Terrorist Intimidation: Witnesses, Jurors Protection Overlooked in NYC Terrorist Trial
November 20, 2009
November 20, 2009
Views expressed in guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media.
Visit the complete Guest Column archives.
Lest We be LOST at Sea
Guest Column | By Paul M. Weyrich | September 23, 2005
Fortunately, some Senators understand the importance of protecting our nation’s sovereignty; first and foremost is Senator Inhofe.
Just as defenders of American sovereignty thought they could relax the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) could be revisited by the Senate. Don’t take my word for it but consider a letter to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, M.D. (R-TN) by Establishment leaders, such as David Rockefeller, Jr., former Secretaries of State Colin Powell, Madeleine K. Albright and James A. Baker III; and Leon E. Panetta, Chairman, Pew Oceans Commission. The letter could be a warning to millions of Americans who do not want our country’s affairs at sea micromanaged by a world body. The letter urged the Senate to “expeditiously provide advice and consent for United States accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.” It emphasized that “rapid Senate approval is needed.” One could expect that the Senate Leadership increasingly would be pressured by the Establishment to ratify LOST so that President Bush could sign it. A lesson Conservatives learned from the fight over the Panama Canal Treaty nearly thirty years past is do not ignore the U.S. House of Representatives. It is good advice to keep in mind for this fight, too. Grassroots Conservatives recognize that the Senate is charged by the Constitution with the role of ratifying treaties. Senator Frist and Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a strong proponent of LOST, could decide whether the Full Senate would consider ratification. Grassroots Conservatives live outside the Beltway and many leaders in Washington discount their views but listen to many influential lobbyists. LOST could become the multinational corporations’ delight but often those companies have appeared to be more concerned with agreements that promise short-term profits over the long-term interest of our country. NAFTA is one example. Grassroots Conservatives contribute to political parties, volunteer in political campaigns and communicate with elected officials. Fewer issues have concerned Conservatives than the issue of our country’s ceding power to international regulatory bodies. Our country was founded upon the freedom and liberties for which the colonists fought the Revolutionary War. Many Americans, particularly Conservatives, still honor our heritage and willingly would not let the United States join an autonomous international organization such as the International Seabed Authority (ISA) without a fight. When Senator Lugar held a hearing in early 2004 on LOST he did not permit any expert critical of LOST to testify. Dr. Peter Leitner, author of Reforming the Law of the Sea Treaty: Opportunities Missed, Precedents Set and U. S. Sovereignty Threatened (Rowman & Littlefield, 1996), volunteered to do so, only to be rejected by aides to the Majority on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Fortunately, conservative groups were galvanized in the defense of our sovereignty. Senator James M. Inhofe (R-OK), Chairman, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, held a hearing on the implications of LOST at which both sides could testify. The Senate Armed Services Committee and other congressional committees with jurisdiction over LOST also held hearings. Could the House become involved in LOST? House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) made that point when he testified before the House International Relations Committee hearing on LOST on May 12, 2004. Blunt told Chairman Henry Hyde (R-IL) and the Committee that President Ronald Reagan rejected United States participation in LOST. Attempts by the Clinton Administration to “fix” LOST merely were cosmetic. Developed countries where deep sea-mining companies operate (“sponsoring states”) would be required to transfer mining technology to Third World countries. The United States would be responsible for approximately one-quarter of the ISA budget, which would enforce LOST although we would be only one country among many in setting the ISA agenda. Blunt emphasized to the Committee: “…both Houses of Congress have a responsibility for examining the impacts that this treaty would have on national security and commercial access to our own resources. As with any treaty, certain aspects of U.S. law will likely have to be altered for compliance if this treaty is ratified by the other body. So we should not take our responsibility in the House lightly. If this treaty commits the United States to expend funds and provide personnel for action not approved by Congress, then it is important we are fully aware of what we are getting ourselves into. Forgive me for sounding cynical if I don’t take at face value the line in the annex [inserted by the Clinton Administration] that “all organs and subsidiary bodies to be established under the Convention and this Agreement shall be cost-effective. International institutions are rarely, if ever, held to such a standard.” Baker Spring, F.M. Kirby Research Fellow, National Security Policy, at the Heritage Foundation, told the House International Relations Committee that House committees with jurisdiction over LOST should examine the implications of the treaty. While the House of Representatives will not consider the matter of granting consent to ratification, House member(s) should participate in the general debate over the Convention. I believe that House members should take the opportunities that are presented to them to communicate with their Senate colleagues both formally and informally on this matter. Generally, they should point out to the Senate that there is no pressing need for rushing to judgment on ratification. The Convention is a long and complex agreement and an informed judgment on granting consent to ratification will necessarily involve a broad debate in the Senate. Spring warned the House International Relations Committee that LOST represented a “modest” yet noteworthy step toward an “international sovereign authority unchecked by the governed.” Spring believes the United States should not be compelled to follow the lead of other countries or international organizations, such as the European Union (EU). “National leaders in Europe seem to aspire to relegating their nations to the status of provinces inside a supranational European authority…As for America’s leaders, they firmly should reject such aspirations for their nation now.” Fortunately, some Senators understand the importance of protecting our nation’s sovereignty; first and foremost is Senator Inhofe. Grassroots Conservatives who would defend our sovereignty should realize that the House of Representatives should be engaged in the debates about LOST. The Senate ratified two Panama Canal Treaties in 1978. One treaty ratified by the Senate was the Neutrality Treaty, which provided for the operation of the Canal and opened the Canal to vessels regardless of national registry. The other treaty was ratified by the Senate to establish joint control of the Canal by the United States and the Republic of Panama through 1999, when the United States would cede control to Panama. The Panama Canal Treaties barely were ratified by the required two-thirds vote for ratification. However, the Carter Administration could not savor victory for the treaty it had worked so hard to ratify. An earlier House vote left doubt as to whether the Congress would implement the Panama Canal Treaty. New York Times reporter A.O. Sulzberger, Jr. reporting wrote on September 20, 1979: “While members of the House opposed to the treaty have based at least part of their argument on their Constitutional right of oversight, behind it has been a belief, fueled by letters from constituents, that the treaty is simply a bad one.” Liberals pulled out all the stops, relying on behind-the-scenes arm-twisting to secure the votes required to pass implementing legislation days before the 1999 deadline to give the Government of the Republic of Panama control over the Panama Canal. The present Congressional Leadership is more conservative than the Congressional Leadership was when the Panama Canal Treaty was ratified. House Committee hearings on LOST, similar to hearings that House International Relations Committee Chairman Hyde conducted last year, could increase public awareness of LOST and its implications for U.S. adherence to the Law of the Sea Convention and the Agreement relating to Implementation. If LOST cleared the Senate the House would be required to vote on legislation to implement LOST. Implementation legislation would include the authorization of funds to implement LOST and membership in ISA. House Members should review LOST so Conservatives would not be surprised if LOST were to be ratified. Upon ratification there could be international taxation, technology transfers from our country to the Third World and ISA second-guessing about our naval operations. I wish all Americans would consider the implications of LOST.
Paul Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.
© This column is the property of the Free Congress Foundation and may not be reproduced without their permission. For comments and inquiries, contact Phyllis E. Hughes at (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). Visit our website at http://www.FreeCongress.org.
Guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media or its staff.
0 Comments | Post a Comment
