LOST approval urged by global goverment advocates

As concern grows that the United Nations is intent on replacing what the National Security Guidance calls “an orderly arrangement of sovereign states” with a proto-world government – complete with the ability to impose international taxes, a new push is being made for a treaty that would advance that purpose: the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST).

This sovereignty-sapping agenda is at the heart of a dispute now playing out in Turtle Bay, where U.S. Permanent Representative John Bolton is resisting an initiative pushed by governments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) who are hostile to the United States and/or champions of a supranational government. Amb. Bolton is being savaged by the latter for wisely seeking over 500 changes to a draft Outcome Document envisioned for signature by heads of state and government at a High-Level Plenary Meeting of the UN General Assembly next month.

Yesterday, French President Jacques Chirac underscored his government’s intention to push forward with one such tax – on international airline travel, both as a unilateral initiative and together with Germany, Spain, Algeria, Brazil and Chile at the UN meeting. According to the Associated Press, “French authorities said a tax of about $6 per passenger worldwide, with a $25 surcharge for business class, would generate about $12 billion a year. The contribution could be adjusted in poorer countries, so passengers there were not penalized.”

The Establishment Strikes Back

It is against this unlikely backdrop, that a group of prominent former and present officials released today a letter to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist urging him to facilitate the “expeditious” ratification of a treaty that would help establish precedents useful to opponents of the Bush Administration at the UN and elsewhere: the Law of the Sea (LOST).

Despite the highly generalized praise for LOST offered by its proponents in the letter dated 31 August, the Treaty is problematic in a number of respects. For example, its governing body would be empowered to impose what amount to international taxes on resources extracted from the ocean floor and subsurface. Parties to the accord, moreover, are compelled to submit to what will, inevitably, be politicized tribunals like the World Court, whose decisions are binding and unappealable. It contains sweeping environmental obligations that make those entailed in the Kyoto accords pale by comparison – especially insofar as the Law of the Sea Tribunal has established that it believes its jurisdiction extends to activities on land and in the air if they might affect the world’s oceans.

Perhaps most worrisome is the fact that LOST was shaped by individuals, NGOs and regimes that have sought to use such international agreements governing the so-called “common space” to constrain America’s freedom of action and military power. This could be accomplished, were the United States to become a party to LOST, by the use of the Treaty’s tribunal and/or arbitration panels to encumber U.S. intelligence collection and submarine activities, by insisting upon the transfer of militarily significant technology and information, and even by prohibiting the interdiction of vessels believed to be engaged in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Second Opinions

Opponents of the Law of the Sea Treaty have their own roster of influential figures who can go toe-to-toe on the implications of this accord with those who lent their name to the letter to Senator Frist. In fact, earlier this year, an array of organizations and individuals representing virtually the entire conservative movement joined a press conference at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) to release their own letter to Sen. Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Among those who participated were Senator James Inhofe, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee; Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick; David Keene, Chairman of the American Conservative Union; Patrick Buchanan, author and commentator; Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform; Fred Smith, President, The Competitive Enterprise Institute and Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President, Center for Security Policy.

Incredibly, the voices of such critics were not afforded an opportunity to be heard when, in the Fall of 2003, the Foreign Relations Committee last considered the Law of the Sea Treaty and approved a resolution of ratification. In the intervening period: serious opposition has emerged; the Treaty was returned to the Foreign Relations Committee with the end of the last session of Congress and must be considered by that panel, and others, afresh; and the Bush Administration has had to confront new realities. Of these, the most immediate is the fact that the sorts of problems inherent in this Treaty are of a piece with those it is currently confronting in the draft Outcome Document for the UN General Assembly meeting next month.

The Bottom Line

For these reasons, if Senator Frist feels the need to respond to the LOST proponents’ new letter, it should be with an assurance that any further consideration by the Senate of this flawed treaty will be done in a manner that assures its defects as well as putative merits are carefully and deliberately examined. And, just as the United States must oppose global taxes and world-government-advancing programs at the UN this fall, it should do as Ronald Reagan did in 1982 – namely, reject the Law of the Sea Treaty.