by Dick Morris
The Cato Institute rightly asks “who would do the seizing?” There is no UN Navy, but there is a US Navy that would protect our commercial interests in the face of a hostile seizure.26
Indeed, Cato stresses that the arguments of the oil companies make it “all the more important that the United States refuse to ratify the [Law of the Sea Treaty]. Once Washington has done so, a future renunciation of the LOST might not be considered enough to reestablish Americans’ traditional freedom on the high seas.”27
Backers of the treaty see the agreement as a fait accompli since more than the necessary sixty nations have already ratified it, putting it into effect (according to its own terms). But, as Cato notes, “nations cannot be held to surrender their rights because other states have ratified a treaty. Put bluntly, it matters little whether or not Djibouti, Fiji, or Zambia approves of American mining consortia operating in the Pacific.”28
SHACKLING THE US NAVY
The Law of the Sea Treaty has other horrific implications. Essentially, it makes the entire seabed and the waters above it the sovereign property of the United Nations and disempowers the US Navy.
Ever since the United States won the Cold War and acquired unquestioned global military superiority, the other nations of the world have sought to rein in American force. Two treaties represent their most audacious effort to stop the United States from exercising its military sway throughout the world.
The Law of the Sea Treaty gives the International Seabed Authority (ISA) the right to adjudicate disputes over the seas, deciding who can sail where and drill where on the seabed. Currently, the US Navy, as a practical matter, makes these determinations since no one can challenge its power. But prevailing anti-American sentiment throughout the world is leading other nations to try to reduce its power.
The second effort to restrain our military power is through the International Criminal Court. It would ban any American president—on possible penalty of criminal prosecution before the court—from going to war without the approval of the UN Security Council, a body hobbled by the Russian and Chinese veto power. The treaty would, in effect, require the approval of Moscow and Beijing before our armed forces could be committed to combat. (See more on the ICC in Part Six.)
The right of open seas and freedom of navigation is maintained for all nations by the unrivaled and unequaled power of the US Navy, which, after Great Britain found its resources too limited to afford a large navy, has protected open seas for almost a hundred years.
But, now, in an era of defense spending cuts, some urge that the US Navy pull back from its historic mission and turn the protection of free navigation over to the International Seabed Authority.
Disputes that were once adjudicated by the US Navy will now go before international arbitrators meeting in Hamburg, Germany, appointed by the ISA—and almost certainly hostile to American interests. The arbitrators, whose decisions are binding on signatory nations, are chosen by the parties to the dispute, each getting the right to name one or two of the five judges. In the event that a fifth judge satisfactory to the contending nations could not be negotiated, the power to appoint the judges would fall on the secretary-general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, whose tenure has been noted for its corruption, anti-Americanism, and overt advocacy of the transfer of resources to the third world. Good luck getting a fair trial out of him!
Peter Brookes of the Heritage Foundation asks the key question: “Why risk sacrificing US sovereignty under the treaty if it makes us no more secure? After all, what initially established and still ensures freedom of navigation under international law is naval power. To secure navigational freedom, territorial rights and all national and international interests addressed in LOST, we must maintain the strength of the US Navy, not look to an anachronistic pact that is intent on advancing a one-world agenda.”29
The treaty itself has been kicking around for years. Negotiated by the misguided globalists of the Carter administration, the drive for US participation was only temporarily halted after Reagan refused to sign on in 1982.
President Clinton signed the treaty Reagan had rejected, after it was renegotiated in 1994. The changed treaty was hailed as solving all the objections Reagan had raised and Clinton called for prompt Senate ratification. But a careful examination of these changes revealed that they were largely cosmetic, fudging some issues and avoiding others. Those who had opposed the treaty are largely still opposed. Conservative objections to the revised document were so strong that the Republican majority on the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee refused to report the treaty to the floor of the Senate in the 1990s.
Now, in the current drive for ratification, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton mocked those who raised legitimate questions about the treaty in her Senate testimony, saying that the arguments against the treaty “cannot even be taken with a straight face.” She said the opposition to the treaty was “based in ideology and mythology, not in facts, evidence, or the consequences of our continuing failure to accede to the treaty.”30
As noted, the secretary of state dismissed concerns over the treaty, noting that if the US signed it or any UN treaty, “[o]f course, that means the black helicopters are on their way,”31 a reference to conspiracy theories about a world government and a quote that inspired the title of this book. Thank you, Hillary!
One of the changes made in 1994 excluded military vessels from the regulation of the International Seabed Authority. But Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) notes that while
proponents say the treaty exempts military activity from international litigation, those of us opposing it are deeply concerned because this terribly flawed document fails to define what is included in that exemption. In addition, it opens the US military to the jurisdiction of international courts and governing bodies.
The Senator noted that “military training exercises that do not have the approval of other nations could be prevented because of potentially negative environmental impacts. US military vessels could be stopped on the grounds that they are too heavy a polluter.32
Currently, the US Navy is subject to the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization, now called the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The IMO sets maritime laws to improve safety at sea, facilitate trade, and protect the marine environment. The Law of the Sea Treaty would supersede the IMO. The IMO already gives the US a free hand to pursue commerce and military operations around the globe. So why hamper and hinder our own Navy and subject us to the jurisdiction of the Seabed Authority?
CAN THE TREATY STOP CHINA AND RUSSIA FROM THEIR TERRITORIAL CLAIMS?
Defenders of the Law of the Sea Treaty say that it is necessary to resolve two regional problems: China’s attempt to assert control over the South China Sea and Russia’s efforts to claim sovereignty over the Arctic ice shelf, where the warming global climate may make oil drilling more technically feasible in the future.
China is a signatory to the Law of the Sea Treaty but, nevertheless, it is ignoring one of its key provisions—the offshore exclusive economic zone. The treaty gives each country bordering the ocean a zone of two hundred miles off its coast in which it can drill for oil or engage in any economic activity. Even though the treaty bars other nations from economic activity—such as oil drilling—within another country’s two-hundred-mile zone, China is claiming that it can drill anywhere in the South China Sea, even right off the Vietnam coast.
In June 2012, the China National Offshore Oil Corporation announced that it was “offering a new batch of oil-exploration blocks inside the 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone granted to Vietnam under the United Nations’ Law of the Sea Treaty.”33
Vietnam protested, but the International Seabed Authority—charged with enforcing the treaty—did nothing to bar the Chinese action. China does whatever it wants, wherever it wants, as usual, and only nations like the United States scrupulously abide by their treaty commitments.
To believe that China would be deterred from its imperialistic ambitions b
y the rulings of the International Seabed Authority is ridiculous. The fact that China is already a signatory to the treaty has obviously not stopped it from trying to elbow aside not only Vietnam, but also the Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia for control of the South China Sea.
Peter Brookes debunks the idea that the treaty would inhibit China, noting that China, “claims ‘indisputable sovereignty’ over the entire South China Sea—more than 1 million square miles. (LOST allows for 12-mile territorial waters and a 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone—or EEZ—from a country’s coastline.) Beijing has flouted LOST for years while building a mighty military machine, especially a navy, to assert its claims. It’s fantasy believing that an American signature on a piece of paper will change China’s mind about the South China Sea and EEZ freedom of navigation.”34
One of the nation’s most astute observers of China, Gordon Chang, agrees. Writing in the World Affairs Journal, Chang said that “although Beijing ratified the [LOST] pact in June 1996, it continues to issue maps claiming the entire South China Sea. That claim is, among other things, incompatible with the treaty’s rules. It’s no wonder Beijing notified the UN in 2006 that it would not accept international arbitration of its sovereignty claims.”35
China seems totally undaunted by its treaty commitment under the Law of the Sea Treaty.
Nor would LOST be any more helpful in adjudicating the controversy with Russia over the Arctic.
Brookes points out that advocates of the treaty say we
supposedly need to be inside the LOST “tent” to counter Moscow’s and others’ claims in the Arctic, where climate change might allow harvesting of once-inaccessible natural resources around the North Pole. (US government surveys suggest about one-third of the world’s yet-to-be-discovered, recoverable natural resources are below Arctic ice floes.)
In fact, we’re already a member of the Arctic Ocean Conference—which is doing a good job of resolving the claims by the five circumpolar states (the United States, Canada, Russia, Denmark and Norway) in the High North.36
Former assistant secretary of defense Frank Gaffney points out that it is a lot easier to get five governments to agree than the 160 that make up the International Seabed Authority.37
And all this assumes that the Seabed Authority would dispense justice. The record of the United Nations is dismal in this regard and the chances are that the ISA nations would seek to curry favor with Moscow or Beijing—or repay their bribes and favors—by unjust and arbitrary rulings, even if just to stick it to the United States.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta defended the treaty before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, saying that “by moving off the sidelines, by sitting at the table of nations that have acceded to this treaty, we can defend our interests, we can lead the discussions, we will be able to influence those treaty bodies that develop and interpret the Law of the Sea.”38
But Frank Gaffney argues, “This is simply not so if, as is true of the LOST’s various institutions, we would have but one seat among many, and no certainty that we can decisively ‘influence bodies that develop and interpret the law of the sea.’ ”39
“In fact,” Gaffney adds, “thanks to the rigged-game nature of those institutions, such bodies can be relied upon to hamstring us—by, for example, applying environmental regulations over which we have no control to our Navy’s anti-submarine warfare exercises and our domestic emissions into inland air and water that migrates to the international oceans.”40
TREATY OPENS DOOR TO NAVAL WEAKNESS
Yet admirals and Navy service chiefs have advocated ratifying the Law of the Sea Treaty. General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for example, said this treaty “codifies navigational rights and freedoms essential for our global mobility.”41
Former defense secretary Rumsfeld rejects the Navy’s argument for the treaty:
The most persuasive argument for the treaty is the US Navy’s desire to shore up international navigation rights. It is true that the treaty might produce some benefits, clarifying some principles and perhaps making it easier to resolve certain disputes. But our Navy has done quite well without this treaty for the past 200 years, relying often on centuries-old, well-established customary international law to assert navigational rights. Ultimately, it is our naval power that protects international freedom of navigation. This treaty would not make a large enough additional contribution to counterbalance the problems it would create.42
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) argues that “ceding any authority to an international body is not only a threat to our sovereignty, it also creates another avenue for other nations to stop US unilateral activity.”43
So why are the admirals pushing the treaty? Inhofe believes that the likely future weakness of the US Navy may be at play here. He explains that “some fear the Navy is at a tipping point. Increased global threats, combined with fewer resources, have created growing concern for its future. Devastating budget cuts under the Obama administration mean doing even more with much less. If the proposed defense cuts through sequestration go into effect, potential cuts include the littoral combat ship, amphibious ships, a reduction in aircraft carriers and far fewer sailors. After sequestration, our fleet could be smaller than 230 ships—the smallest since 1915.”44
Inhofe wonders, “could it be that some have decided to put their hope in a piece of paper rather than provide the resources necessary to maintain our Navy’s traditional strength?”45
But it is pure fantasy to assume that the Seabed Authority would be impartial and just in its rulings. And it is further fantasy to believe that powers like Russia and China would listen to it. What recourse would we have if they don’t? Both nations have veto power in the UN Security Council and can stop any enforcement action with teeth. The US will, of course, honor the decisions of the authority if we join, but other, autocratic nations will thumb their noses at it.
Brookes says that relying on the treaty rather than on our own Navy to keep the sea-lanes open is “outsourcing national security”!46
Democratic Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) asked General Dempsey the key question during hearings on the LOST: “Does failure to ratify this treaty . . . in any way compromise the ability of the United States to project force around the world, to support and sustain our allies . . . ? Are we at risk as a result of failure to ratify this treaty?”
Dempsey’s response boiled down to “no.”47
“Our ability to project force will not deteriorate,” he said, if we refrain from ratifying the treaty.48
A BACKDOOR GLOBAL WARMING TREATY
In 1997, amid much fanfare, the nations of the world signed the Kyoto Protocol on Global Climate Change. The treaty took effect in 2005. While it was signed and ratified by 191 nations, the United States, to the intense frustration of the global community, never approved it. Indeed, it has never even been submitted to the Senate for ratification, so slight would be its chances. (In 2011, Canada renounced the treaty.)
The document commits thirty-seven largely European and Western nations to a 5 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. While the US did not ratify the treaty, the fact is that we have more than doubled the reduction goals of the treaty through market forces—high gasoline and low natural gas prices—and public education and conservation. China, India, and much of the developing world refused to sign up for any carbon emission reductions and have not achieved any. For more information about the US record on curbing carbon emissions, see the chapter on Saudi Arabia in our previous book, Screwed!.
But it has been a goal of the liberal globalists to get Uncle Sam’s signature on a global climate change treaty. They say that this is because the US generates one-quarter of the world’s greenhouse gases. But America’s record in cutting emissions is so extraordinary that it gives the lie to this stated objective. Their real goal is to control the United States, diminish our power, and assert regulatory jurisdiction over our power plants, factories, and entire economy.
Obama tr
ied to force our cooperation in this effort by pushing Congress to enter a global system of cap and trade that obliged us to pay for our emissions by giving money to third world nations that do not emit comparable levels of greenhouse gas. His bill passed Nancy Pelosi’s House but was rejected by the Senate (even when the Democrats had the requisite sixty votes to pass it if they wanted to do so).
So when Congress didn’t act as Obama wanted, he turned his attention to the Law of the Sea Treaty. Environmentalists hope that they can bind the US finally to their emission targets by getting us to ratify the treaty.
How does LOST replace the Kyoto accords? It requires its signatories to prevent the release of pollution from land-based sources that can enter the ocean through either the atmosphere or from seagoing vessels.
Article 212 of the treaty states, in part, “States shall adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from or through the atmosphere. . . . States, acting especially through competent international organizations . . . shall endeavor to establish global and regional rules, standards and recommended practices and procedures to prevent, reduce and control pollution.”49
When it was written in the 1970s, nobody was thinking about climate change. But today, green advocates are breathlessly awaiting Senate ratification of LOST so they can use this provision to force emissions controls on American power plants and industries.
Environmentalists claim that carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere create global warming through what they call the “greenhouse effect.” And, conversely, the warmer the ocean becomes, the more it emits carbon dioxide on its own. The ocean, literally, pollutes itself!
At the Senate hearing on LOST in June 2008, Fred Smith, president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said that he believed that the UN will “look upstream” at the causes of marine pollution and pass binding regulations on signatory nations to reduce them.50
