the world government movement who opposed a strong national defense for the U.S. and feared that the U.S. would unilaterally exploit the resources of the ocean. They were outraged by opposition to the pact from President Reagan and his top advisers.
We have discovered, by examining original source material in the United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, that the critically important groundwork on the treaty took place in “Pacem in Maribus” (Peace in the Oceans) conferences organized by the German-born activist Elisabeth Mann Borgese. One of the proposals that emerged from the first such conference was an “Ocean Development Tax” to be imposed by an “ocean regime” on ocean produce. The revenue, Borgese said, would underwrite the activities of the U.N. [3]. The proposal was eventually inserted into the treaty disguised as fees or payments from U.S. and other corporations to an international agency called the International Seabed Authority.
Sometimes referred to as the “Mother of the Oceans,” Borgese openly stated her admiration for Karl Marx in her book, The Oceanic Circle: Governing the Seas as a Global Resource. [4] She was a member of the pro-world government World Federalist Movement, which wants to transform the United Nations into a global state with independent military, police, taxing, legislative and judicial powers.
In a January 1999 speech, Borgese declared, "The world ocean has been, and is, so to speak, our great laboratory for the making of a new world order. For a combination of reasons it was in the oceans, and only there, that we could introduce a series of new concepts, principles and norms which eventually will have to be applied to the world as a whole." (emphasis added) [5]
The founder and honorary chair of the International Ocean Institute and Professor of Political Science at Dalhousie University in Canada, Borgese later became an advocate of animal rights and even claimed to have taught dogs how to play the piano.[6]
ASI’s review of the historical record also shows that Arvid Pardo, the Maltese Ambassador to the U.N., played a critical role. A participant in the “Peace in the Ocean” conferences, he was hailed as “the Father of the Law of the Sea” because he was instrumental in creating a Seabed Committee in the late 1960s that laid the groundwork for the first Law of the Sea conference in 1973. Pardo, who proposed "a tax to be paid by States on the exploitation of natural resources within national ocean space," [7] advocated that the resources of the oceans beyond national jurisdiction be considered as "the common heritage of mankind." [8] This concept, which was incorporated into the treaty, is regarded by Marxist writers as part of the “internationalist legacy” of Marx and Engels.[9] Pardo himself asserted that the treaty was an essential element of the “New International Economic Order,” a United Nations initiative undertaken by the then-Soviet bloc of nations and their allies. [10]
Other critical players in the process were Sam and Miriam Levering. This husband and wife team, both Quakers and World Federalists, helped draft the treaty and lobbied for it through a non-government organization called the Neptune Group. Miriam Levering attended all nine sessions of the U.N. conference on the Law of the Sea. The Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL), a radical pacifist Quaker group, said that the Leverings, who were the subjects of the book, Citizen Action for Global Change, “worked out of FCNL's office as they diligently and patiently advocated to keep the oceans part of ‘the common heritage of mankind’ and negotiated with governments on the treaty's final language.” They worked closely with Elliott Richardson, who served President Carter as Special Representative of the President for the Law of the Sea Conference and headed the U.S. delegation to the Third U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea.
In another development, ASI can also reveal that an important figure in negotiations on the treaty was Caitlyn L. Antrim, daughter of Navy Admiral Richard Nott Antrim and expert on Law of the Sea matters. Caitlyn, once known as Lance Antrim, is a transsexual [11] who now runs a pro-treaty organization, the Center for Leadership in Global Diplomacy.
In a letter posted on the “transsexual road map” website, Antrim declared:
We simply seek our deserved recognition as women (and as men for those who transitioned from female to male). Justice cries out for us to be heard![12]
Antrim further declared that her activities on U.N. matters were related to her struggle for “social justice” for transsexuals. She said
I believe in social justice. I have worked to promote justice at the national and international levels in the US government, for NGOs [non-governmental organizations] and at the United Nations - I have even worked at the National Academy of Sciences. [13]
Antrim served as a technical advisor on the U.S. delegation to the Law of the Sea negotiations in 1979-1980, served on the Reagan Administration's policy review team, and then worked as a deputy U.S. representative “when we attempted to secure the changes in the convention sought by President Reagan in 1982.” She became a specialist in strategic materials and moved into the study of negotiation and diplomacy, before “coming full circle in the past couple years to examine the amendments” to UNCLOS.
Antrim worked with the Leverings on behalf of the treaty and also knew Elisabeth Mann Borgese. But in the book, Citizen Action for Global Change, Caitlyn Antrim is Lance Antrim, reflecting her life as a man before his sex change.
Another key figure, David Krieger, worked closely with Borgese at the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions and founded and became president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. He called Borgese “a true citizen of the world” and declared that:
Elisabeth believed that, just as life had emerged from the oceans onto land, a new form of human and environmentally friendly world order could emerge from the oceans to the land. [14]
In the U.S. Senate, Democratic Senator Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island played a critical role, consistently introducing resolutions declaring that concluding a Law of the Sea Treaty was of strategic importance to the United States.[15] Pell, who was present at the founding of the U.N., was “never caught without a copy of the [U.N.] Charter in his pocket,” said his colleague, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.[16]
The evidence that ASI brought back from the U.N. in New York includes:
This history has been carefully omitted from a 16-page U.N. pamphlet on the treaty. It has no mention of Borgese or the Leverings or the “Peace in the Oceans” conferences. It briefly refers to Arvid Pardo [28] but there is no reference to his calls for a New International Economic Order and global taxes.
However, the international taxation scheme is extremely relevant to the future of the world organization. The book, The New Politics of Financing the UN, cites UNCLOS as a potential revenue source for the U.N. as a whole. It says revenue could be derived from:
Profits earned through implementation of the 1982 Law of the Sea Treaty by which a UN international investment corporation could exploit the minerals and other forms of wealth in international waters and seabeds…[29]
The taxing power was built into the treaty in the form of royalty payments to the International Seabed Authority (ISA). But treaty proponents want to avoid use of the word “tax” when describing this power. Senator Richard Lugar, a major supporter of the treaty, maintains that the ISA “has no authority to levy taxes” but that the Convention “does contemplate the elaboration of rules for payments of royalties to the ISA from revenues generated from deep seabed mining.” Lugar says the “royalty payments would be used to cover the ISA’s expenses” and “could be used in certain cases to provide economic assistance to developing countries.” [30]
Paul L. Kelly, senior vice president of Rowan Companies, Inc., backs the treaty, even while conceding that it includes “an international revenue-sharing regime”[31] What’s more, the Minerals Management Service (MMS) of the U.S. Department of the Interior is already enforcing the pact. Drilling access to certain tracts in the Gulf of Mexico is “based upon provisions of the 1982 law of the Sea Convention,” MMS reports. [32]
Many treaty proponents say that the measure was at one time seriously flawed but was “fixed” in 1994. However, James L. Malone, former Special Representative of President Reagan for the Law of the Sea, declared in 1995 that while improvements were made, “the treaty still potentially hinders seabed development and remains potentially hostile to American interests.” [33] He also declared that, “Ultimately it is the U.S. Navy that will guarantee American interests.” [34]
Malone reiterated, “Ultimately, the global protection of U.S. navigational rights depends upon the perceived capability and will of the United States to protect those rights.” [35]
Malone noted that the treaty was conceived when Third World nations began to dominate the U.N. General Assembly and “began to press their political and economic grievances aggressively against the Western states.” He added, “This occurred with a particular ferocity in the 1970s an early 1980s. Many of these countries were ruled by Western-educated radicals who were enamored of Marxist thought and had an abiding animosity toward the West – and the United States – in particular.” [36]
Another concern was cost. Malone said the pact would “impose unconscionable financial and regulatory burdens on American industry and government” and that the financial provisions “would establish a potential source of funding for the terrorist activities of national liberation movements.” [37]
In 1996, Malone advised this author in a letter to continue focusing on the issue of global taxes for the U.N. He described this as “a most important issue looming on the horizon.” [38]
“Reagan would Still Oppose Law of the Sea Treaty” was the headline over an article by Edwin Meese III. Meese, former Attorney General of the U.S. and one of President Reagan’s top advisers, declared that the treaty:
is a bad idea whose time should never come up -- at least for the United States and for those who believe in economic liberty and national security. That was the view of President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s and would remain his view today if he were with us to express it. [39]
U.S. military officials don’t want to admit it, but some support for the treaty is now motivated by fear of communist China’s rising military power. An example occurred in April 2001 when a U.S. Navy EP3 plane, which had been engaged in lawful surveillance and reconnaissance over international waters, landed in China in distress after being damaged by a collision with a Chinese military aircraft. China had clearly violated international law but the Bush Administration response was considered pitifully weak by conservatives. Some think that the UNCLOS, which is supposed to guarantee freedom of action over international waters, could have been cited by the U.S. to isolate China over its illegal action in the EP3 case.
The 2005 U.S. - China Economic and Security Review Commission Annual Report declares:
China ’s methodical and accelerating military modernization presents a growing threat to U.S security interests in the Pacific. While Taiwan remains a key potential flashpoint, China’s aggressive pursuit of territorial claims in the East and South China Seas points to ambitions that go beyond a Taiwan scenario and poses a growing threat to nations, including U.S. alliance partners, on China’s periphery. Recent and planned military acquisitions by Beijing – mobile ballistic missiles, and improved air and naval forces capable of extended range operations – provide China with the capability to conduct offensive strikes and military operations throughout the region. China’s arms purchases have prompted the U.S. Secretary of Defense to publicly question the ultimate purpose of China’s military buildup. [40]
By contrast, the fleet of the U.S. Navy has dropped from 594 ships in 1987 to 280 ships today.[41] The Sea Power Ambassador Program [42] reports that:
This represents the smallest Navy in our Nation's history since 1917. For 12 years, the Nation has been ordering just six new ships a year, on average. This is the lowest rate of naval ship production since 1932, and if continued, our Navy will shrink to a fleet of 180 ships. While the Navy's fleet is on a dive course, the need for a larger and more capable fleet is more imperative now than at any other time in our history. [43]
It’s difficult to see, however, how a treaty would protect our ships when we are unable to do so ourselves. UNCLOS, for example, has proven to be worthless in dealing with pirate attacks on the high seas. According to the International Maritime Bureau, there have been 205 pirate attacks on oceangoing vessels, including a luxury cruise liner, in the first nine months of 2005. Ironically, reports the China Post, the pirates have recently become more brazen and have taken over larger shipping vessels, “including ships bringing desperately needed food and supplies to their country under the aegis of the United Nations and various donor states.” (emphasis added). [44]
Lobbying and Media Manipulation
In addition to our fact-finding trip to the U.N. in New York, ASI consulted the Levering Papers being housed at the Friends Historical Collection at GuilfordCollege in North Carolina. These papers demonstrate the many activities that engaged the Leverings as they wrote and promoted this treaty. Besides the Neptune Group, they operated through fronts such as Save Our Seas and the Ocean Education Project. They were in contact with other pro-world government groups such as the World Peace Association of Jenkins, Minnesota, which offered a design for a “World Government Flag.”
One 1981 document included detailed notes about discussions with staffers to Senators on the Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees. Some of the Senators at the time who were considered pro-treaty were Sam Nunn (Ga.), Claiborne Pell (R.I.), Joseph Biden (Del.) and Alan Cranston (Calif.). As for Senator Jesse Helms, the conservative North Carolina Republican and prominent treaty opponent, the notes simply state: “Did not visit his office.”
In their book, Citizen Action for Global Change, they recognize the following members of the House and Senate for working with them:
Senators Alan Cranston (Calif.), Clifford Case (N.J.), Hubert Humphrey (Minn.), Claiborne Pell (R.I.), and Reps. Donald Fraser (Minn.) and Berkley Bedell (Iowa). [45]
More evidence of lobbying was contained in a copy of the April/May 1963 “The Federalist,” the newsletter of the United World Federalists. The newsletter disclosed that the World Federalists held several breakfasts for members of Congress. One photo in the newsletter shows Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts offering a “warm smile” to a UWF official.
The Levering Papers shed important light over how non-governmental organizations (NGOs) were important in the treaty process. Miriam Levering was herself honored by NGOs for her “consciousness raising of Americans on Law of the Sea.”
Caitlyn Antrim said:
From the perspective of a researcher in the field of diplomacy, I recognize the Leverings as having created and developed a role for non-governmental groups that was quite distinct from the adversarial role taken by groups such as Greenpeace and I believe that the model established by the Leverings and the Neptune Group is one that should be considered by any party that wishes to influence the direction of large, multinational conferences and organizations, regardless of ideology. [46]
The Guilford library included a copy of the book, Love, Mom, by Miriam Levering, in which she described the importance of the Church Center for the U.N., which sits across from U.N. headquarters in New York City, as a focus for lobbying for the treaty. [47] Some of their effort in the early 1970s was dedicated to defeating bills that would have “allowed the federal government to grant licenses to vast fixed areas of the international seabed…before the Law of the Sea Treaty was completed,” according to the Miriam Levering book.
The book also reveals Miriam Levering’s disdain for President Reagan. She called him an “ideologue” who was not informed on treaty issues but “swept out most of the talented U.S. delegation and removed the U.S. from further negotiations on seabed mining.” A caption under some of the photos in the book is also revealing. It says:
The Carter Administration supported the United States’ involvement with the Law of the Sea Conference. American leadership on LOS all but vanished when Ronald Reagan took office in 1981.
The Leverings saw Reagan’s conservative advisers, including Edwin Meese and William Clark, as “determined enemies of compromise” on the treaty. Meese was described in their book as having a “hard-line position” that he would not soften. They also criticized then-Treasury Department under secretaries William Simon and George Shultz for opposing the idea of “licensing of U.S. seabed-mining corporations by the international seabed authority and the payment of a share of the profits to an international organization instead of to the U.S. Government.” [48]
Other documents from the Levering Papers demonstrate the ability of the Leverings and their allies to influence the press. Every major news organization is listed in the papers as attending or covering briefings and luncheons devoted to advancing the treaty.
One document, in the form of notes of an October 15, 1981, board meeting of the Ocean Education Project, illustrated the strategy that would ultimately prove successful in getting major U.S. companies and associations to endorse the pact. Those in attendance included Sam and Miriam Levering. The notes say:
“The Neptune Group also worked diligently to build media and public support for the [treaty] negotiations,” declared the Leverings in their book, Citizen Action for Global Change. Sam and Miriam Levering appeared “frequently” on programs such as “All Things Considered” on National Public Radio. [50]
They said that, in conjunction with some of the sessions designed to hammer out the treaty, they received telephone calls from the New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, the Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, Business Week, National Public Radio, and the wire services. They said that Jim Brown, an editorial writer for the New York Times who was also a Quaker, was of special help. He lined up journalists to attend their luncheons. [51]
One document, produced by the Neptune Group, referred to conducting six press luncheons in 1976. “with attendees ranging from the New York Times to the Peking News Service!” The document says:
Among the media who asked us for personal briefings and information were the New York Times which phone repeatedly, as did the Chritian Science Monitor, the Philadelphia Inquirer, and the Washington Post. Others which sought our help were Business Week, Time, Newsweek, the Robert McNeil Report, the Maine Times, Newsday, Parents Magazine, Oceans, McGraw Hill publications, the Public Broadcasting radio, UPI and AP, Religious News Service, Catholic News Service, the National Council of Churches publications, the Inter-Dependent, published by UNA-USA [United Nations Association of the United States], and Foreign Policy. The Council on Foreign Relations solicited our help in putting together a seminar for the media at the end of the conference. [52]
Pulling a Fast One on President Bush
When the Bush Administration came into power, there was serious disagreement over whether to proceed with ratification. Officials in the Department of Defense were opposed to it. But on November 27, 2001, in a very unusual move, Ambassador Sichan Siv, the United States Representative on the United Nations Economic and Social Council, delivered a statement in the General Assembly on Oceans and Law of the Sea. He declared:
The United States has long accepted the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea as embodying international law concerning traditional uses of the oceans. The United States played an important role in negotiating the Convention, as well as the 1994 Agreement that remedied the flaws in Party XI of the convention on deep seabed mining. Because the rules of the Convention meet U.S. national security, economic, and environmental interests, I am pleased to inform you that the Administration of President George W. Bush supports accession of the United States to the Convention [53] (emphasis added).
However, Senator Jesse Helms, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had not received any word that the White House wanted the treaty ratified. In another curiosity, the Siv statement, made on November 27, did not show up in a U.S./UN press release until December 7.
In fact, ASI was told that the State Department, which directs the U.S. Mission to the U.N., moved ahead with a decision supporting ratification without the advance approval of the White House. Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, reported in a March 18, 2004, column, that:
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. [54]
As late as April 2004, the press was reporting that, “Bush's own sentiments toward the treaty are not clear.” [55]
Senator Lugar became chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in 2003. On February 25, 2004, he engineered a unanimous 19-0 vote in favor of the treaty, after hearings were held which did not include any real opponents of the pact. Paul Weyrich speculated that Lugar’s action could only be explained by his “angling for [the position of] Secretary of State in a Kerry Administration.” Lugar had accepted a $500 campaign contribution from the political action committee associated with Citizens for Global Solutions, the group that used to be called the World Federalist Association.
In April of 2005, despite the fact that the measure has not been ratified by the Senate, the Bush Administration requested $1.3 billion to fund the Contributions to International Organizations (CIO) account, including the International Seabed Authority of the Law of the Sea Treaty.[56]
In August, 2005, an impressive group of 70 leaders from business, government, media and the military, including retired General and former Bush Secretary of State Colin Powell, put their names on a letter to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist advocating ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty. [57]They said it would protect U.S. national security, economic and “international leadership” interests. One of the signers, Walter Cronkite, is probably best known as the former anchorman of the CBS Evening News. But he is also a public representative of the World Federalists.
In his book, A Reporter’s Life, Cronkite declared that “a system of world government” was “mandatory” and that “proud nations someday will
see the light and, for the common good and their own survival, yield up their precious sovereignty…” [58]
It appears that some elements of the U.S. business community are resigned to this development. Brian T. Petty, senior vice president for government affairs at the International Association of Drilling Contractors (IADC), has openly complained that the treaty has been “stymied by certain conservative forces outside the Congress who’ve mounted a campaign against it, characterizing it as a surrender of national sovereignty.” [59] Despite these concerns, IADC supports ratification.
Would Thomas Jefferson Support the Law of the Sea Treaty?
One leading treaty proponent, John Norton Moore of the University of Virginia, [60] who served as Ambassador and Deputy Special Representative of the President to the Law of the Sea Conference (1973-76), has testified that statements by Thomas Jefferson could be interpreted to suggest support for the pact.[61] Moore, according to the book, Citizen Action for Global Change, invited Sam Levering to be a member of the U.S. delegation to one of the Law of the Sea conferences. But Levering “wanted to keep his freedom of action as an NGO“ and declined. [62]
The course syllabus for “Oceans Law and Policy,” taught by Moore at the University of Virginia School of Law, includes the following quotations from Thomas Jefferson, the third U.S. President (1801-1809), to imply support for U.S. ratification of the treaty:
These two quotations were used by Moore in a slide show for “Capitol Hill Oceans Week” in 2003 to encourage passage of the treaty. He called ratification “urgent unfinished business.” Moore cited the second Jefferson quote in 2003 testimony in favor of the measure before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
But it is clear from the historical record that Jefferson never intended those comments to suggest support for an international agency to manage navigation on the high seas or access to the oceans. In fact, in his first inaugural address on March 4, 1801, Jefferson proclaimed, "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Jefferson’s position was that:
“The ports of the United States were declared open to all nations without distinction, and the unmolested enjoyment of the ocean as the common theatre of navigation was claimed as an inviolable right. (emphasis added) [63]
The Jefferson quote about the ocean being “the common birthright of mankind” was made in a February 29, 1808, letter to the Tammany Society of New York. Moore only offers part of the quotation and does not include it in the appropriate context. The relevant part of the quotation is:
But the ocean, which, like the air, is the common birthright of mankind, is arbitrarily wrested from us, and maxims consecrated by time, by usage, and by an universal sense of right, are trampled on by superior force. To give time for this demoralizing tempest to pass over, one measure only remained which might cover our beloved country from its overwhelming fury: an appeal to the deliberate understanding of our fellow citizens in a cessation of all intercourse with the belligerent nations, until it can be resumed under the protection of a returning sense of the moral obligations which constitute a law for nations as well as individuals. [64]
Jefferson was outraged over violations of American sovereignty by Britain and France. Jefferson had wanted the U.S. to stay neutral in the European wars but on June 22, 1807, the American frigate Chesapeake had been stopped by a British ship and was fired upon. Jefferson called Britain “the tyrant of the ocean.” [65]
The Jefferson quotes reflect his frustration with the activities of the British on the high seas and the recognition that the new American nation had a small navy, certainly compared to England’s. America didn’t have the kind of navy necessary to protect its commerce or citizens. This led not only to confrontation with Britain and France but with the Barbary powers.
In 1799, in a letter to Edmund Pendleton, Jefferson had actually suggested abandoning use of the oceans in order to stay out of war. He declared:
And, perhaps, to remove as much as possible the occasions of making war, it might be better for us to abandon the ocean altogether, that being the element whereon we shall be principally exposed to jostle with other nations; to leave to others to bring what we shall want, and to carry what we can spare. This would make us invulnerable to Europe, by offering none of our property to their prize…[66]
The second Jefferson quotation about the time “when we say by what laws other nations shall treat us on the sea” comes from an October 3, 1801, letter to William Short. The quotation in context is:
If we can delay but for a few years the necessity of vindicating the laws of nature on the ocean, we shall be the more sure of doing it with effect. The day is within my time as well as yours when we may say by what laws other nations shall treat us on the sea. And we will say it. In the meantime, we wish to let every treaty we have drop off without renewal. [67]
At that time, the U.S. was in a weak position with the European powers and Jefferson believed that “we ought never to tie up our hands by treaty from the right of passing non-importation or non-intercourse acts to make it their interest to become just.” [68] That is, the U.S. should reserve the right to embargo products from other countries if they interfered with our sovereign right to navigate on the high seas. This is quite different from entering into a global treaty. Jefferson’s reference to “vindicating the laws of nature on the ocean” is a reference to the prospect of the U.S. becoming a major naval power and asserting its sovereign rights on the oceans.
Rather than favoring handing over control of the oceans to an international agency, Jefferson believed in an American “empire for liberty.” In an April 27, 1809, letter to James Madison, Jefferson wrote
I am persuaded no constitution was ever before so well calculated as ours for extensive empire & self government. [69]
[2] Swing wrote a 1976 article in the CFR journal Foreign Affairs, “Who Will Own the Oceans?,” and a follow-up, “What Future for the Oceans?,” in the September-October 2003 Foreign Affairs.
[3] Elisabeth Mann Borgese, “An Ocean Development Tax,” Pacem in Maribus 2.
[4] Elisabeth Mann Borgese, The Oceanic Circle: Governing the Seas as a Global Resource, (United Nations University Press: Tokyo, 1998), page 21. Borgese approvingly cites Karl Marx, the father of communism, as someone with "amazing foresight" about the problems faced by urban and rural societies.
[6] See the ASI study at http://www.usasurvival.org/ck42705.shtml
[7] Ibid.
[8] The contrary view, as articulated by former official James T. Malone, is that the seas “should be open to those willing to take the risk and invest the labor necessary to derive benefit from the abundant resources the seas contain…”
[10] Dr. J. Michael Waller, an expert on communist strategy and tactics, says the treaty was an effort by “the Soviet Union and the so-called Non-Aligned Movement… to use the United Nations to wrest control of the seas from the United States and its allies.”
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[17] “Pacem in Maribus, A Proposed International Convocation on Frontiers of the Seas to Explore Peaceful uses of The Oceans and the Ocean Floor,” The Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, Santa Barbara, California, June 22-July 3, 1970, pages 7, 25.
[18] Ibid., “An Ocean Development Tax.”
[19] Jovan Djordjevic, “The Social Property of Mankind,” Pacem in Maribus, edited by Elisabeth Mann Borgese, page 167.
[20] Elisabeth Mann Borgese, Ocean Governance and the United Nations, Centre for Foreign Policy Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., August 1996, page 170.
[21] Ibid. page 21.
[22] Ibid. page 170
[23] Ibid. page 93.
[24] Ibid. page 95.
[25] Ibid. page 171.
[26] Elisabeth Mann Borgese and David Krieger, editors, The Tides of Change: Peace, Pollution, and the Potential of the Oceans, Introduction, page xi., (Mason Charter Publishers, New York, New York. 1975).
[27] Ibid.
[29] Anthony L. McDermott, The New Politics of Financing the UN, (Palgrave MacMillian, New York,2000), page124.
[33] James L. Malone, Nineteenth Annual Conference, “Toward Senate Consideration of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention,” June 30, 1995, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. Sponsored by the Center for Oceans Law and Policy, University of Virginia School of Law, page 2.
[34] Ibid., page 4.
[35] Ibid., page 12.
[36] James L. Malone, “Mineral Resources and the International Environment,” Mining Voice, November-December 1995, page 25.
[37] James L. Malone, “Who Needs the Sea Treaty,” Foreign Affairs, Spring 1984, page 47.
[38] In author’s possession.
[42] This program is sponsored by the Navy League in cooperation with the American Shipbuilding Association.
[43] Ibid.
[45] Ralph B. Levering and Miriam L. Levering, Citizen Action for Global Change. The Neptune Group and Law of the Sea. (Syracuse University Press, 1999), page 39.
[46] E-mail to author, November 12, 2005.
[47] The 12-story Church Center for the United Nations, which houses a number of NGOs, is owned by the Women's Division of the United Methodist Church.
[48] Ibid., Citizen Action for Global Change, pages 142, 48.
[49] Barton Lewis was a banker and member of “Philadelphia Friends,” a Quaker group.
[50] Ibid., Citizen Action for Global Change, Page 157.
[51] Ibid., page 69.
[52] In author’s possession.
[56] See testimony of Kim R. Holmes, Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs
Statement Before the House Subcommittee on Science, State, Justice, and Commerce, and Related Agencies, April 21, 2005. http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/rm/45037.htm [57] Among the signers of the letter are Walter Cronkite, former Secretaries of State Madeline Albright, James A. Baker, Colin Powell, former National Security Advisor Robert C. McFarlane, President and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute Red Cavaney, CEO of The Nuclear Threat Initiative Sam Nunn, Chairman of the World Wildlife Fund William Reilly, former Under Secretary for Political Affairs Thomas R. Pickering, former EPA Administrator William D. Ruckelshaus, former Secretary of Commerce Donald L. Evans, former Senators Ernest F. Hollings (D-SC), John Breaux (D-LA), and Governors Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA), George Pataki (R-NY), and Christine Gregoire (D-WA).
[58] Walter Cronkite, A Reporter’s Life, (Alfred A. Knopf: New York, 1996), page 128.
[60] Moore is the Walter L. Brown Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law. He also directs the University's Center for Oceans Law and Policy ("Oceans Center"), and the Center for National Security Law.
[61] Moore’s October 14, 2003, testimony in favor of ratification claimed that a Jefferson quotation about treatment of the U.S. on the high seas indicated “a vital national interest in the legal regime of the sea.”
[62] Ibid., Citizen Action for Global Change, page 87.
[65] Fawn M. Brodie, Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History, (W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1974), page 415.
[68] Ibid.
|
 |