Senator John Kerry Wants U.S. to Get ‘L.O.S.T.’

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.)

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.)

It appears Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) wants the United States to get “L.O.S.T.”  Today, he’s pushing for quick passage of the controversial United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Treaty.

According to a report published yesterday in The New York Times, Senator Kerry — who, by the way, served in Vietnam — is busy crafting a strategy to ratify the long-stalled measure this year and using the ruse of melting sea ice (i.e., GLOBULL WARMING) as a reason to justify acting quickly on the measure.

Rather than reinvent the “wheel” of explanation about why L.O.S.T. is a bad idea for this country, I refer you to an effort by David A. Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research.  In the conclusion of his August 2006 article on the subject, Ridenour summed up the terms of L.O.S.T. that will do more than simply impact lawbreakers on the high seas:

Sufficient concerns about the implications for U.S. national security and U.S. environmental policy exist that the United States should be wary of acceding to the Law of the Sea Treaty.

These concerns, in summary, include:

Article 20 would extend the surfacing requirement to vessels not covered under previous conventions, including those that would otherwise qualify for innocent passage such as unmanned vessels used for mine detection and other purposes.

The Law of the Sea Treaty would impede the U.S.’s ability to capture international terrorists and confiscate weapons of mass destruction through detention of ships on the high seas.  The treaty specifies that the boarding of ship is not justified except when a ship is believed to be engaged in piracy, unauthorized broadcasting, drug trafficking, is obscuring its nationality or shows no nationality.  Detention of ships in a manner other than those prescribed in the treaty would subject such actions to the judgment of the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea in Hamburg, Germany.

Article 88’s stipulation that “the high seas shall be reserved for peaceful purposes” and Article 301’s requirement that parties to the convention refrain from “any threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state” may be used to impede U.S. military operations at sea.  The Treaty’s opt-out provisions for military activities would only free the U.S. from the requirement to participate in a specific dispute resolution process, not dispute resolution itself.

Need to know more about L.O.S.T?  Check out previous BMW posts on the subject below:

If you agree that L.O.S.T. is a bad idead, CONTACT YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS TODAY and demand that they kill this legislation immediately!

6 thoughts on “Senator John Kerry Wants U.S. to Get ‘L.O.S.T.’

  1. How ignorant has the Democratic party and its elected officials become that they want to turn over the power the ocean shores from the United States to the criminals in the United Nations. Oh, that’s birds of a feather…

  2. David Ridenour’s view of the LOS Convention is completely opposed to the view of both the line officers and JAG lawyers in the Navy. Ditto the US Coast Guard. In fact, every living Chief of Naval Operations and every living Commandant of the US Coast Guard has endorsed US ratification of the LOS Convention. These are the guys whose business it is to defend the US and our interests off our coasts, on the high seas and in foreign waters. I’ll take the recommendations of Adm. Mullen (Chair of the Joint Chiefs), Adm. Roughead (CNO) and Admiral Allen (Commandant of the Coast Guard) over the landlubber Ridenour. It’s easy to make ideological claims from a DC-based think tank, but the view is a lot better from the bridge of a destroyer – and it is the line officers who say most emphatically that the Convention is in our national interest.

  3. No, I worked on Ronald Reagan’s review of the convention and on his delegation to the final session. Reagan established 6 criteria for an acceptable Convention and said that if those criteria were met then he would sign the Convention. In 1994, after three and a half years of consultation and negotiation, the US signed the 1994 Agreement on Implementation of the Convention that fully met all six of the Reagan Criteria.

    So, as it turns out, I’m the one standing with Ronald Reagan this time, and you are welcome to join us in supporting US ratification of the LOS Convention in a package with the Reagan-guided Agreement on Implementation.

  4. You’re saying the folks at Heritage were mistaken when they said Reagan would be against it. Interesting. Send me a piece on the treaty, and I’ll publish it as a separate post. Perhaps, you’ll change my mind.

  5. By the way, Ed Meese, while he was in the white House, tried several times and several ways to get President Reagan to reject the Convention outright. Reagan refused to do so, and he took us back to the negotiations with his six criteria to try to get the seabed mining provisions fixed. We weren’t able to do so at that time, so Reagan then said we would implement as much of the Convention, other than the seabed mining provisions, as possible and he made the navigation provisions (which Ridenour gets wrong) the highest interest. That still left us weakened in protecting our rights at sea, so under the first Bush administration we responded to foreign offers to negotiate fixes to all six of the Reagan criteria.

    On this issue, Ed Meese lost out to Reagan’s broader view of the US National Interest. Meese is now trying, from a seat at the Heritage Foundation, to refight the battle with Reagan gone. Tenacious, but that still puts him in opposition to Ronald Reagan.

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>