Republican Senate Leadership to Fight Law of the Sea


I feel bad. I’ve now bumped Jennifer Buntman’s first post on this blog down two notches. Not bad enough to hold back my post, but bad enough to urge you to read it here. Please, help assuage my guilt.
Mitch McConnell and Trent Lott announced yesterday that they would oppose the Law of the Sea in the Senate. They didn’t get a whole lot of mileage on the announcement, though. Aside from E&E News, a subscription service, and a bunch of conservative online forums, not a single media outlet picked up on the announcement. My colleague Don Kraus sounded off on it this morning.
This does make the fight a little bit tougher, but Lott’s prediction that the 67 votes aren’t there rings hollow; finding 67 votes on the Senate floor will not be much of a problem. What we should be worried about is the will of Harry Reid and Dick Durbin to spend floor time on this issue. This is a good time to pick up the phone and let them know that this matters.
In the end, going up against the White House, environmentalists, the military, oil and gas, and every other ocean industry is going to leave Lott, McConnell, and the rest of their troupe looking way out of touch with U.S. interests.
— Scott Paul


5 comments on “Republican Senate Leadership to Fight Law of the Sea

  1. john somer says:

    When aree these guys going to table a resolution saying that the earth is flat ?


  2. liz says:

    Steve, you surprise me. The Iraq war and Iran crisis are diversions for everything else the slimy Republicans otherwise known as NeoCons want to do. I believe there are still a few Republicans and they still don’t get it that their own party has been couped, hijacked or whatever the word is. But distraction is the name of the game in DC> It is obvious to the observer but perhaps not the participants.


  3. Marcia says:

    The only laws this money sodden Congress approves of are tax cuts for cronies and no-bid contracts.
    When they will have destroyed the planet do they imagine they can survive on gold coins? Perhaps as lest when the ship sinks.
    It seems there is really no issue that cannot end up in their pockets.


  4. buck says:

    Mr. Morrow’s opinion above is representative of what happens when the asylum doors remain open a bit too long. Here’s another example of similar nuttery.
    By John Wheeler
    G.O.P. Senators Burr and Dole Urged to Vote AGAINST the Bush Administration and Deep-Six the Socialistic Law of the Sea Treaty
    On Tuesday, October 16, 2007, the Ashe County Republican Executive Committee held its monthly meeting. There was extensive discussion of the potentially disastrous ramifications of the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) now being considered by the U.S. Senate. The Executive Committee voted unanimously to communicate to both of our North Carolina senators our unequivocal opposition to the ratification of this treaty. Hence I am writing this letter to you, on behalf of your core constituents in Ashe County.
    … Ronald Reagan flatly rejected the socialistic LOST agenda more than two decades ago because it served no national interest of the United States. Bill Clinton tried to resurrect the treaty but failed, largely due to the unwavering opposition of our own beloved Senator Jesse Helms. Now some Republicans of a different political stripe are willing to join with liberal Democrats and globalist/socialist ideologues to ratify this seriously flawed treaty. The Bush Administration is trying mightily to push LOST through the Senate quickly. … [end quote]
    Note, in particular, “the unwavering opposition of our own beloved Senator Jesse Helms.” That alone should convince all sane people that the Law of the Sea is a good thing. But there is more.
    Note again the use of the cute but misleading acronym LOST by both Morrow and Wheeler. Since even GW Bush referred to it correctly as “UN Convention on the Law of the Sea”, it is quite obvious that these gentlemen (to use the term loosely) do not appear to be expressing the product of their own independent thought. It seems likely that such a concoction might have been cooked up in the deep bowels of the Heritage Foundation.
    Sure enough, there are more examples:
    By Chris Horner
    As the Bush Administration spends more and more time creating its legacy, the worst collection of initiatives are those that whittle away at American sovereignty. President Bush is many things to many people but he is most clearly a multinationalist. He is playing too nice with UN-types and Europeans eager to diminish our sovereignty in the name of supranational authority. This clearest example is the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), conceived back when socialism was considered the future. It now serves as the proxy for other, failed efforts, such as the Kyoto Protocol on “global warming.” … [end quote]
    Note the offensive acronym again. Of course, it is not surprising to find the most inane ideas on the pages of Human Events (consider, for example, that one of the advertisers that utilizes their network urges the readers not to drink water–any water!). So, let’s go to the source.
    Why Reagan Would Still Reject the Law of the Sea Treaty
    by Steven Groves
    WebMemo #1676
    [First, we get the explanation for the fictitious acronym:] There is an ongoing debate regarding the position of President Ronald Reagan in regard to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, better known as the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). Fortunately, there are multiple sources indicating precisely what Reagan would do if presented with LOST today: He would reject it.
    On January 29, 1982, Reagan issued a Presidential Statement expressing his intention to reject LOST. It said, “While most provisions of the draft convention are acceptable and consistent with United States interests, some major elements of the deep seabed mining regime are not acceptable.”
    …In a subsequent hearing, Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) repeated that contention: “It is telling that the President did not raise any objection to any provision of the Convention outside the deep seabed mining section. President Reagan made no demands for any other changes in the treaty.”
    [As Scott mentioned, we get a deep dive into the Reagan Diaries:] … This private diary entry remains the best proof that Reagan would have rejected LOST even if the seabed mining provisions had been removed.
    [Then we dive into complete nuttiness:] … Reagan was clearly disturbed by the provisions of LOST that allowed “national liberation movements” to participate and benefit from the treaty. [end quote]
    The latter provision, at the time, could have only limited applicability to Namibia, East Timor and Western Sahara, all of which have since attained de jure independence (although the de facto independence of Western Sahara is still pending). Groves, on the other hand, singles out the PLO as the primary target of the offending provision. The PLO did not have observer status in 1982, contrary to Groves’s claims. However, the PLO has since yielded its representative status to the Palestinian Authority, making the argument even less meaningful.
    It has become clear that over the years the “Reagan Legacy” not only has been completely remanufactured, but just like in the case of Marx, Lenin and Mao, it has come to represent whatever the particular demagogue wanted to put into his mouth. In other words, divining Reagan’s opinion on particular subjects of political relevance today has no greater validity than an astrological forecast.
    It is really sad to see the conservative establishment becoming so predictable. It is also quite ironic that on this particular issue they are abandoning GW Bush. Although Bush fairly reliably sides with the nutty wing of the Republican Party, on this issue he is getting support from the more intelligent conservative circles as well as those who have at least some experience in foreign policy. All that remains of opposition is the lunatic fringe.


  5. Robert Morrow says:

    The Law of the Seas Treaty is going to die again, thank-God. All this thing is is massive power grab by the UN madhouse. The only people who support this thing are some elitist bureaucrats in Wash DS, New York and at the United Nations. LOST is really a gigantic step towards unelected, unaccountable world government.
    All these Republican senators who have been alienating their base on Amnesty for illegals sure don’t want to feel the wrath of the patriots again, that is why we are seeing LOST drop faster than a sinkhole in Southern California. Look who is promoting it: Citizens for Global Solutions – the one world government club. 99% of Americans don’t support this crap. Walk around any town outside of Wash DC and ask folks if they want the United Nations running things and people will laugh at you.
    3 weeks ago it look like LOST was a rubberstamp – but because there is about zippo grassroots support for it – and massive opposition from American patriots – this thing is going up in flames a million dollar home in Malibu.
    I’m still not finished sticking needles in this thing … pardon me, I’ve got some calls I’ve got to make.


Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *