Posted on 05/25/2005 4:18:06 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Saying that the Joint Chiefs and combatant commanders “strongly support” ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), General Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has stated that the measure “ensures the ability of the US Armed Forces to operate freely across the vast expanse of the world’s oceans under the authority of widely recognized and accepted international law.” [1]
But would our military leaders support the treaty if they knew that the activists behind it were also instrumental in promoting the International Criminal Court (ICC), which could prosecute and imprison American troops and military and civilian leaders on dubious war crimes charges? The World Federalists, who support both the Law of the Sea Treaty and the ICC, want to transform the United Nations into a global state with independent military, police, taxing, legislative and judicial powers. They believe that LOST will take the U.S. down that road.
William Pace, the convenor of the Coalition for the International Criminal Court and executive director of the World Federalist Movement, has savagely attacked the U.S. for attempting to shield Americans from prosecution at the ICC.[2] He is also Secretary-General of the Hague Appeal for Peace, a group whose president, Cora Weiss, gained notoriety for organizing anti-Vietnam War demonstrations and traveling to Hanoi to meet with communist leaders.
Yet U.S. military leaders and Pace are on the same side in backing LOST.
This curious fact shows that U.S. military officials -- and Bush Administration officials -- have been misled about the real nature of LOST.
The deep involvement of the World Federalists in the campaign for LOST suggests that, even if the treaty somehow aids freedom of navigation, there is another agenda that has been concealed from the public, our Senators and top U.S. military officials.
U.S. military backing for LOST is truly ironic because the evidence and history show that the treaty was crafted and primarily pushed by those who not only favor the ICC but also the abolition of national armies and the creation of a U.N. military force to rule the world. In short, U.S. military leaders are supporting a treaty that comes from the same people who want to diminish, even abolish, the power of the U.S. military. Incredibly, in the WFA booklet, The Genius of Federation: Why World Federation is The Answer to Global Problems, the group describes how LOST and the ICC are both important steps on the road to world government. It says that a “world federation,” a euphemism for world government, can be achieved. One way, it says, is to “advance step by step toward global governance, using the U.N….Let the U.N. establish new agencies such as an International Criminal Court (which can try individuals for violations of international law) or a U.N. Arms Control and disarmament Agency (which can set up a program for arms reduction with certification capabilities and punishments for individuals who try to defy it.”
This booklet, undated but apparently written in the mid-1990s, goes on to say that “An organization is already in the process of being developed to control the exploitation of ocean resources, and similar agencies could be created to govern Antarctica and the moon.” The WFA says that by adding more power, authority and functions to the United Nations, “national sovereignty would be gradually eroded until it is no longer an issue.” [3]
The organization “to control the exploitation of ocean resources” is a clear reference to the International Seabed Authority of LOST.
In his book, The Sovereignty Revolution, written shortly before his death, Alan Cranston, the former Senator from California, described LOST as the “most far-reaching and comprehensive system created thus far by the global community…” Cranston, who was a president of the United World Federalists (1949-52), declared that Article 137 [4] “contains a unique provision that elevates sovereignty to a new and unprecedented level. It formally declares that in the open sea and everything beneath it all humanity is sovereign.” [5] In other words, national sovereignty becomes a dead letter and the global community assumes jurisdiction and control. Cranston, who ran for president in 1984 as an outspoken critic of President Reagan, [6] remained on a far-left course until his death.
Ronald Reagan, as a young actor, would also become a member of the United World Federalists. [7] However, his views would change from liberal to conservative as he encountered communist influence in Hollywood and exposed their lies and propaganda. [8] As president, he rejected LOST. Senator Jesse Helms, when he was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also rejected LOST and refused to bring it up for a vote. That changed when Helms retired and Senator Richard Lugar became chairman of the committee. [9]
Lugar, who received a $500 campaign contribution from the World Federalist front group, Citizens for Global Solutions, has granted an interview to Global Solutions Quarterly, the newsletter of the World Federalist Association, in which he makes the case for LOST and urges citizens to “call, write, or email their respective Senators to voice their support” for it. [10] Like Reagan, Cord Meyer Jr. would also join the World Federalists. He would be the organization’s first president (1947-1949). However, Meyer soured on the prospect of world government when he came to recognize the aggressive nature of Soviet communism, including the Soviets exploding an atomic bomb, conducting the Berlin blockade, and the communist invasion of South Korea.[11] He joined the CIA in 1951 and served as chief of the International Organizations Division, [12] where he “drew criticism from many liberals for his role in efforts to subsidize student and labor groups in this country as counterweights to Soviet- backed groups in Europe.” [13] He became known for his strong anti-communist positions, as reflected in his newspaper columns.
Many World Federalists are sincere and well-meaning in their desire for world peace. But their reaction to the horrors of World War II caused them to embrace world government or a strengthened U.N. as the solution to the world’s problems. What’s more, some world federalist groups were accused of being infiltrated or manipulated by communists sympathetic to the Soviet Union. One world federalist group changed its name to “American Freedom Association” when the organization was attacked as pro-communist in the 1950s. Politicians would sometimes lend their names to the advisory councils of world federalist groups, but not before checking with the House Committee on Un-American Activities to make sure that they lacked communist ties. [14]
During the historic stand-off between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, the World Federalists came down on the wrong side. The WFA collaborated with the Soviet Peace Committee, an instrument of the Soviet Communist regime. The WFA staged a “Mission to Moscow” and held several meetings with the Soviet Peace Committee for the purpose of “discussing the goal of general and complete disarmament” and “the strengthening of the United Nations.” [15]
At the time, the Soviets were trying to defeat the Reagan conventional and nuclear arms build-up and policy of supporting anti-Communist freedom fighters. In particular, the WFA and its officials strongly opposed the policy of assisting Nicaraguan freedom fighters who were opposing the Soviet- and Cuban-backed Nicaraguan Sandinista dictatorship. A suit filed by the WFA and the Center for Constitutional Rights with the U.N.’s International Court of Justice had declared U.S. support of the freedom fighters, known as “Contras,” to be a violation of international law. [16]
If the U.S. had complied with this dictate, Nicaragua would have remained a Communist dictatorship and Communism could have taken over all of Central America. But the Reagan policy forced the Sandinistas into holding free elections that the Communists lost. This defeat led to the Communists in El Salvador giving up their armed struggle and making peace with the government.
Despite this record, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan has praised the World Federalist Movement for having “helped keep alive” the “values which inspire the creation of the United Nations…” [17]
The WFA’s far-left orientation continues to the present day. Richard J. Barnet, a member of the WFA board of advisers, was a founder of the controversial Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), a Marxist-oriented think tank. [18]
Journalist and author Brian Crozier wrote in National Review that IPS “is the perfect intellectual front for Soviet activities which would be resisted if they were to originate openly from the KGB.” [19] S. Steven Powell’s book on IPS includes actual photographs of identified Soviet agents who attended IPS functions or associated with IPS personalities. He names two as KGB officers. [20]
Samuel Rubin, a member of the Communist Party and a Russian emigre, founded the Rubin Foundation, which provided the bulk of IPS’s funding. [21] His daughter, Cora Weiss, worked with the IPS and organized anti-Vietnam War activities at the request of the Communist Hanoi government. [22] Weiss was the President of the Hague Appeal for Peace Conference, May 11-15, 1999, which was co-sponsored by the World Federalist Movement. A picture of Weiss is included in the 1999 annual report of the WFA. [23]
Today, the organization is so concerned about the negative connotations of being associated with the terms “world federation” or “world government” that it has changed its name to Citizens for Global Solutions.[24] The group says that Drew J. Asson is their “main contact person on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea” and has “helped build and sustain a coalition of industry, government, social justice, military, and environmental groups in support of Senate ratification. He has attended hearings and briefings, lobbied Senate and House staffers, and provided background material to print and online media.” [25]
Asson’s personal web page directs people to his favorite “progressive” web sites, including the Socialist Party, the Progressive, and something called “Stec’s Commie-Pinko Homepage.” That, in turn, features anarchist, socialist and communist material. [26] On his personal diary web page, he refers to President Bush as “our nation's first theocratic president” and declares that Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton and Alberto Gonzalez are “the four horsemen of the apocalypse.” [27]
As Asson indicates, one of its current campaigns is to “Stop John Bolton,” who is President Bush’s nomination to be our U.N. Ambassador. The group warns, “John Bolton is a disastrous choice. Right now, the U.S. needs to work through the UN more than ever to make the world a safer place for Americans.” [28]
Citizens for Global Solutions has a political action committee (PAC) [29] and rates members of the House and Senate on legislation that affects the U.N. and other matters.[30] The group gave legislators lower ratings for opposing U.S. cooperation with the ICC and higher marks for voting for more money for the U.N. AIDS fund. It also favored:
In its 1995 study, National Taxpayers, International Organizations: Sharing the Burden of Financing the United Nations, the pro-U.N. lobby group, the U.N. Association of the United States of America, admitted that the seabed authority was unique among U.N. bodies:
“Only the Seabed authority created by the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, which entered into force in late 1994, has authority today to directly collect international revenue to finance its activities.” [31]
The World Federalist Association has said that one of its main priorities is “To provide the U.N. with sustained and independent sources of funding.” [32] “One of the most popular concepts identified as an independent source of revenue is the ocean and seabeds,” declares the WFA book, A New World Order. Can It Bring Security to the World’s People? The author declares that the treaty creates a Seabed Authority to grant “leasing rights to private corporations,” provide “mining concessions,” and operate mining operations through something called the Enterprise. “Certain fees and sharing of technology are also involved,” he notes. Revenues accruing to the Seabed Authority “are designated for development assistance.” [33]
The concept of the “common heritage of mankind” was inserted into the treaty through the efforts of Sam and Miriam Levering, left-wing Quakers and farmers who formed a non-governmental organization (NGO) called the “Neptune Group” to lobby for the treaty over the course of decades. The Friends Committee on National Legislation reports, “During the 1970s, Sam and Miriam 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.” [34]
FCNL, whose slogan is, “War is Not the Answer,” says, “We recognize the importance of treaties and covenants among nations as instruments of world order” and “We support the United Nations (UN) and its role in pursuing world order and peace.” [35]
The FCNL gave Representative Barbara Lee (CA) a peace award in 2001 “for her courageous, solitary vote against authorization of a U.S. military invasion of Afghanistan.” It gave the same award to Senator Russ Feingold (Wis.) in 2003 for “casting the lone vote in the Senate against the USA Patriot Act and his opposition to the use of military force against Iraq.” FCNL reports that the Leverings “entered the fray in 1970 as Congress debated the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources bill that promoted a nationalistic approach” to mining.
A story [36] about Davidson College history professor Ralph Levering notes that his parents, Sam and Miriam, “spent more than 12 years of their lives convincing, cajoling and communicating with representatives from more than 140 countries around the world to craft and implement” LOST.
"My parents were world peace advocates," Ralph Levering says. "They were deeply involved with the World Federalist Movement from the 1930s through the 1950s, advocating a federalist system binding all countries under a central world government with limited power."
A legal analysis, The Concept of the Common Heritage of Mankind in International Law, says that the concept of the common heritage of mankind in LOST is “one of the most extraordinary developments in recent intellectual history and one of the most revolutionary and radical legal concepts to have emerged in recent decades.” NGOs believe the “common heritage of mankind” phrase can be expanded and interpreted to mean the air we breathe, outer space, the energy of the earth, the natural resources of land and sea, and even the human gene pool. In short, it means almost everything necessary to human survival.
When an area or human activity is designated as “common” or international in scope, a U.N. or global body can take charge, beyond national jurisdiction. One analysis holds that LOST constitutes the allocation of “international property rights” through the introduction of 200-mile territorial limits in the water off a nation’s coast. “The limits established national property rights where none previously existed, and these rights could and frequently were distributed by governments to domestic firms,” says the official U.N. Development Program book, Global Public Goods. International Cooperation in the 21st Century. “The property rights in offshore water thus effected a very substantial redistribution of wealth internationally.” [37]
These two critical elements -- an independent source of revenue – and recognition of the “common heritage of mankind” -- are seen by the World Federalists as critical to an emerging world government that will restrict the ability of the U.S. to act in our own national security interest.
An official 1997 WFA publication let the cat out of the bag. It declared:
“The final treaty marked real progress in establishing global governance by…stipulating that mining of the seabeds beyond national waters should require payment of royalties to the LOS [Law of the Sea] organization, thereby creating a funding resource that would be independent of voluntary contributions by the treaty member nations. These are the elements of a limited world government in a very restricted field that is nevertheless significant. After years of delay, the United States finally signed the Law of the Sea Treaty in 1994, and ratification by the U.S. Senate is pending as of September 1997.” (emphasis added). [38]
U.S. military officials are not the only ones who have been misled into thinking that LOST merely safeguards navigation on the world’s oceans. On February 25, 2004, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 19-0 to send the resolution of ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty to the full Senate for advice and consent. The Bush Administration has been backing the treaty since February 7, 2002. But if U.S. Senators and military officials want more proof of the secret World Government agenda behind LOST, they should consult an extraordinary book, Citizen Action for Global Change: The Neptune Group and Law of the Sea, which describes how Sam and Miriam Levering decided decades ago that because most countries “strongly opposed giving the UN supreme power in the military area,” they had to work in “areas such as law of the sea that were less subject to appeals to compatriots based on fear and national pride than military security was.” [39]
In other words, because the subject of the oceans seemed so divorced from traditional military matters and less controversial, there was more opportunity to use this issue to advance their cause of world government. If the U.S. Senate ratifies the treaty, the Leverings will have been proven correct.
The article from Davidson College described the Leverings’ strategy: “Having realized by the 1960s that world federalism was too ambitious an idea, the Leverings began searching for a cause with a better chance of success that might still promote peaceful cooperation between nations. In 1970 Dr. Frank Porter Graham, retired president of UNC and a longtime friend, told Sam that law of the sea, a forthcoming U.N. initiative, presented just such an opportunity.” The article went on: “Their first order of business was to organize peace groups, environmental organizations, and individual legislators to oppose seabed mining bills that were pending in Congress. The Leverings believed that unilateral moves by the U.S. or any country to mine in international waters was illegal, because ownership of those resources had not yet been established by international treaty. Their efforts successfully blocked the bills until the U.N.'s law of the sea conference formally convened in 1973.
The book, Citizen Action for Global Change, written by Ralph Levering and his mother Miriam, goes into substantial detail about this. It also describes their close working relationship with Elliot Richardson, an under-secretary of State and LOST negotiator who shared Louis Sohn’s desire to “strengthen global governance,” a euphemism for world government. [40]
Louis Sohn, professor Emeritus of International Law at Harvard University, was a U.S. delegate to the Law of the Sea Conference and helped write the draft of the Law of the Sea Treaty. Sohn’s material has been published in Uniting the Peoples and Nations. Readings in World Federalism. He and Grenville Clark wrote World Peace Through World Law, which called for the elimination of “all national armaments,” creation of a World Police Force, and a United Nations Revenue System. [41]
Richardson, who preferred to call himself a “radical moderate,” would serve as national co-chairman of the pro-U.N. lobby, the U.N. Association.
The book, as well as the 50th anniversary WFA publication, featured a photo of the Leverings with Elliot Richardson. In addition to Richardson, the book identifies a state Department official by the name of Bernard Oxman as a key player in the drive to use LOST to “strengthen global governance.” Oxman, chairman of the committee that drafted the treaty, [42] has written to a European legal audience that, “In considering treaties, members of parliaments are sometimes more concerned with the restraints that may be imposed on their own perceived freedom of action in some particular respect than with the overall benefits of regulating the behavior of other states under the treaty.” (emphasis added). In his article for the European Journal of International Law, he seems to suggest that LOST supporters play down the radical nature of the treaty until the U.S. ratifies it:
This means that those who wish to realize fully the contributions of the Convention to the rule of law will need to exercise restraint and wisdom in at least the immediate future lest they complicate the ratification process in one or more states. Politically, this suggests caution regarding the organization, composition and budgets of the new institutions established by the Convention. Legally, this suggests restraint in speculating on the meaning of the Convention or on possible differences between the Convention and customary law. [43]
The book says that Sam Levering worked closely with Sohn, Bernard Oxman and Stuart McIntyre in the State Department, and John Norton Moore, deputy head of the U.S. delegation at the Geneva session of the Law of the Sea conference in 1975. It says Moore [44] invited Levering to be a member of the delegation but he declined because he “wanted to keep his freedom of action as an NGO.”
While Alan Cranston was the U.S. Senator most closely associated with the world federalists, the WFA featured then-First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton in a video-taped address on October 19, 1999. Mrs. Clinton spoke to the group in the context of commending Walter Cronkite, the former anchorman of the CBS Evening News, and the WFA. Cronkite, who received the WFA’s 1999 global governance award, declared that “we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government” and that America must “yield up some of our sovereignty.” [45]
In accepting the award, Cronkite, who became an official spokesman for the WFA after he stepped down as anchorman of the CBS Evening News, revealed that he had been asked to serve as a “Washington lobbyist” and spokesman for the world federalists when he began his journalistic career 50 years ago. 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…” [46] Mrs. Nane Annan, the Swedish wife of the U.N. Secretary-General, actor Michael Douglas, and WFA President John B. Anderson, the former Republican congressman, were among those honoring Cronkite at the WFA event.
Cronkite also called for passage of several U.N. treaties, including:
Senator Clinton is not known to be an actual member of the WFA and, as she considers a run for the presidency in 2008, seems to be back-pedaling from some of its positions. In a recent speech, Clinton urged the Europeans to take into account the “legitimate concerns” of the U.S. regarding the ICC. She said:
Europe must acknowledge that the United States has global responsibilities that create unique circumstances. For example, we are more vulnerable to the misuse of an international criminal court because of the international role we play and the resentments that flow from that ubiquitous presence around the world. That does not mean, in my opinion, that the United States should walk out of the International Criminal Court. But it does mean we have legitimate concerns that the world should address, and it is fair to ask that there be sensitivity to those concerns that are really focused on the fact that the United States is active on every continent in the world.[49]
President Bill Clinton had sent a message to the World Federalist Association on the occasion of the WFA’s awarding of a “global governance” award to his Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, who handled Russian affairs. Talbott, a former columnist for Time magazine, wrote a column entitled “The Birth of the Global Nation,” arguing that in the next century “nationhood as we know it will be obsolete,” that we would all some day become world citizens, and that wars and human rights violations in the 20th century had clinched “the case for world government.” [50]
Hillary Clinton and Strobe Talbott had been friends at Yale University. [51]
In his message to the group, dated June 22, 1993, Bill Clinton noted that Norman Cousins, the WFA founder, had “worked for world peace and world government.” Clinton didn’t disagree with those goals, adding, “Best wishes...for future success.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Letter to Senator Richard Lugar, April 7, 2004.
[2] The U.S. has mainly tried to do this through bilateral agreements excluding U.S. citizens and military personnel from the jurisdiction of the ICC.
[3] The Genius of Federation: Why World Federation is The Answer To Global Problems, World Federalist Association, undated.
[4] Article 137 of the Treaty refers to the “Legal status of the Area and its resources.” It declares:
“1. No State shall claim or exercise sovereignty or sovereign rights over any part of the Area or its resources, nor shall any State or natural or juridical person appropriate any part thereof. No such claim or exercise of sovereignty or sovereign rights nor such appropriation shall be recognized.
“2. All rights in the resources of the Area are vested in mankind as a whole, on whose behalf the Authority shall act. These resources are not subject to alienation. The minerals recovered from the Area, however, may only be alienated in accordance with this Part and the rules, regulations and procedures of the Authority.
“3. No State or natural or juridical person shall claim, acquire or exercise rights with respect to the minerals recovered from the Area except in accordance with this Part. Otherwise, no such claim, acquisition or exercise of such rights shall be recognized.”
[5] Alan Cranston, The Sovereignty Revolution, (Stanford University Press: Stanford, California), 2004, page 5.
[6] In the book, The KGB Against the ‘Main Enemy,’ Herbert Romerstein and and Stanislav Levchenk report that Cranston, as an official of the U.S. Office of War Information in 1943, tried to downplay a Soviet human rights atrocity and admitted hiring a Communist writer.
[7] In the book, Cranston. The Senator from California, Eleanor Fowle would note that Reagan’s membership in the UWF helped keep UWF from becoming an issue in Cranston’s campaigns for public office.
[8] http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/06/documents/huac/reagan.html
[9] Lugar was accused by Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation of having “stacked the testimony” before his committee in favor of the LOST proponents.
[10] Global Solutions Quarterly, Spring 2004.
[11] In a review of Meyer’s book, Facing Reality: From World Federalism to the CIA, Charles Horner noted that, “Iike many liberals of that time, he did battle with Communists who were intent upon subverting liberal causes and organizations.”
[12] This division was set up by Thomas Braden, who would later become the liberal co-host on CNN’s Crossfire program.
[13] http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/cordmeyer.htm
[14] This is documented in the archives of the Carl Albert Center at the University of Oklahoma. Albert was the 46th Speaker of the House of Representatives.
[15] WFA. World Federalist Association. 1947-1997. Fiftieth Anniversary Historical Survey. World Federalist Association, Washington, D.C.
[16] Ibid.
[17] World Federalist Movement brochure, undated.
[18]John and Sheila Rees have led the way in focusing critical attention on the organization, but authors Real Jean Isaac (The Coercive Utopians) and S. Steven Powell (Covert Cadre) did so as well.
[19] Brian Crozier, “Power and National Sovereignty,” National Review, February 2, 1979, page 166.
[20] S. Steven Powell, Covert Cadre. Inside the Institute for Policy Studies, (Ottawa, Illinois: Green Hill Publishers, Inc., 1987).
[21] Ibid., page 15.
[22] Ibid., pages 38-39.
[23] World Peace Through World Law. World Federalist Association Annual Report, 2000 Report on 1999 Activities, page 7.
[24] In its “Who We Are” section on its web page, the group fails to disclose that it is a World Federalist front group. However, in the “Our Story” section, it acknowledges that its “long, proud tradition of activism” goes back to the founding of the United World Federalists.
[25] http://www.globalsolutions.org/who/our_staff.html
[26] http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7078/
[27] http://www.ptsview.com/blog/B977335149/index.html
[28] http://www.stopbolton.org/
[29] Financial contributions went to the following 2004 Senate candidates: Barbara Boxer, Christopher Dodd, Betty Castor (FL..), Obama, Lugar, Erskine Bowles (NC.), Eric Fingerhut (OH.), Brad Carson (OK.), Daschle, Murray, and Feingold.
[30] Senators who received 100 percent ratings were Boxer, Akaka, Durbin, Sarbanes, Kennedy, Lautenberg, Bingaman, Reed, Leahy and Jeffords.
[31] Jeffrey Laurenti, National Taxpayers, International Organizations. Sharing the Burden of Financing the United Nations. A Briefing Book of the UNA-USA Global Policy Project, page 43.
[32] A National Action Program of the World Federalist Association pamphlet, undated.
[33] Mark Yakich, Chapter 10. UN Funding: Supplemental or Direct Taxation?, pages 67-68.
[34] http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=814&issue_id=101
[35] http://www.fcnl.org/legpolcy/sek_frewar.htm#build
[36]http://www2.davidson.edu/news/news_archives/archives99/9909_levering.html
[37] Global Public Goods. International Cooperation in the 21st Century. Edited by Inge Kaul, Isabelle Brunberg, Marc A. Stern, (Oxford University Press: 1999), page 226.
[38] WFA 50. World Federalist Association. 1947-1997. Fiftieth Anniversary Historical Survey.
[39] 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 9.
[40] Ibid. page 20.
[41] Uniting the Peoples and Nations. Readings in World Federalism. Compiled by Barbara Walker. (World Federalist Movement & World Federalist Association, 1993). Pages 292-298.
[42] His bio says that he served as U.S. Representative and Vice-Chairman of the U.S. Delegation to the Third U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea, and as chairman of the English Language Group of the Conference Drafting Committee
[43] http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol7/No3/art1.html
[44]Moore today 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, and the Center for National Security Law
[45] News and Announcements. November 1999, http://www.wfa.org/announce2.html
[46] Walter Cronkite, A Reporter’s Life, (Alfred A. Knopf: New York, 1996), page 128.
[47] Known formally as the “Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and On Their Destruction.”
[48] Signed by President Clinton, it was voted down, 51-48, by the Senate on October 13, 1999, because it could not be verified.
[49] Excerpts from Remarks of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. German Media Prize Dinner, February 13, 2005. http://clinton.senate.gov/~clinton/speeches/2005217C29.html
[50] Strobe Talbott, “The Birth of the Global Nation,” Time, July 20, 1992, page 70.
[51] Barbara Olson, Hell to Pay. The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton, (Regnery Publishing, Inc., Washington, D.C., 1999), page 57.
Another gem to keep our eyes on.
41's "New World Order" speech is becoming a reality. This is truly an abomination to US sovereignty.
Really, you guy's ought to find something else to worry about alert. (!?!)
And to freedom. Bttt!
They'll get us into world government by hook or crook.
NAFTA and CAFTA are planned to get us into an EU type governmental arrangement, then we will be in the America's Region of the UN World Government. It will be the EU, The Asian Region, The African Region, and the Americas Region. There will be a one world currency developed to go along with it.
I fail to believe that the president, the military brass, and our elected officials don't know exactly what this treaty is intended to do to us. Even if I accept that they have all been "duped," why in the world would anybody in our gov't want to sign on to ANOTHER treaty brought to us and run by the same people who have brought us OfF, and all those wonderful child-raping "peacekeeping" operations?
I know your heart is in the right place. But this battle is .... lost.
And once we're suckered in, we'll be honorable and try to play by the rules. Some other country will not, and will thereby gain an advantage---and keep it. Uncle Sam will be Uncle Ben Dover.
Sorry you don't see that this issue is a sellout of American Sovereignty, President Ronald Reagan certainly did. Of course as a Christian I am familiar with the book of Revelation, maybe you should give it a look?
Beware of the signs... the end times are near... Anyone got any tin foil...
Regardless of your personal opinion of another FReeper's religious view; what is your view on the topic of this thread?
The Outer Space treaty with the United Nations has done great harm to our space program. Why should Americans accept another sovereignty stealing, anti-American, anti-freedom monstrocity from the United Nations?
LOST PING
all admiralty law has been accused of causing one world government at one time or another.
At certain levels, the use of forum selection clauses has allowed corporations to essentially create defacto world governance via private contracts.
It IS worth watching this, we need to be very cautious because there is no substantive US merchant marine. Even the US military has to contract out some private shipping to non-US providers.
FOUND
Law of the Sea pings.
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.