Rumsfeld on Hill to Stand Fast Against Kerry’s Law of Sea Treaty Drive
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee assembled a high-profile cast of witnesses today in Chairman John Kerry’s (D-Mass.) passionate quest to push the U.S. to sign and ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty.
But none other than former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld showed up to testify — and oppose the United Nations convention as unwise and un-American.
Kerry began the full day of hearings with an op-ed on The Huffington Post trying to push the bipartisan nature of the treaty. “It’s an issue that President George W. Bush and I actually agreed on — strongly, unequivocally,” Kerry said, adding that last week all living former Republican secretaries of State gave a nod to the treaty in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.
He highlighted earlier testimony of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who called the treaty, signed by every permanent member of the UN Security Council except the U.S., “the bedrock legal instrument underpinning public order across the maritime domain.”
Kerry said the treaty needs to be settled because of economic concerns related to maritime claims, such as exploiting resources from the ocean seabed, and the national security component.
The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea was concluded in 1982 and defines the rights and responsibilities of nations in regard to business including natural resources management and environmental protection, and establishes baselines for territorial water, a state’s contiguous zone, and its exclusive economic zone.
John Negroponte, Bush’s first director of national intelligence, and the State Department’s former top lawyer in the Bush administration, John Bellinger, argued for the treaty today, saying that the Navy needs the protection offered by the treaty’s territorial conclusions and oil and gas companies need the protection for their deepwater claims.
“Let me emphasize that the Bush administration did not decide to support the Law of the Sea Convention out of a blind commitment to multilateral treaties or international organizations,” Bellinger said of the 2002 decision to support ratification. “No one has ever accused the Bush administration of an over-abundance of enthusiasm for the United Nations or multilateralism.”
Ranking Member Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) argued that the treaty “is the rare initiative that would contribute to all three objectives” of job creation, energy security and military needs.
But Rumsfeld countered Bellinger’s argument that “the benefits outweigh the concerns.”
“It was 30 years ago that President Reagan asked me to meet with world leaders to represent the United States in opposition to the Law of the Sea Treaty. Our efforts soon found a persuasive supporter in British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher,” the former defense secretary said. “Today, as the U.S. Senate again considers approving this agreement, the reasons for their opposition, I believe, remain as persuasive.”
Rumsfeld called Thatcher’s response to the convention “unforgettable.”
“She said what this treaty proposes is nothing less than the international nationalization of roughly two-thirds of the earth’s surface,” he said. “The major idea underlying the Law of the Sea Treaty is that the richest of the oceans, beyond national boundaries, are the common heritage of mankind. And thus supposedly owned by all people. Actually, it means they’re un-owned.”
Rumsfeld called “an idea of enormous consequence” the fact that “anyone who finds a way to make use of such riches by applying their labor or their technology or their risk-taking are required to pay writ royalties of unknown amounts, potentially billions, possibly even tens of billions over an extended period, an ill-defined period of time, to the new International Seabed Authority for distribution to less developed countries.”
Saying that this principle has “no clear limits,” he mused that it could set a precedent for space exploration, too.
Aid to underdeveloped countries, he added, “has been and probably should be a sovereign choice for each nation” and the “mechanism for the redistribution is poorly designed” in the treaty.
Even if the U.S. assumed its seat on the authority post-ratification, it wouldn’t ensure accountability “to the American people any more than any other UN agency is accountable.”
Obviously LOST is a loser, and the US will be the big loser if it is ratified.
It is distressing to see so much support for LOST in the Senate.
Indeed LOST will be a LOSER for the USA. Looking at any map of the world will tell you which countries will lose money and who will gain under LOST. And what a great acronym! LOST – as in we lose. We have lots of coastline – some countries like China don’t have near as much. This is just another socialist/marxist One World Order crap couched in feel-good words designed to get us to part with our money. We work for it – do all the hard work with investment and initiative and the lazy asses in Africa and elsewhere that can’t seem to get off their duffs benefit.
Sounds like The Ant and The Grasshopper all over again. Or cap and trade. A scam is a scam.
“She said what this treaty proposes is nothing less than the international nationalization of roughly two-thirds of the earth’s surface,” he said. “The major idea underlying the Law of the Sea Treaty is that the richest of the oceans, beyond national boundaries, are the common heritage of mankind. And thus supposedly owned by all people. Actually, it means they’re un-owned.”
When something is owned by everyone, it’s owned by no one. See: Tragedy of the Commons.
Rumsfeld called “an idea of enormous consequence” the fact that “anyone who finds a way to make use of such riches by applying their labor or their technology or their risk-taking are required to pay writ royalties of unknown amounts, potentially billions, possibly even tens of billions over an extended period, an ill-defined period of time, to the new International Seabed Authority for distribution to less developed countries.”
Similar language exists the the stillborn “Moon Treaty”. It says that someone can spend billions developing a technology and if it’s profitable, they have to pay everyone else. This brings to mind the line from the Lincoln Douglas debate:
It is the eternal struggle between these two principles — right and wrong — throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time; and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says ‘You toil and work and earn bread and I’ll eat it.’ No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.’
Lincoln was talking about slavery and tyranny but it applies here as well. Throw in the massively corrupt UN running things and supporting this treaty becomes very difficult.
“Kerry also argued that the aid to underdeveloped nations mandated in the treaty was necessary due to aid cutbacks in the U.S. budget. “And the question is, you know, what are we all going to do about that?” he asked. “The idea that there may be some resources coming from something like this that goes to some of these countries may be a saving grace.”
Every time I see his mug and hear his ideas I worry that we are somehow allowing a landed gentry to rule again.
Kerry is a coward. Instead of passing legislation through Congress to make this happen, allowing the American taxpayer input, he is willing for American corporations to redistribute their wealth under cover through treaty, not by passed legislation, to hide his wealth redistribution feelings.
For Pete’s sake, this is the UN!! Has there ever been a bigger body of crooks, thieves, cretins, thugs, murderers, and embezzlers in the history of the world? Is there anything that the UN has done that has actually worked the way it was supposed to?
As to Kerry’s support (you know, Mister “I’ll accidentally park my yacht in another state and not have to pay taxes on it” Kerry), my only response to why he supports it is “follow the money.” He and his fellow one-percenters do a great job of finding other peoples’ money.
“Has there ever been a bigger body of crooks, thieves, cretins, thugs, murderers, and embezzlers”
You forgot rapists and child molesters…
Just sayin…
Kerry is a CFR flag holder for global government. LOST is a way for the UN to get it’s revenue by charging fees for many things. For example, oil drilling. Those monies would not be subject to review. Just like the globalists want it to be.
The CFR has been part of Treason against this county for to long. It is not the Tea Party, or Nationalists that should be watched. Of course, guess who is in charge of Homeland Security?
As with everything with the UN, there will be no way to enforce this treaty. None at all. And with China making lots of moves in claiming small islands all over the Pacific, this treaty could actually lead to a confrontation between the United States and China. Because you just know that the UN is going to expect the United States to do the dirty work and enforce the terms of the treaty. After all, we’re the only country with a Navy large enough to do so.
But you have to ask yourself an important question: Are we willing to go to war with China over the Spratly Islands? Those are just some of the islands that are claimed by China and other nations in the region. And the UN has no way of either protecting these islands from aggression or punishing countries that may go after them, like China. Even if it wanted to, the UN could do nothing to stop a major power like China because it sits on the Security Council. So if anybody tried to impose sanctions against China for taking some islands illegally, China could just veto the resolution in the Security Council. So this treaty is only as good as the countries that decide to follow it. If certain countries don’t follow it, then you’re just out of luck.
I have to confess this article left me frustrated. If this treaty is such unmitigated crap, then why are so many people supporting it? Don’t give me the whole-Democratic-party-is-Communist bit either. George W. Bush likes it, and so does that Negroponte guy, who was in Bush’s foreign policy team. All your article does is lay out the argument against the treaty; there’s nothing about why anyone would support it.
It may very well be that once I’re read both sides, I oppose the treaty. I’m just not going to make my mind up based on one side of the argument.
In general I’m opposed to pretty much anything the thugs in the UN are for.
It works for me. If you need further info I guess it means you might trust the UN. I don’t.
George W. Bush wasn’t as wonderful as you may think. Remember. He outlawed the Edison light bulb. He signed that monumental work of congressional crap known as McCain-Feingold into law. And even though he went to Harvard and Yale, he didn’t know how to use the indefinite article ‘an’. So what if G. W. Bush was for the Law Of The Sea Treaty. Anyone who votes for that treaty is a traitor and an enemy of the public and republic.
Actually, the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and passed the law that outlawed light bulbs. Bush didn’t veto the law but instead signed it.
read rummy’s WSJ editorial, unfortunately behind the paywall.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303768104577460890850883780.html?KEYWORDS=rumsfeld
“It is distressing to see so much support for LOST in the Senate.”
Same reason. We have the best Senate money can buy. The UN is the most corrupt body on this planet. The Internationals know they can bribe UN officals to look the other way while they make billions, so of course they are eager to make “campaign contributions” to enough Senators to get LOST passed. No International treaty is worth the paper it is written on. Without the USA no international treaty is worth the ink on that worthless paper.
On a positive note, any POTUs can cancel any treaty just by a Presidential Finding. So we elect a POTUS with some ‘nads and she cancels LOST. All this issue has really done is demonstrate what a bunch of despicable cowards inhabit the upper echelons of the US Military. They are fools also.
Her’s my knee jerk, if Kerry is for it, I must be against it.
Hasn’t failed me yet.
Thatcher, as is usual for her foreign affairs acumen, puts her finger unerringly on the one chief bid by the UN and other international busibodies to put one over rich nations. omething like Obama’s constant refrain that the rich must pay their fair share, whatever that is.
While Kerry touts the benefits of clearly marked demarcations to territoriality offshore, and the military and commercial security WITHIN those lines thereby guarranteed, she points to the vast tracks of ocean OUTSIDE those lines owned by nobody. The UN says that no nation can have national/sovereign rights across the wide oceans, therefore, only the UN can exercise ownership “on behalf of mankind”.
Moreover, because it wants the world’s nations to sign over ownership rights to it, then only an UN body/department must monitor exploitation and determine what “royalties” may be imposed in order to transfer resources to nations that cannot exploit the wide oceans.
This is no different to the global warming community’s ambitious plans to force industrial nations to transfer tens of billions to poor nations. The rip-off is the same. And it happened in 1982, long before the IPCC and climate scientists strutted onto the world stage.
What is the lesson? That there will always be grifters looking for an easy con. Go with Reagan/Thatcher, not Obama/Kerry.
The United Nations is not a profit-making organization. It is about caring, compassion, and love. If this treaty will stop the greedy corporate plutocracy to the land then it must be implemented. Corporate greed has gone unchallenged and unchecked long enough! We must preserve the sacred virginity of the sea for all generations and keep corporate rapine confined to dry land it can be abolished entirely!
You’re joking, right?
The UN is a club of kleptocrats. Its members are all about filling their pockets with American dollars.
“sacred virginity of the sea” ????
Get thee to a psychatrist.
Since conseratives do not understand science, I was attempting to express concerns about the environment in a manner congenial to the right-wing mind.
Sacred virginity of the sea?
I’m afraid you’ve been hoodwinked, old chap. I’ve been to the sea and had my way with her and she is not unsullied anymore. In fact she instructed me and several other callow sailors in delights that can only be described in lowly publications fit only for the eyes of tradesmen.
Thanks Throbbin, I needed a good belly laugh this morning and your post did it for me!!!
Does anyone really expect the Chinese to honor any treaty or international law? They will do what is in their interest every time. The question we should ask is: How does this bill pay off the politicians?
I just another international treaty to (1) hamstring U.S. power, (2) implement international socialism via the kleptocrats at the U.S., and (3) transfer U.S. technology to international crooks and theives. Our answer should be “Hell No”. Saddly too many Repubucrats sell out to Soros and his ilk.
More on LOST at the link
“The bulk of the 288-page treaty does things like establish a new international bureaucracy in Jamaica to collect and redistribute royalties on offshore oil drilling and force the United States into international arbitration for environmental disputes,” he adds.
If ratified, LOST would compel states to “adopt laws and regulations” to “implement applicable international rules and standards established through competent international organizations or diplomatic conference to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from land-based sources.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/backdoor-kyoto-protocol-sen-demint-warns-of-hidden-threat-to-american-sovereignty/
Ok Romney, you claim to be a conservative, now is your chance to lead the effort against ratification, stand with Reagan / Thatcher. The good people of IN voted to rid the Senate of Lugar, I’m tired of Lame Duck votes after elections. Read the treaty, no more power to the corrupt UN.
If the UN is involved, we should stay as far away from it as possible. For the past decade (or more) the UN’s sole purpose has been to “bash” the United States. For whatever reason, the scene from the movie Dr. Zhivago popped into my mind where Zhivago has just returned from the war to find his in-laws flat subdivided into 12 (or more, I forget) dwelling spaces. All I see coming from signing this treaty is more hard times for the USA. Also, if Kerry is for it, I am against it.
I’ll tell you what scares me about this whole process. Did anyone notice the people in our military that support this treaty. A treaty, if you actually read it, gives the UN power over not only the sea but ALL waterways throughout the world. America gives up her soverignty and the military elite are Ok with this. WHAT?????
Hussain Obama has done this country a favor by bringing all of the cockroaches out intot the light. Because they now believe they are safe. They believe that once Hussain Obama takes control of the country, and surrenders our missle defenses to Russia, signs over our severingty to the UN and pillages all of America that is good, they will have a seat at the trough. God help us all.
I’m not in favor of giving the UN any more power than it has and it has too much of that.
Their is nothing more evil than using language to twist the truth.
“Common heritage of mankind” is close to that absolute worst.
Ownership benefits everybody (because of everything that goes with that.)
Lack of ownership means the government owns you. But let’s not call it slavery.
This starry group of senior officers makes me, a one time SGT., twice a CPL. want to puke. CFR on deck, you pusillanimous leftovers from the Clinton administration, Sh7thooks from the the new breed, retire. America has no use for you and your ilk.
One of the worst things to do is to give corrupt third-world countries more money. It has been said that foriegn aid is the poor folks from rich counties giving money to the rich folks of poor countries. LOST is just a bad idea and I look forward to Kerry being against it after he was for it.