Black Helicopter Crowd Opposes Law of the Sea Treaty
16 October 2007 1:11 pm by Taylor Marsh
 |
| Sen. James Inhofe Head of the Black Helicopter crowd. |
Senator Joe Biden has decided it’s time to act on UNCLOS, the United Nations
Convention of the Law of the Sea. Because national security is inextricably
entwined in UNCLOS, it’s important to get the treaty adopted by the U.S. However,
the black helicopter crowd, led by Sen. James Inhofe is circling. They’re against
it. Why? Reagan didn’t like it. Never mind that political leaders and business
interests that usually aren’t united are for it. Ignore that Reagan’s previous objections have been completely addressed. Inhofe and his anti U.N. black helicopter crowd are leading the way, obstructing the majority from all political spectrums who are in favor of UNCLOS.
Senator Richard Lugar has been brutal on his attacks on the enemies of what amounts to serious U.S. national security interests. Lugar in late September 2007:
… .. But I want to underscore for my colleagues a fundamental starting point for our hearings. The Commander-in-Chief, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the United States Navy, in time of war, are asking the Senate to give its advice and consent to this treaty. Our uniformed commanders and civilian national security leadership are telling us, unanimously and without qualification, that U.S. accession to this treaty would help them do their job.
We have charged the U.S. Navy with maintaining sea lanes and defending our nation’s interests on the high seas. They do this every day, and even in peacetime these operations carry considerable risk. The Navy is telling us that U.S. membership in the Law of the Sea Convention is a tool that they need to maximize their ability to protect U.S. national security with the least risk to the men and women charged with this task.
This request is not the result of an idiosyncratic Chief of Naval Operations or a recent reassessment by Navy authorities. The support of the military and Navy for this treaty has been consistent, sustained, and unequivocal. All the members of the Joint Chiefs have written us a letter supporting advice and consent. Their predecessors likewise supported this convention. As seven CNOs wrote in a joint letter back in 1998, “There are no downsides to this treaty – it contains expansive terms, which we use to maintain forward presence and preserve U.S. maritime superiority. It also has vitally important provisions, which guard against the dilution of our navigational freedoms and prevent the growth of new forms of excessive maritime claims.”
Mr. Chairman, the military is not always right. But the overwhelming presumption in the United States Senate has been that if our Armed Forces and our entire National Security apparatus ask us for something to help them achieve a military mission, we do our best to provide them with that tool within the constraints of law and responsible budgeting. … ..
But wingnut perversion for the nonsensical knows no bounds. Human Events, Ann Coulter central, is helping Inhofe’s black helicopter crowd actually hold our national security interests hostage.
The Bush Administration has supported UNCLOS for several years, but its decision
to back the pact is shrouded in controversy. President Bush was asked about
the White House position on the treaty in 2004 and he then expressed surprise
that the State Department had convinced Vice President Dick Cheney to endorse
it. This year, however, he issued a statement in support of it. Openly working
with the Democrats, State Department Legal Adviser John B. Bellinger III has
tried, without much success, to convince conservatives that the treaty was
somehow “fixed” by a 1994 side agreement negotiated by the Clinton
AdministrationForeign Relations Committee Ranking Republican Senator Richard Lugar, a supporter
of UNCLOS, has joined this chorus, insisting that, “President Reagan
refused to sign it because of technology transfer provisions and other problems
in the section on deep-seabed mining. Later, a hard-fought renegotiation led
to changes that met all of President Reagan’s demands.” However, the
evidence demonstrates that Lugar is just plain wrong.
You know how this works. The black helicopter crowd hears that Reagan opposed
something and they think that’s the end of the story. Hardly.
Still don’t quite get UNCLOS?
Navigational rights, territorial sea limits, economic jurisdiction, legal
status of resources on the seabed beyond the limits of national jurisdiction,
passage of ships through narrow straits, conservation and management of living
marine resources, protection of the marine environment, a marine research
regime and, a more unique feature, a binding procedure for settlement of disputes
between States – these are among the important features of the treaty. In
short, the Convention is an unprecedented attempt by the international community
to regulate all aspects of the resources of the sea and uses of the ocean,
and thus bring a stable order to mankind’s very source of life.“Possibly the most significant legal instrument of this century”
is how the United Nations Secretary-General described the treaty after its
signing. The Convention was adopted as a “Package deal”, to be accepted
as a whole in all its parts without reservation on any aspect. The signature
of the Convention by Governments carries the undertaking not to take any action
that might defeat its objects and purposes. Ratification of, or accession
to, the Convention expresses the consent of a State to be bound by its provisions.
The Convention came into force on 16 November 1994, one year after Guyana
became the 60th State to adhere to it.
Why is the Law of the Sea Treaty important? Scott Paul over at Washington Note:
So why is the Law of the Sea significant? Simple: our absence from
the Law of the Sea is the outer wall of Fortress America. Winning the ratification
battle would seriously de-fang the same pugnacious nationalists who are on
the opposite side of almost every important foreign policy issue facing the
U.S.The opposition to the Law of the Sea is based entirely on a visceral
hatred for multilateral cooperation. Its champions detest all forms of international
organization and believe the purpose of international law is to constrain
U.S. behavior. They believe the U.S. should rely on the threat of force to
advance its goals and should not be constrained by any rules, even if they
rules that tilt the playing field in our favor.This opposition is serious, even if its arguments are not.
Stephen Hadley
wrote a letter earlier this year explaining the critical nature of the Law of
the Sea Treaty: In particular, the Convention supports navigational rights
critical to military operations and essential to the formulation and implementation
of the President’s National Security Strategy, as well as National Strategy
for Maritime Security.
Overwhelmingly, senators approve of the ratification of UNCLOS. It’s a chance
to finally get something done, as long as wingnuts like Inhofe don’t get their
way. Considering they’re in the minority it’s long past time their control was
stopped. As for the ridiculous Reagan argument, his objections have been address
and the UNCLOS has been fixed.
Necessary Changes To U.S. Law Or Policy
In 1983, Ronald Reagan directed U.S. agencies to comply with all
of the provisions in LOS except for Part XI, which concerns deep-sea mining.
With U.S. leadership, Part XI was reworked and the Convention was officially
modified in 1994, addressing all U.S. concerns. Since 1983, the U.S. has been
in voluntary compliance with the entire Convention and thus accession would
not result in any changes to current U.S. domestic or foreign policy.LOS And The U.S. Senate
In 2004 all 19 members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted unanimously
in favor of LOS. Although not a single Senator abstained or voted against
the treaty, then Majority Leader Frist never brought it to the floor for a
vote.Why Join? It Helps Our Military
The U.S. military, which relies heavily on its ability to navigate on and
fly freely over the sea, has been a strong advocate of LOS. In the absence
of treaty law, the U.S. is forced to rely on customary law that can change
as States’ practices change. Also under this customary law, countries
often make unreasonable and irresponsible claims on marine territory to stop
the U.S. military from defending U.S. interests. The U.S. has tried to talk
around these claims, but without a legal framework to support us we risk compromising
our intelligence and military operations at sea. Joining LOS will help us
protect our military’s ability to freely navigate the oceans.LOS Helps Us Protect The Environment
Oceans cover over 70 percent of the Earth. In the U.S., we have laws to keep
marine resources available for future generations. LOS sets a global standard
so that all countries are legally bound to protect the marine environment,
protect fish stocks, and prevent pollution with as much care as the U.S. does.
Joining LOS would send a message to the world that we care about the global
environment.
Senator Inhofe and his black helicopter contingent are against this important
treaty because it’s in cooperation with the rest of the world and comes out
of the U.N. Democrats need to send a message. Republicans in the 109th Congress
refused to bring it to the floor even though it had wide bipartisan support.
Senator Harry Reid needs to set the example, once Joe Biden gets it out of committee.
Our military is depending on us to get something finally done on UNCLOS.
That our environment and health of the seas depend on the Convention should not be ignored. Calling Al Gore. Pick up the phone, Mr. Vice President. Let Senators Joe Biden and Harry Reid know you’re behind UNCLOS. It’s long past time to get this done. Nobody can say no to you now.
UPDATE II: Scott Paul just posted on the latest developments over at Steve Clemons’ place, The Washington Note, as well as his home blog, Citizens for Global Solutions (cross-post link). Scott says some very nice things about yours truly, Matt Stoller, as well as Andrew Rice. Scott’s got the latest rant from wingnut Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. on UNCLOS, which you really have to read to believe.
UPDATE: State Senator Andrew Rice is challenging James Inhofe, running against him for Senate. He’s a Blue America candidate, who was recently spotlighted on Firedoglake by Howie Klein. He’s being described as “another Paul Wellston” by some. The statement below was just emailed to me. Andrew Rice gets it.
“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.” – Andrew Rice
