Bad treaties never die. Such is the lesson of the Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST. The treaty would turn over all of the world’s unclaimed natural resources to a second United Nations, yet is beginning to move towards ratification. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is scheduled to vote on the treaty on Wednesday.
Three decades ago the Third World was busy campaigning for a so-called New International Economic Order (NIEO), which combined demands for more foreign aid, UN regulation of business, and collectivist resource development. LOST declared all seabed resources to be the “common heritage of mankind,” levied fees and royalties on Western mining and oil companies, created a monopoly company to mine the seabed, and established a new international body to divvy up the spoils.
President Ronald Reagan refused to sign the LOST in 1982, after which no major nation bound itself to the treaty. The agreement seemingly sank beneath the waves.
But President George H.W. Bush decided to revive the LOST, reopening negotiations, which were concluded by the Clinton administration. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright won a few small concessions and proclaimed victory. The U.S. signed, setting off an international stampede.
Although opposition in the Republican Senate prevented ratification, more than enough other countries assented, bringing LOST into effect. Now the LOST is before the Senate, backed by the Bush administration.
The president claims that the accord serves American interests. But even the State Department has acknowledged that the new “Agreement retains the institutional outlines of Part XI,” that is, the treaty’s original collectivist framework.
In broad sweep, LOST covers three subject areas. The first includes exclusive economic zones, fishing, marine research, ocean pollution, and oil exploration. These provisions, though generally noncontroversial, are not without adverse effect: for instance, energy companies will owe the International Seabed Authority royalties up to 12 percent on any oil produced from the Outer Continental Shelf beyond 200 miles. This may be the first global tax imposed on Americans without congressional approval.
Moreover, advocates of a new kind of New International Economic Order hope to use the LOST for their own ends. William C.G. Burns of the Monterey Institute of International Studies calls LOST “a promising instrument through which such [legal] action might be taken, given its broad definition of pollution to the marine environment and the dispute resolution mechanisms contained within its provision.” A flood of international lawsuits under LOST could undermine U.S. prosperity and sovereignty.
Russia’s well-publicized submarine voyage under the North Pole has led to suggestions that America cannot dispute Moscow’s territorial claims outside of the treaty. However, the treaty respects the rights of nonmembers, while other interested parties, most notably Canada and Denmark, can resist Russia’s claims within LOST. Moreover, the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf rejected Russian arctic territorial claims in 2002 based in part on information supplied by the U.S., demonstrating that Washington need not be a member to protect American interests.
Similarly, LOST’s affirmation of navigational freedom has won widespread support, including from the U.S. Navy. Yet most of the transit provisions incorporate existing customary international law. Moreover, there are ambiguities and uncertainties — whether, for instance, Washington can define which of its military transit activities are exempt from LOST restrictions.
The Bush administration proposes various “understandings” restricting the treaty’s reach. But other nations have issued their own reservations, thereby limiting American rights. Moreover, there is no guarantee that the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea or alternative arbitration forums would uphold America’s positions. Jeremy Rabkin of George Mason Law School points out that any administration would “find it very awkward (to say the least) to reject the interpretations that emerge from international arbitration of its disputed points.”
In any case, paper guarantees would be of little aid in any crisis. Agreements with countries that control critical waterways, backed by a strong navy, offer the best protection of U.S. rights.
The most contentious issue is seabed mining. LOST establishes the International Seabed Authority, which is governed by a Council, Assembly, and various committees and commissions, and the Enterprise, to mine the seabed. Western mining operations will fund both their regulator, the Authority, and their competitor, the Enterprise. Monies collected will be handed out to Third World states, “liberation” movements, and whoever else the majority decides to shower with benefits.
Treaty supporters admit that the original accord, which limited production and mandated technology transfers, was flawed. But they claim that the LOST has been “fixed.”
The Clinton administration did make a horrible treaty slightly less horrid. The governing philosophy, regulatory structure, and most of the rules remain the same, however. Where explicit redistributionist provisions, such as requiring technology transfer, were dropped, other, more ambiguous, language was left in place which could have the same effect.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
H/T to National Review Online