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

By: CaitlynA

CaitlynA — Sat, 09 May 2009 13:07:46 +0000

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.

By: hotoffthepress2

hotoffthepress2 — Sat, 09 May 2009 13:02:14 +0000

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.

By: CaitlynA

CaitlynA — Sat, 09 May 2009 12:58:02 +0000

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.

By: hotoffthepress2

hotoffthepress2 — Fri, 08 May 2009 22:24:00 +0000

I guess Ronald Reagan and I just "sea" things differently than you and the admirals, Caitlyn.

By: CaitlynA

CaitlynA — Fri, 08 May 2009 22:20:40 +0000

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.

By: Clay Bowler

Clay Bowler — Fri, 08 May 2009 19:25:36 +0000

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…