June 5, 2012

The Law of the Sea treaty is once again up for debate in the Senate, even though generations of leaders have rejected it. Today, some former critics are now lobbying on the treaty’s behalf—and incorrectly saying Ronald Reagan would have supported it too.

Writing in the Los Angeles Times, Heritage Foundation scholar Ed Meese, who served as Reagan’s Attorney General, refutes claims the Gipper would back the treaty. He also adds:

Why risk sacrificing U.S. sovereignty under the treaty if it makes us no more secure? After all, what initially established and still ensures freedom of navigation under international law is naval power. To secure navigational freedom, territorial rights and all national and international interests addressed in LOST, we must maintain the strength of theU.S. Navy, not look to an anachronistic pact that is intent on advancing a one-world agenda.

Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS), who once vehemently opposed treaty ratification, has recanted his opposition and now actually lobbies on its behalf.

Lott explains that his opinion has shifted only because the situation itself has changed. According to the Daily Caller, Lott explained he was unsure of the treaty before because there were many unresolved issues written into it, and that over time, those issues were resolved. “I finally concluded,” he said, “that it was time to go ahead and join the Law of the Sea conference.”

But in the years since he left office in 2007, Lott co-founded a public policy lobbying firm, Breaux Lott Leadership Group, with former Sen. John Breaux (D-LA). Heritage’s Lachlan Markay discovered that

Lott’s firm collected $80,000 in fees the first quarter of 2012 from the Shell Oil Company, to lobby on issues including support for the treaty’s ratification. Pike Associates also paid Lott’s firm $30,000 to support the treaty, according to disclosure forms.

Lott isn’t the only former critic of the treaty who has now come to embrace its ratification. In fact, he said he knows other voting Republican Senators who will vote to ratify. But he refused to mention their names, claiming that “they’re going to be savaged by The Heritage Foundation.”

Do you think ratifying the Law of the Sea Treaty would benefit the U.S. in any way?

 

Comments (5)

Robert L. Pruitt Jr. - June 5, 2012

I am definitely against this treaty. The U.S. shouldn’t sign it. There are too many limitations that would put our country at a disadvantage.

Pat Corrigan - June 9, 2012

Certainly this treaty would help bring down the US. That apparently is the intent of the UN, and Barak Obama as well.

Margaret Smetana - June 11, 2012

I do not think the Law of the Sea Treaty would benefit the U.S.
Under Section 82 a UN body would tax the U.S. 7% of the value of oil, gas, and minerals extracted from the extended contended shelf (beyond 200 nautical miles from our coast) and redistribute it ‘equitably’ as it sees fit, including to corrupt and despotic regimes,

Harry Vogler - June 11, 2012

I believe The Law of the Sea is detrimental to our country’s freedom to defend itself as we see fit.

Marshall Miller - June 26, 2012

Never allow international groups to overtake U.S. interests. We can never win by surrendering our sovereignty. Colin Powell and Barack Obama, both ultraliberals, support it. Does this tell you something?

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>