Viewpoints

LOST: Good for the U.N., Bad for the U.S.

Published: November 2, 2007 - Printer Friendly Article -  Send This Article To A Friend

On October 31, 2007, the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea and sent it to the full Senate for ratification. If ratified, the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) would put into international law the Marxist perspective of “what belongs to no one belongs to everyone” and apply that to the high seas.

In other words, LOST is the mother of all socialist schemes to redistribute American wealth, weaken the U.S. economy and compromise our national security.

The original treaty was developed in the late 1970s during the heyday of the Soviet Union. Many world leaders were of the opinion that Soviet-style socialism would eventually prevail throughout the world. At that time, many national and international experts believed that the U.S. was in decline and that it was inevitable the Soviet Union would become the world’s only super power. It was in this context of world politics that the concept of an international socialistic governing “Authority” that would serve the interests of mankind by controlling the world’s oceans came into being.

Obviously, the national and international experts were wrong, but that hasn’t stopped the internationalists in the U.S. Senate from continuing their efforts to ratify LOST.

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration is in favor of ratification which has once again placed them at odds with conservatives who have a long history of principled opposition to the treaty.

For instance, as early as 1978, Ronald Reagan voiced opposition to LOST because of the regulatory power of the Authority. He saw it for what it was … a scheme that weakened the economies of developed nations for the benefit of third world countries. In an October 1978 radio address, Reagan said that while no one had ruled out a sensible treaty, “…  after years of fruitless negotiating, it became apparent that the underdeveloped nations now controlling the [U.N.] General Assembly were looking for a free ride at our expense … again.”

In addition, LOST gave recognition to “national liberation movements” and included them under the treaty. The Reagan Administration saw this as an opening for terrorists groups such as the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). That provision is still in the treaty.

Citing these and other objections, President Reagan refused to sign the treaty in 1982. The problems that lead President Reagan to reject LOST 25 years ago still exist.

For instance, U.S. sovereignty will be undermined by the requirement that disputes that arise under the treaty must be submitted to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) for resolution. Moreover, the treaty can be amended without U.S. consent and create new tribunals and new mandates that could force U.S. companies to turn over sensitive data and technologies to them. It should be noted that treaties ratified by the Senate supersede our Constitution.

There are other problems. Many opponents of LOST believe the treaty will become a battering ram for environmental activists to force the U.S. to comply with environmental mandates that will harm the U.S. economy.

Our national security was compromised during the Clinton Administration because of LOST. In the late 1990s, the Communist Chinese government used LOST to obtain micro-bathymetric equipment and advanced sonar technology from American companies that had potential application to anti-submarine warfare. Because the U.S. Senate has never ratified LOST, the Chinese had no legitimate right to this technology. Moreover, the Clinton Administration should have rejected these demands on national security grounds.

Instead, because President Clinton had signed the treaty, Clinton administration officials insisted that the U.S. government submit to the LOST requirement for sharing technology. On this premise, the Clinton administration turned over to the Chinese government equipment with the potential for use against U.S. submarines.

The U.S. Senate should never ratify any treaty that could undermine American sovereignty, compromise our national security, harm our economy or put our armed forces at greater risk. Along with the control that foreign nations, particularly oil-exporting nations, already have over energy resources critical to our economy, it makes even less sense to enter into such a treaty.

Ratifying the treaty achieves the objectives of United Nations, not the United States. Consequently, it should be of concern to every American citizen that the Senate might ratify a treaty that subjugates U.S. interests to an international tribunal of nations with varying levels of hostility toward the U.S. 

No U.S. Senator worth his or her salt who claims the title of “conservative” would ever consider voting to ratify this treaty. Ronald Reagan stood firmly on the side of the American people against LOST. Now the American people are watching to see where the U.S. Senate will stand.

Gary Palmer is president of the Alabama Policy Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit research and education organization dedicated to the preservation of free markets, limited government and strong families, which are indispensable to a prosperous society.

November 2, 2007

 Note:  This column is a copyrighted feature distributed free of charge by the Alabama Policy Institute.  Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author and API are properly cited.  For information or comments contact: Gary Palmer, Alabama Policy Institute, 402 Office Park Drive, Suite 300, Birmingham, Alabama 35223, (205) 870-9900, e-mail garyp@alabamapolicy.org. To subscribe or unsubscribe to this column, please email joannl@alabamapolicy.org.