The Global Citizen

Search form

Category: Law of the Sea Treaty

David Vitter: Bad Policy, Fuzzy Math

vitter.jpg

If this fundraising appeal from Louisiana Senator David Vitter for his campaign to defeat the Law of the Sea Convention weren't so dishonest and misleading it would be hysterical.

Ok, actually, it's still amazingly funny.

The Pro-Business President?

The Bush administration has bent over backwards to cater to business interests. At least, that's been my perception from the outside.

Last week, I met with an influential operative in the business community about the Law of the Sea. We agree on the importance of U.S. accession to the Convention as critical to national security, business interests and global sustainability -- but probably little else.

Up at Bloggingheads

Mark Goldberg and I had a chat about the Law of the Sea Convention and treaty politics in general over at Bloggingheads. There are lots of moving parts right now regarding the Law of the Sea, some of which I hope to report on later.

The Weekly Gaff: Right-Wing Activists Don't Understand What Sovereignty Means

In the last week, I've had over ten meetings with Senate staffers on the Law of the Sea Convention (I hope this explains and excuses my recent absence from this blog). In every meeting -- without exception -- staffers have agreed that U.S. interests are served by ratification of the Convention. Yet, every single staffer also added that they are being bombarded by calls from right-wing activists who say that ratification would mean a loss of sovereignty for the U.S.

More Flop than Flip: McCain's Accidental Pander

About a month ago, far-right activists pressed hard for Republican candidates for President to take a position on the Law of the Sea. Most of them did.

The Weekly Gaff: Washington Times Finally Confirms Insanity

While Frank Gaffney wrote his first column without any reference to the Law of the Sea in nearly half a year, he probably helped pen the lead editorial on the page opposite his column in the Washington Times.

The Times makes two main claims against the treaty, neither of which has any legs. First, the Times says we should reject the Law of the Sea because Reagan did and argues that Reagan would still reject it. As I've written here, there's little doubt that President Reagan would enthusiastically embrace the Law of the Sea in its current form. After all -- he said so himself.

Then, the Times says the treaty would interfere with John Bolton's Proliferation Security Initiative. None other than John Bolton has put that myth to rest.

Regarding Iraq, the Washington Times has argued strenuously that we should blindly follow the advice of Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker, despite serious disagreements among civilian and military leaders. Those same leaders unanimously favor U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea. The Times would do well to heed its own words.

Foreign Relations Committee Overwhelmingly Approves Law of the Sea; Coleman Flips and Flops

biden3.jpg

I just got back from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee business meeting on the Law of the Sea. The final vote was 17-4 in favor of consideration by the full Senate.

The New York Times editorialized on the subject this morning:

Flip-Flop Alert: Senators Suddenly on the Fence

Sens. John Sununu, Norm Coleman, and George Voinovich all voted for the Law of the Sea in 2004. According to sources in the Senate, all are now reconsidering their votes under heavy pressure from the likes of John Bolton, Frank Gaffney, and their most vocal black helicopter-fearing constituents.