Subscribe
RSS
Mobile
President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are entering negotiations over -- or seeking ratification of -- five treaties that could radically limit our national sovereignty and the reach of our democratic institutions. Particularly scary is that the treaties, once signed and ratified, have the same status as constitutional law and cannot be altered or eclipsed by Congress or state legislatures. And their provisions must be enforced by U.S. courts.
Those who wish to preserve our sovereignty and democratic control over our future must rally to block these treaties, either by pressing Obama and Clinton not to sign them or by blocking their ratification.
• International Criminal Court -- Clinton has reversed George W. Bush's policy and entered into negotiations over U.S. participation in the court. Specifically, the leftists who are sponsoring the court wish to create a new crime of "aggression," which is essentially going to war without the approval of the United Nations. If we submit to the court's jurisdiction, our presidents and Cabinet officials could be prosecuted criminally for going to war without U.N. approval. This would, of course, give Russia and China a veto over our military actions. Clinton says she will stop our military's hands from being tied, but we all must realize that once we accept the International Criminal Court, we go down a slippery slope. The court could even prosecute Americans who have been cleared by our own judicial system.
• The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) has been signed, and the Obama administration -- with the aid of RINO Sen. Richard Lugar (Ind.) -- will push for its ratification as soon as Lugar's primary in Indiana is over this year. LOST requires that the United States pay an international body half of its royalties from offshore drilling. The body would then distribute the funds as it sees fit to whichever nations it chooses. The United States would only have one vote out of 160 regarding where the money goes. LOST will also oblige us to hand over our offshore drilling technology to any nation that wants it ... for free.
• Small-arms control -- Clinton is about to negotiate on a global ban on export of small arms. It would only apply to private citizens but, of course, most small-arms deals come not from individuals or private firms but from governments, specifically those of the United States, Russia, China and Israel. The treaty would require each nation to adopt measures to stop exportation of small arms. It is easy to see how this could be a backdoor way to require national registration of all guns and to assert federal regulation over firearms. It would also require the registration of all ammunition to track its source once a gun is fired. The Second Amendment be damned!
• Outer Space Code of Conduct -- Under the guise of stopping debris from accumulating in outer space, the European Union has enlisted Clinton in negotiations over a code of conduct. The code would prohibit activities that are likely to generate debris in outer space -- space littering. The code might inhibit or prohibit the United States from deploying anti-missile missiles on platforms in space, denying us the key weapon we need to counter Iranian, Chinese and North Korean missile threats. European leftists reacted angrily when G.W. Bush opted out of the ABM treaty banning defensive weapons. Now they seek to reimpose it under the guise of a code of conduct.
• Rights of the Child -- Even more fanciful is a treaty Clinton plans to negotiate setting forth a code of rights for children, to be administered by a 14-member court set up for the purpose. The draft treaty obliges rich nations to provide funds for shelter, food, clothing and education for children in poor nations. This provision could create grounds to litigate to challenge the level of foreign aid we give as inadequate to meet our treaty obligations. Already, leftists in the United Kingdom are using the treaty to attack welfare cuts by the Cameron government.
European liberalism is advancing -- masked -- by way of these treaties. Defenders of liberty must say no!
February 10, 2012 @ 9:58 am
If Mr. Morris had his facts correct, I might agree with him, but judging from his comments on the Law of the Sea Convention, I expect he has errors throughout this piece.
The LOS Convention has no provisions for revenue sharing for any resource as far out as 200 nautical miles from shore. Beyond 200 miles, in the area that previously was beyond national control (and has never been claimed as sovereign territory by the United States) the Convention can require other countries to recognize our claims to continental margins extending much further than 200 nautical miles. The sharing of revenues beyond 200 nautical miles (to resources not previously recognized as ours) was first proposed by Richard Nixon in 1970. The formula was designed by US industry to have no sharing at all for 5 years, then rising one percent per year to a maximum of 7% at 12 years and going no higher – so between 93% and 100% stays with the US and the developer. Without international recognition of our claims, there would be no development beyond 200 miles so that is a big plus since even 93% of something is more than 100% of nothing. And once the US joins, we will have a veto over the plan for distribution of revenues because the US would have the only permanent seat on the council that has to approve the distribution plan by consensus.
The Convention never had provisions for transfer of oil drilling or other technology on the continental shelf, either within 200 nautical miles or beyond. And thanks to President Reagan’s criteria that guided the changes made in 1994, the possibility for any required transfer of deep seabed mining technology was dropped (and even in the original flawed provisions it was to be on commercial terms, not free).
The leadership, both active and retired, of the Navy and the Coast Guard support the LOS Convention. American oil, shipping and telecommunications leaders support it was well. If a local pundit doesn’t agree, you can decide whether to go with the people who work on ocean issues or the pundit who just talks about them. Mr. Morris is welcome to his opinions, but he shouldn’t be making things up out of whole cloth and claiming them to be fact.
February 10, 2012 @ 2:01 pm
And tell me who would veto this measure for the United States? We do not have another John Bolton to look out for us we have an Obama appointee! Who else but Obama would bring the UN takeover up for ratification in the Senate? Read the following article:
http://www.aim.org/special-report/senator-vitter-leads-assault-on-uns-sea-treaty/
February 10, 2012 @ 2:10 pm
More information:
http://www.aim.org/special-report/scandal-rocks-un-sea-treaty-organization/
February 10, 2012 @ 4:14 pm
Who else would bring the LOS Convention to the Senate for ratification? George W. Bush did in 2003 and again in 2007, and when John Bolton was up for confirmation in the Senate he gave it his supported it as well.
This time, as in 2003 and 2007, the uniformed military, active and retired, is strongly behind it and American industry wants it as well.
Pointing as a couple papers on the internet does not make them factual. There is actually 18 years of history of the workings of the regime for the deep seabed. Not only is it working well, it has been far more hospitable to mineral exploration and development than US domestic legislation under which we have had no activity for well over a decade.
February 10, 2012 @ 4:31 pm
The Law of the Sea Convention is primarily an agreement among states as to wights and obligations in coastal waters and the high seas. The UN is that of a clerk with all substantive decisions belonging to sovereign states and what international bodies were needed were set up by the parties rather than turning to the United Nations.
And since you mentioned John Bolton, here is what he had to say about the LOS Convention in 2007 before the Foreign Relations Committee:
LUGAR: [D]o you see any potential entanglement of the United States with the Law of the Sea Treaty and loss of sovereignty to the U.N. or to any other world body?
BOLTON: No, I don’t see that the Law of the Sea Treaty implicates the United Nations in any material respect. And those that have gone over the question of the seabed conclude there’s no risk of taxation or anything like that.
As I say, my own review and that of the bureaus that report to me was on the importance that our military attached to it.
I will say, perhaps, one related point. A number of people have asked about the relationship of the Law of the Sea Treaty to the Proliferation Security Initiative.
And you know, I don’t think that if the Senate were to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty and the president were to make the treaty, that it would have any negative impact whatsoever on PSI.
February 10, 2012 @ 7:16 pm
Really? Since you concentrated on only one issue exposed by Mr. Morris on our national sovereignty, I suspect you have some vested interest in deep seabed-mining/exploration: perhaps you work for an Oil or Mining Corp.? Maybe “the last remaining American firm that has hopes of engaging in seabed mining”? Besides, his statements on LOST don’t seem to conflict with your statements — he just did not specify distances. Three Nm, two hundred Nm, or three thousand Nm — What’s The Big Deal? If economically productive, some American company would surely have discovered how to exploit the profit motive of deep seabed mining by now, regardless of location in the oceans.
And to your inference — “leadership, both active and retired, of the Navy and the Coast Guard support the LOS Convention” — if this were really important to the DoD, there would certainly have been public/congressional pleadings for same — haven’t heard of any for the past 17 years as a military member.
Suggest you may have missed the larger point of the entire piece: America is losing its sovereignty on many fronts. Who, in their intelligent, rational mind, can trust Clinton, Obama, his Czars, or the UN on any issues? Oh, BTW, if it weren’t for the importance and protection of our 2nd Amendment from “Small Arms Control”, we probably wouldn’t have the privilege of posting here now and none of the other issues would matter!
February 11, 2012 @ 12:11 am
No, I don’t work for a mining or oil firm. But I was part of the Reagan Administration review of the LOS Convention and served on his last effort to repair it through negotiations.
Part of the problem with Morris’ article is that he talks about oil and gas of the continental margin but uses from the section of the convention that applies to minerals found on the deep ocean floor beyond all claims of national sovereignty. Overall, almost everything is listed on the LOS Convention was incorrect. Distances are important because national sovereignty is, in part, determined by distance from shore. The territorial sea is 12 miles wide, the Exclusive Economic Zone is 200 miles wide and recognizes sovereignty over all fish, oil and gas and minerals in that zone In the deep seabed, no one has sovereignty, which is a problem for companies that need to invest $2 billion to develop a mine that will operate for 20 years. Without a way to legally prevent others from working the same deposit, companies can’t get investors or banks to sink the investment they need. That is part of the problem the Convention is meant to solve.
I’m glad that you questioned my statement about navy and coast guard support for the Convention. Because I follow this pretty closely I take it for granted that the support of the sea services is known to anyone with an opinion about it. I forget that most people rely on other sources that probably don’t give all the details about who supports it. I apologize for making that assumption. As to military representations to congress on behalf of the convention, in 1998 every living chief of naval operations endorsed US ratification of the Convention, as has every CNO since. All of the living commandants of the coast guard have endorsed it in a similar letter. All of the sea service combatant commanders have endorsed it. Just this week, the nominee to head Pacific Command, Adm. Sam Locklear gave a strong endorsement to the Senate Armed Services Committee. After his retirement former CNO Vern Clark testified to the senate in support of the Convention. A couple weeks ago at a meeting of the Association of the US Navy, the Vice CNO and two Deputy CNOs told me it was important that the senate give its advice and consent for the US to join the Convention. USCG commandant Thad Allen was quite outspoken in support of the Convention while in uniform and has written endorsements in articles and op-eds since his retirement. The current Commandant has an article on the coast guard’s role in the Arctic in the USNI Proceedings in which he endorsed the convention. The current Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. James Winnefeld, endorsed the convention when he was Commander of NorthCom. I spoke with retired USCG Commandant Paul Yost on Monday and he is fed up with people opposing the convention without listening to all the navy and coast guard leaders who have testified, written and spoken out for the US to join the convention. These aren’t lawyers or desk jockeys – every one is a line officer who has sailed into or under foreign seas or flown over them and most have led combined task forces or operations in which respect for sovereignty of foreign partners and neighbors played a key role in their success.
I’m not addressing any of the other treaties and conventions that Morris mentioned. I don’t know enough about them to take an informed position, but I do know the LOS Convention from study as an ocean engineer, service as a naval officer, working on the LOS review and negotiations during the Reagan Administration and continuing to work with experts at the war college. You may find parts of the convention you don’t like, but give the navy and coast guard their due. From Adm. Moorer (CNO 1967-70, endorsed the convention to the armed services and foreign relations committees in 1998) forward, the leaders of the Navy have been pushing for the US to join in order to help protect our military interests.
February 10, 2012 @ 11:34 am
Not to worry. NONE of these abaurd violations of US Sovereigntu will EVER be RATIFIED by 2/3 of the US Senate. And Lugar hopefully will be defeated in his primary this year and replaced by a REAL conservative Republican. The idiotic Law of the Sea treaty has been around for more than 25 years and not ratified yet.
February 10, 2012 @ 11:44 am
And while we have waited for 18 years after the fixes to the Law of the Sea Convention sought by Ronald Reagan were made, we have been on the sidelines while 12 different seabed mineral operations from developed and developing countries have been exploring sites and testing technology. Reagan’s biggest concern regarding the law of the sea was that the US develop a domestic industry to recover critical minerals for American industry. Rare earths, cobalt, nickel – we depend on China, Africa and Russia for world supplies of those minerals simply because we remain out of a convention supported by the US military and US industry, including the last remaining American firm that has hopes of engaging in seabed mining.
February 12, 2012 @ 1:26 am
Before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, please check out the following link below. These two papers, written by a an extremely intelligent retired attorney who is a strict constructionist of the US Constitution, will certainly put things into perspective:
http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/treaty-making-powers-of-the-united-states/
February 12, 2012 @ 11:27 am
So true, Tea Party Diva!
Publius Huldah proves that a treaty is constitutional only if the subject of the treaty falls within Congress’ Enumerated Powers. E.g., the treaty on the “Rights of the Child” would not be “constitutional” and become part of the “Supreme Law of the Land” (Art. VI., clause 2) even if the Senate did ratify it, because the Constitution does not authorize Congress to make laws about “childrens’ rights”.
Publius has quotes also from Thomas Jefferson saying that the federal government may NOT do by treaty what they are forbidden to do by the Constitution! By giving the president and Senate the power to make treaties, the Constitution only authorizes them to carry into effect, by way of treaty, powers which they already may constitutionally exercise.
E.g., since the Constitution no where authorizes the federal government to meddle in “childrens’ rights”, any treaty on that would be unconstitutional.
February 24, 2012 @ 3:55 am
….the larger point of the entire piece: America is losing its sovereignty on many fronts………
And let’s remember, if the Dems ever try to push Hillary into the WH again, that she is in full cahoots with Obama to wipe out U.S. sovereignty. Hillary is a self-described “modern progressive”, in other words, an Obama clone. The only thing she would do differently than Obama is increase the flame on the frog’s water in smaller increments.