Posted by
Frigglesnitz on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 9:05:10 PM
Sometime ago Phyllis Schlafly wrote a column relating to the Law of the Sea Treaty, generally referred to as "LOST," which it seems to me is a good name for it. Ms. Schlafly pointed out some terms of the treaty not calculated to inure to the benefit of the United States of America.
As quickly as possible letters began flying out of my office to my lawmakers in Washington and to the editor of my local paper. The thrust of those letters was that the United States should refrain from ratifying LOST.
One of my U.S. Senators assured me that LOST was good for the United States, and that President Bush wished to have it ratified. He was so persuasive that I contacted the letters editor, to whom I had that day sent a letter, stating that in light of the Senator's letter, perhaps my letter should not be published.
The more I learned about LOST, however, the more I realized that LOST had not been misnamed. Of course I contacted the letters editor of the paper and said that if the paper were interested in printing the letter, I had no objections. The paper did publish the letter, for which I was grateful. I believed it important that as many people as possible be informed of the possibility that the treaty called LOST was perhaps on the brink of being ratified.
The Heritage Foundation has published Web Memo No. 1804 by Steven Groves, dated February 8, 2008; its title is "Congress Should Ignore Budget Requests Relating to the Law of the Sea Treaty." The link to that Web Memo is as follows:
One of the most important statements of the Web Memo is that "LOST is a controversial treaty that awards effective control of 70 percent of the Earth's surface to an international treaty organization." Also, "In 1982, President Ronald Reagan identified serious flaws in LOST and rejected the treaty on multiple grounds. An effort to 'fix' LOST during the Administrations of George. W. Bush and Bill Clinton resulted only in a new agreement that failed to fully address Reagan's concerns regarding the treaty....Unless and until it is ratified by the Senate, the United States is not a party to LOST and is under no obligation to provide funding for any activities related to the treaty."
It is worrisome that one of my Senators agreed with President Bush that LOST should be ratified, and, having that opinion, would likely also opine that $5 million in the Administration's 2009 budget proposal be included to fund LOST.
As stated in the Web Memo, "The administration has no business making a budget request directed at subsidizing organizations of which the United States is not a member. The United States is already obligated to supply billions of dollars in funding to dysfunctional and mismanaged internation organizations such as the United Nations, the U.N. Development Program, and U.N. Peacekeeping Operations." Also, U.S. taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund non-existent obligations stemming from flawed treaties. LOST should not be ratified, much less funded prior to ratification....The White House should withdraw its budget requests relating to LOST. If it does not, Congress should ignore the requests and provide no funding for any activities relating to the treaty."
As mentioned above, LOST is aptly named.
On 8/25/07 Ed Feulner, the respected President of The Heritage Foundation, had an article in the Washington Times named "They just don't get LOST" regarding the Law of the Sea Treaty ("LOST"). "They" referred to that august body called the U.S. Senate.
Fuelner stated that LOST would create a bureaucratic International Seabed Authority with power to regulate trade, exploration and mining in the world's oceans. He further stated that this authority "would basically be an aquatic United Nations of the sea.... Except, instead of issuing toothless condemnations of the United States, this authority would have the actual power to thwart American interests.... [and] bring action against the US...."
A Web Memo by The Heritage Foundation on 9/25/07 set out five reasons why conservatives should oppose the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. The most important was the first: (1)"The Treaty Will Undermine U.S. Sovereignty."
Without sovereignty we are LOST.
We should waste no time in urging our Senators, first, to "get" LOST – to understand it fully, and, second, to reject any budget item for its funding in any amount.
The taxpayers of the United States of America should not be obligated, quoting from Web Memo No. 1804, to "fund an organization as well as the international tribunal established by the treaty" -- particularly as the U.S. is not party to the treaty.