LOST At Sea

William Clark and Edwin Meese slam the Law of the Seat Treaty (LOST) that is now being considered by the US Senate. This fight has been going on since before Ronald Reagan was elected president and it still is today. They point out that the real intent of the treaty is to take away American sovereignty and substitute control by the United Nations. They are right.

The so-called seabed mining provisions were simply one manifestation of the problems Ronald Reagan had with LOST. That was made clear by an entry in his diary dated June 29, 1982, after months of efforts to negotiate extensive changes in the draft treaty text came to naught. On that evening, President Reagan wrote: "Decided in [National Security Council] meeting–will not sign 'Law of the Sea' treaty even without seabed mining provisions."

The man selected by President Reagan to undertake those renegotiations was the remarkable James Malone. In 1984, Ambassador Malone explained why the Law of the Sea Treaty was unacceptable: "The Treaty's provisions were intentionally designed to promote a new world order–a form of global collectivism known as the New International Economic Order (NIEO)–that seeks ultimately the redistribution of the world's wealth through a complex system of manipulative central economic planning and bureaucratic coercion. The Treaty's provisions are predicated on a distorted interpretation of the noble concept of the Earth's vast oceans as the 'common heritage of mankind.'"

Interestingly, Ambassador Malone declared in 1995, "This remains the case today." That statement is particularly relevant insofar as LOST's supporters, including some of our colleagues from the Reagan administration, insist that the 1994 Agreement "fixed" the previously unacceptable Part XI provisions. As James Malone explained to a conference on the Law of the Sea Treaty before his untimely death more than a decade ago:

"All the provisions from the past that make such a [new world order] outcome possible, indeed likely, still stand. It is not true, as argued by some, and frequently mentioned, that the U.S. rejected the Convention in 1982 solely because of technical difficulties with Part XI. The collectivist and redistributionist provisions of the treaty were at the core of the U.S. refusal to sign."

The last thing the world needs is the UN in control of the oceans and everything that lies under them. Approval of this treaty would be a long step toward a world government - which is exactly what the authors of the treaty intended from the start:

Such developments only serve to reinforce the concerns President Reagan rightly had about the central, and abiding, defect of the Law of the Sea Treaty: its effort to promote global government at the expense of sovereign nation states–and most especially the United States. One of the prime movers behind LOST, the late Elisabeth Mann Borgese of the World Federalist Association (which now calls itself Citizens for Global Solutions), captured what is at stake when she cited an ancient aphorism: "He who rules the sea, rules the land." A U.N. publication lauding her work noted that Borgese saw LOST as a "possible test-bed for ideas she had developed concerning a common global constitution."

The UN, who brought the world Rwanda, who wallowed in the corruption of the Oil for Food scandal, who has sponsored peacekeepers who run sex slavery rings in the countries they are supposed to be protecting, wants control of the seas. Can you think of a worse idea? Any Senator who votes for this should be run out of office.

• 

  By feeblemind, Monday, 8 October , 2007 @ 11:49 am

  My guess is that it will pass. I am told our Dear Leader, George Bush, supports it. I hope I am wrong.

Other Links to this Post