(Andrew Rice, left, is running for Senate against Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma)
Matt Stoller posted this gem last night and Taylor Marsh knocked one out of the park this morning. These two are well ahead of the curve, but there will be lots more progressive advocacy on the Law of the Sea before all is said and done.
The Law of the Sea is picking up attention outside the blogosphere, too. Taylor points out that State Sen. Andrew Rice, who is looking to send Jim “Black Helicopoter” Inhofe back to Oklahoma (or at least to K Street), fired a warning shot today:”
“As a U.S. Senator who constantly portrays himself as a pro-national security public servant, Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe is now choosing to ignore the pleas of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of the Navy, among other military leaders, when they ask for Senate approval of UNCLOS. American military leaders have made it clear that participation in UNCLOS will enhance our national security and that changes have been made in UNCLOS provisions to explicitly protect American interests. And yet Jim Inhofe and a very small minority are working against our nation’s best interests, simply because it might hurt the special interests he puts before the needs of Oklahomans again and again. Inhofe is clearly out of step with our national security needs.”
Rice is an extremely promising candidate who has learned from the successes of people like Jon Tester and Claire McCaskill. He gets that red-state candidates don’t need to pander; they need to speak confidently about their beliefs and prove that progressives are more in touch with local values than the far right.
Inhofe is well entrenched, but then again, so one was Conrad Burns. Rice is off to an extremely promising start.
As for Frank Gaffney’s weekly Law of the Sea rant in the Washington Times…well…Mr. Gaffney is nothing if not consistent.
Gaffney uses the Medellin brouhaha to make a sweeping statement that international tribunals are stacked against the United States. He then suggests that, if we join, we will be subject to the jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.
One problem with that — the U.S. will never be subject to that tribunal. Every country gets to choose its preferred method of dispute resolution under the treaty. The U.S. chose arbitration. If countries don’t agree, the default method is arbitration. That means, no matter what, any dispute resolution will take place in..arbitration.
Gaffney knows this. He even conceded the point when he testified earlier this month before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. That means this isn’t misinformation; it’s a lie.
This is the kind of thing that Jeremy Rabkin must have meant when he said:
“The Senate won’t ratify the Convention if it is controversial, and I’m doing everything I can to make a controversy.”
I know better than to expect the Washington Times to take Gaffney to task for his intellectual dishonesty. Still, that is exactly what should happen.
— Scott Paul