WILL THE SENATE RATIFY LOST?
The fact that the Senate is even considering ratifying LOST is hard to fathom. Why would we subject ourselves to the jurisdiction of a third worlddominated body that hates us?
As Gaffney says: "If Americans have learned anything about the United Nations over the last 50 years, it is that this "world body" is, at best, riddled with corruption and incompetence. At worst, its bureaucracy, agencies and members are overwhelmingly hostile to the United States and other freedom-loving nations, most especially Israel."53
Mich.e.l.le Malkin asks the key question: "So why on earth would the United States Senate possibly consider putting the UN on steroids by a.s.senting to its control of seven-tenths of the world"s surface?"54
After all, let"s remember with whom we are dealing when we give the United Nations the kind of power conferred by LOST. Malkin lists the "well-doc.u.mented fiascoes" that bespeckle the UN"s history, including "the UN-administered Iraq Oil-for-Food program; investigations and cover-ups of corrupt practices at the organization"s highest levels; child s.e.x-slave operations and rape squads run by UN peacekeepers; and the absurd, yet relentless, a.s.sault on alleged Israeli abuses of human rights by majorities led by despotic regimes in Iran, Cuba, Syria and Libya."55
She fittingly warns that "the predictable effect of US accession to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea-better known as the Law of the Sea Treaty (or LOST)-would be to transform the UN from a nuisance and laughingstock into a world government: The United States would confer upon a UN agency called the International Seabed Authority (IA) the right to dictate what is done on, in and under the world"s oceans. Doing so, America would become party to surrender of immense resources of the seas and what lies beneath them to the dictates of unaccountable, nontransparent multinational organizations, tribunals and bureaucrats."56
This does not sound good.
So what will the Senate do?
In plotting how to get approval for this act of self-enslavement, the Obama administration has craftily decided to seek ratification only during the lame-duck session of the Senate, after the ballots have been counted in the 2012 election. Then, some senators will be retiring-a few voluntarily and a great many Democrats involuntarily-and they will have no worries about running for reelection. For the others, the cla.s.ses that will face reelection in 2014 and 2016, the balloting is in the distant future and not a matter of immediate concern.
Obama"s hope is that these factors induce senators to back him in pa.s.sing the treaty. He used much the same tactics in getting the START Treaty with Russia ratified, submitting it to the lame-duck session of the Senate after the ma.s.sacre of 2010 had left many senators still in office but doomed to retirement as soon as the new year dawned. This one-sided giveaway to Russia-which limited ballistic and strategic nuclear weapons but did nothing to curb the tactical nuclear weapons in which Moscow has a decided advantage-was ratified easily by the lame-duck body.
Likely all Democratic senators will back the treaty. But since a two-thirds majority is needed, the support of 14 Republicans, in addition to all 53 Democrats, will be required for ratification. With 47 Republicans in the current Senate, if 34 vote no, the treaty can be scuttled.
By a razor-thin margin, the Republicans in the Senate seem to be coming through. In July of this year, the bare minimum thirty-four Republican senators signed a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid signaling their intention to vote against the treaty. Is the treaty dead? Not by a long shot! Several of the thirty-four senators only jumped on board the bandwagon at the end and expressed doubts about voting no. Most important, at this writing, the two top Republicans on the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Senate-d.i.c.k Lugar (R-IN) and Bob Corker (R-TN)-weren"t among the thirty-four opponents. Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Committee, supports the treaty, and Corker, the likely incoming chairman should the Republicans win the Senate (Lugar was defeated in a primary), is uncommitted. We need to keep up the pressure to make sure these folks stay committed to vote no.
Their letter began: "We are writing to let you know that we believe this Convention reflects political, economic, and ideological a.s.sumptions which are inconsistent with American values and sovereignty."57
The Republicans laid out their reasons: "by its current terms, the Law of the Sea Convention encompa.s.ses economic and technology interests in the deep sea, redistribution of wealth from developed to undeveloped nations, freedom of navigation in the deep sea and exclusive economic zones which may impact maritime security, and environmental regulation over virtually all sources of pollution."58
They particularly highlighted their concerns about the cessation of sovereignty to the United Nations. "To effect the treaty"s broad regime of governance," they wrote, "we are particularly concerned that United States sovereignty could be subjugated in many areas to a supranational government that is chartered by the United Nations under the 1982 Convention. Further, we are troubled that compulsory dispute resolution could pertain to public and private activities including law enforcement, maritime security, business operations, and nonmilitary activities performed aboard military vessels."59
They concluded flatly by saying, "If this treaty comes to the floor, we will oppose its ratification."60
Bravo!
Here"s the list of the Republicans who signed the letter:
Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
David Vitter (R-LA)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Jim DeMint (R-SC)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
John Boozman (R-AK)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Ron Portman (R-OH)
Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Mike c.r.a.po (R-ID)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
John Barra.s.so (R-WY)
Richard Shelby (R-AL)
John Thune (R-SD)
Richard Burr (R-NC)
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Dan Coats (R-IN)
John Hoeven (R-ND)
Roger Wicker (R-MS)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Chuck Gra.s.sley (R-IA)
Jim Moran (R-KS)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)