Here Come the Black Helicopters!: UN Global Governance and the Loss of Freedom (8 page)

One of the nation’s most astute observers of China, Gordon Chang, agrees. Writing in the
World Affairs Journal
, Chang said that “although Beijing ratified the [LOST] pact in June 1996, it continues to issue maps claiming the entire South China Sea. That claim is, among other things, incompatible with the treaty’s rules. It’s no wonder Beijing notified the UN in 2006 that it would not accept international arbitration of its sovereignty claims.”
³⁵

China seems totally undaunted by its treaty commitment under the Law of the Sea Treaty.

Nor would LOST be any more helpful in adjudicating the controversy with Russia over the Arctic.

Brookes points out that advocates of the treaty say we

supposedly need to be inside the LOST “tent” to counter Moscow’s and others’ claims in the Arctic, where climate change might allow harvesting of once-inaccessible natural resources around the North Pole. (US government surveys suggest about one-third of the world’s yet-to-be-discovered, recoverable natural resources are below Arctic ice floes.)

In fact, we’re already a member of the Arctic Ocean Conference—which is doing a good job of resolving the claims by the five circumpolar states (the United States, Canada, Russia, Denmark and Norway) in the High North.
³⁶

Former assistant secretary of defense Frank Gaffney points out that it is a lot easier to get five governments to agree than the 160 that make up the International Seabed Authority.
³⁷

And all this assumes that the Seabed Authority would dispense justice. The record of the United Nations is dismal in this regard and the chances are that the ISA nations would seek to curry favor with Moscow or Beijing—or repay their bribes and favors—by unjust and arbitrary rulings, even if just to stick it to the United States.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta defended the treaty before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, saying that “by moving off the sidelines, by sitting at the table of nations that have acceded to this treaty, we can defend our interests, we can lead the discussions, we will be able to influence those treaty bodies that develop and interpret the Law of the Sea.”
³⁸

But Frank Gaffney argues, “This is simply not so if, as is true of the LOST’s various institutions, we would have but one seat among many, and no certainty that we can decisively ‘influence bodies that develop and interpret the law of the sea.’ ”
³⁹

“In fact,” Gaffney adds, “thanks to the rigged-game nature of those institutions, such bodies can be relied upon to hamstring us—by, for example, applying environmental regulations over which we have no control to our Navy’s anti-submarine warfare exercises and our domestic emissions into inland air and water that migrates to the international oceans.”
⁴⁰

TREATY OPENS DOOR TO NAVAL WEAKNESS

Yet admirals and Navy service chiefs have advocated ratifying the Law of the Sea Treaty. General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for example, said this treaty “codifies navigational rights and freedoms essential for our global mobility.”
⁴¹

Former defense secretary Rumsfeld rejects the Navy’s argument for the treaty:

The most persuasive argument for the treaty is the US Navy’s desire to shore up international navigation rights. It is true that the treaty might produce some benefits, clarifying some principles and perhaps making it easier to resolve certain disputes. But our Navy has done quite well without this treaty for the past 200 years, relying often on centuries-old, well-established customary international law to assert navigational rights. Ultimately, it is our naval power that protects international freedom of navigation. This treaty would not make a large enough additional contribution to counterbalance the problems it would create.
⁴²

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) argues that “ceding any authority to an international body is not only a threat to our sovereignty, it also creates another avenue for other nations to stop US unilateral activity.”
⁴³

So why are the admirals pushing the treaty? Inhofe believes that the likely future weakness of the US Navy may be at play here. He explains that “some fear the Navy is at a tipping point. Increased global threats, combined with fewer resources, have created growing concern for its future. Devastating budget cuts under the Obama administration mean doing even more with much less. If the proposed defense cuts through sequestration go into effect, potential cuts include the littoral combat ship, amphibious ships, a reduction in aircraft carriers and far fewer sailors. After sequestration, our fleet could be smaller than 230 ships—the smallest since 1915.”
⁴⁴

Inhofe wonders, “could it be that some have decided to put their hope in a piece of paper rather than provide the resources necessary to maintain our Navy’s traditional strength?”
⁴⁵

But it is pure fantasy to assume that the Seabed Authority would be impartial and just in its rulings. And it is further fantasy to believe that powers like Russia and China would listen to it. What recourse would we have if they don’t? Both nations have veto power in the UN Security Council and can stop any enforcement action with teeth. The US will, of course, honor the decisions of the authority if we join, but other, autocratic nations will thumb their noses at it.

Brookes says that relying on the treaty rather than on our own Navy to keep the sea-lanes open is “outsourcing national security”!
⁴⁶

Democratic Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) asked General Dempsey the key question during hearings on the LOST: “Does failure to ratify this treaty . . . in any way compromise the ability of the United States to project force around the world, to support and sustain our allies . . . ? Are we at risk as a result of failure to ratify this treaty?”

Dempsey’s response boiled down to “no.”
⁴⁷

“Our ability to project force will not deteriorate,” he said, if we refrain from ratifying the treaty.
⁴⁸

A BACKDOOR GLOBAL WARMING TREATY

In 1997, amid much fanfare, the nations of the world signed the Kyoto Protocol on Global Climate Change. The treaty took effect in 2005. While it was signed and ratified by 191 nations, the United States, to the intense frustration of the global community, never approved it. Indeed, it has never even been submitted to the Senate for ratification, so slight would be its chances. (In 2011, Canada renounced the treaty.)

The document commits thirty-seven largely European and Western nations to a 5 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. While the US did not ratify the treaty, the fact is that we have more than doubled the reduction goals of the treaty through market forces—high gasoline and low natural gas prices—and public education and conservation. China, India, and much of the developing world refused to sign up for any carbon emission reductions and have not achieved any. For more information about the US record on curbing carbon emissions, see the chapter on Saudi Arabia in our previous book,
Screwed!
.

But it has been a goal of the liberal globalists to get Uncle Sam’s signature on a global climate change treaty. They say that this is because the US generates one-quarter of the world’s greenhouse gases. But America’s record in cutting emissions is so extraordinary that it gives the lie to this stated objective. Their real goal is to control the United States, diminish our power, and assert regulatory jurisdiction over our power plants, factories, and entire economy.

Obama tried to force our cooperation in this effort by pushing Congress to enter a global system of cap and trade that obliged us to pay for our emissions by giving money to third world nations that do not emit comparable levels of greenhouse gas. His bill passed Nancy Pelosi’s House but was rejected by the Senate (even when the Democrats had the requisite sixty votes to pass it if they wanted to do so).

So when Congress didn’t act as Obama wanted, he turned his attention to the Law of the Sea Treaty. Environmentalists hope that they can bind the US finally to their emission targets by getting us to ratify the treaty.

How does LOST replace the Kyoto accords? It requires its signatories to prevent the release of pollution from land-based sources that can enter the ocean through either the atmosphere or from seagoing vessels.

Article 212 of the treaty states, in part, “States shall adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from or through the atmosphere. . . . States, acting especially through competent international organizations . . . shall endeavor to establish global and regional rules, standards and recommended practices and procedures to prevent, reduce and control pollution.”
⁴⁹

When it was written in the 1970s, nobody was thinking about climate change. But today, green advocates are breathlessly awaiting Senate ratification of LOST so they can use this provision to force emissions controls on American power plants and industries.

Environmentalists claim that carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere create global warming through what they call the “greenhouse effect.” And, conversely, the warmer the ocean becomes, the more it emits carbon dioxide on its own. The ocean, literally, pollutes itself!

At the Senate hearing on LOST in June 2008, Fred Smith, president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said that he believed that the UN will “look upstream” at the causes of marine pollution and pass binding regulations on signatory nations to reduce them.
⁵⁰

Already, environmentalists have begun an action under LOST to stop the United Kingdom from operating its power plant at Sellafield, which produces MOX nuclear fuel for Japan’s reactors. Sellafield has closed anyway after the Fukayama nuclear power plant disaster. But the precedent has been set that LOST can be used to modify the environmental policies of signatory nations. (The UK is a signatory.)
⁵¹

The latest panic among environmentalists concerns the “acidification” of the ocean. About a quarter of atmospheric carbon dioxide goes into the ocean, where it forms carbonic acid and changes the base/acidic ratio (pH ratio) of the seas.

Between 1740 and 1994, scientists tell us that surface ocean pH has dropped from 8.25 to 8.14, almost a 30 percent increase in the acidity of the oceans. Environmentalists worry that the change in pH may impact our food supply from the seas.

Christopher C. Horner, writing in the
Wall Street Journal
, says that “LOST is a sweeping regime cracking down on all activities arguably depositing pollutants into the seas. Under the precautionary principle, which LOST adopts, allegation is sufficient to establish the offense. With ‘ocean acidification’ the latest nominee to supplant troubled CO2-warming theory, LOST supplants the failed Kyoto Treaty. It invites attacks on, e.g., America’s transport and energy policies, claiming our cars and coal-fired power plants contribute to the latest claimed phenomenon, ‘acidification.’ ”
⁵²

WILL THE SENATE RATIFY LOST?

The fact that the Senate is even considering ratifying LOST is hard to fathom. Why would we subject ourselves to the jurisdiction of a third world–dominated body that hates us?

As Gaffney says: “If Americans have learned anything about the United Nations over the last 50 years, it is that this ‘world body’ is, at best, riddled with corruption and incompetence. At worst, its bureaucracy, agencies and members are overwhelmingly hostile to the United States and other freedom-loving nations, most especially Israel.”
⁵³

Michelle Malkin asks the key question: “So why on earth would the United States Senate possibly consider putting the UN on steroids by assenting to its control of seven-tenths of the world’s surface?”
⁵⁴

After all, let’s remember with whom we are dealing when we give the United Nations the kind of power conferred by LOST. Malkin lists the “well-documented fiascoes” that bespeckle the UN’s history, including “the UN-administered Iraq Oil-for-Food program; investigations and cover-ups of corrupt practices at the organization’s highest levels; child sex-slave operations and rape squads run by UN peacekeepers; and the absurd, yet relentless, assault on alleged Israeli abuses of human rights by majorities led by despotic regimes in Iran, Cuba, Syria and Libya.”
⁵⁵

She fittingly warns that “the predictable effect of US accession to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea—better known as the Law of the Sea Treaty (or LOST)—would be to transform the UN from a nuisance and laughingstock into a world government: The United States would confer upon a UN agency called the International Seabed Authority (IA) the right to dictate what is done on, in and under the world’s oceans. Doing so, America would become party to surrender of immense resources of the seas and what lies beneath them to the dictates of unaccountable, nontransparent multinational organizations, tribunals and bureaucrats.”
⁵⁶

This does not sound good.

So what will the Senate do?

In plotting how to get approval for this act of self-enslavement, the Obama administration has craftily decided to seek ratification only during the lame-duck session of the Senate, after the ballots have been counted in the 2012 election. Then, some senators will be retiring—a few voluntarily and a great many Democrats involuntarily—and they will have no worries about running for reelection. For the others, the classes that will face reelection in 2014 and 2016, the balloting is in the distant future and not a matter of immediate concern.

Obama’s hope is that these factors induce senators to back him in passing the treaty. He used much the same tactics in getting the START Treaty with Russia ratified, submitting it to the lame-duck session of the Senate after the massacre of 2010 had left many senators still in office but doomed to retirement as soon as the new year dawned. This one-sided giveaway to Russia—which limited ballistic and strategic nuclear weapons but did nothing to curb the tactical nuclear weapons in which Moscow has a decided advantage—was ratified easily by the lame-duck body.