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:

Today, the treaty will face yet another critical moment in its long and troubled life when the Foreign Relations Committee votes on whether to send it to the floor. The vote is expected to favor the treaty. But the task facing the Democratic chairman, Joseph Biden of Delaware, and the ranking Republican member, Richard Lugar of Indiana, is to produce not just a favorable vote but an overwhelming vote sufficient to persuade the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, to finally move on ratification.

Ask, and ye shall receive. Senators Jim DeMint and David Vitter are the treaty's hard-core opponents; they were certain "no" votes. According to Michelle Malkin, they targeted four more: Senators Voinovich, Sununu, Murkowski, and Isakson. They've also lobbied Senators Bob Corker and Norm Coleman very hard. That means they were shooting for a 13-8 vote. While not all of those votes were ever in play, this is a major defeat for the black-helicopter opposition. With a vote this strong, Senator Reid now must devote floor time to the Law of the Sea.

The Washington Post and the Orlando Sentinel got in a word, too. Both are worth a read, as is Senator Biden's statement supporting the convention, now up at Taylor Marsh's site.

Of the "no" votes, the biggest surprise was Coleman, who voted in favor of the treaty in 2004. What's more, during today's business meeting, Coleman acknowledged that there "have not been any significant changes since 2004 [to the treaty]."

But substance means little to Coleman, who was John Bolton's strongest supporter in confirmation hearings during the last Congress. What has changed since 2004 are the politics. In an election year, the judgments of Bolton and Frank Gaffney apparently hold more sway than those of the Navy, Coast Guard, President, Joint Chiefs, and State Department -- not to mention his own politically independent judgment three years ago.

Interestingly, Coleman raised points specifically debunked yesterday by treaty opponent numero uno, Senator Jim Inhofe. And the one opponent Coleman quoted during his brief remarks is Jeremy Rabkin, the George Mason University professor who said earlier this year:

"The Senate won't ratify the Convention if it is controversial, and I'm doing everything I can to make a controversy."

Those running against Coleman for Senate could have a field day with this. For now, it's time supporters of responsible global engagement to celebrate a little.

Below is the full roll call vote.

Update: Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer is the first of Coleman's challengers out of the gate to point out this massive and as-yet-unexplained flip flop. He may not be the last.

Nelson-Pallmeyer's release:

Nelson-Pallmeyer Condemns Coleman's Caving to the Far
Right in Flip-Flop Vote Against Law of the Sea Treaty

Today Sen. Norm Coleman voted in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to kill the Law of the Sea Convention, a UN agreement supported by environmentalists, business associations, oil, shipping, and fishing companies, and the military. He was one of only four Senators on the committee to oppose the measure. It passed the committee by a vote of 17-4.

Coleman voted for the legislation in 2004 and admitted that the legislation he voted against today is essentially the same. His flip-flop was apparently in response to a chorus of far-right voices, including John Bolton and Frank Gaffney.

The Navy and Air Force support the Law of the Sea Convention as a strong legal foundation for their navigation and over-flight rights, as well as for their Proliferation Security Initiative program to intercept illicit shipments of weapons material. The Coast Guard supports it as a critical tool to enhance port security. Environmental organizations support it as a means to strengthen global efforts to protect the marine ecosystem. The oil and gas industry supports it for defining a reserves area larger than the continental United States. Membership in the treaty would give US firms legal certainty to compete with foreign firms for marine resources.

"Norm Coleman is so deeply in the pocket of the far right that he is willing to flip-flop and break faith with our men and women in the Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard and vote against the treaty," said Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer. "By Coleman's own admission, nothing has changed since 2004 -- when he voted in favor of the treaty -- except politics. Senator Coleman seems more concerned with placating the far right than protecting our environment, restoring our international leadership role, keeping us safe, or helping our economy."

 

Yes:

Biden (D-DE)
Dodd (D-CT) by proxy
Kerry (D-MA) by proxy
Boxer (D-CA) by proxy
Feingold (D-WI) by proxy
Nelson (D-FL)
Obama (D-IL) by proxy
Menendez (D-NJ)
Cardin (D-MD)
Casey (D-PA)
Webb (D-VA)
Lugar (R-IN)
Hagel (R-NE)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH) by proxy
Corker (R-TN) by proxy

No:

Coleman (R-MN)
DeMint (R-SC) by proxy
Isakson (R-GA)
Vitter (R-LA)

Scott Paul

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. If you want to learn more about these opponents, by the way, read Elena Schor's news analysis piece in the Guardian, published yesterday.

The Law of the Sea convention should be a no-brainer. What's more, it should be an opportunity for moderate and old-school conservative Republicans to slam down those in their party who think that the threat of force alone can advance U.S. interests. The votes are still there to pass it on the floor, but now it is becoming a real fight.

These three senators, in particular, need to understand that there are consequences for so transparently choosing politics over principle. Men and women in the Navy and Coast Guard, shipbuilders, fishermen, and others are counting on them to do the right thing. I still think they each will -- but the fact that they are even on the fence speaks to how deeply misinformation about the treaty is taking hold.

It's time for those of us who care about responsible global engagement to stand up. The U.S. has complied with the treaty's rules since President Reagan insisted that we do so 25 years ago. Joining entails zero sacrifice.

At some point, we'll be pushing really hard for some policy or legislation that entails some measure of give-and-take with our international partners, be it on climate change, nuclear diplomacy, or something else. If we let John Bolton and Frank Gaffney dictate the Senate's foreign policy on this one, the next one becomes that much harder.

We can make this happen -- we just need to get moving.

Yes, this is a rant, but I'm not apologizing. Please, call senators now.

Sen. John Sununu, New Hampshire: (202) 224-2841
Sen. Norm Coleman, Minnesota: (202) 224-5641
Sen. George Voinovich, Ohio: (202) 224-3353

Scott Paul

Update: Matt Stoller and Taylor Marsh weigh in.

I'd like to make a correction on my post this morning "Using U.N. Day to Sink the Law of the Sea". In it I critiized Democratic leadership for not saying "one word about the United Nations or the Law of the Sea."  I was wrong.  My colleague Scott Paul brought to my attention an excellent press release by Senator Biden who said:

“By harnessing the resources and collective expertise of its 191 member states, the United Nations can address global challenges in ways that no single nation can on its own.”

Why doesn't the Senate's Republican leadership get this?  It's not rocket science. 

Don Kraus

Yesterday, Republican Senate leadership celebrated October 24th, United Nations Day, by engaging in one of their favorite sports, base pandering. At the expense of our nation's security they took the opportunity to bash the Law of the Sea convention and the United Nations. At a press conference, Minority Leader McConnell declared his opposition to the treaty saying it would “subjugate the rights and interests of the United States.” His sidekick, the senator from South Carolina, Jim DeMint added in, "We have seen with our involvement in the United Nations, the … many times countries involved with these bodies don't vote in our interest.”

What are these guys thinking? Even President Bush gets it. Yesterday he issued a proclamation celebrating the United Nations saying:

"On United Nations Day, we recognize the contributions of this important body and underscore our dedication to reforming the institution and advancing the high ideals on which it was founded."

Earlier in the year, the President called for ratification of the Law of the Sea saying:

"I urge the Senate to act favorably on U.S. accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea during this session of Congress. Joining will serve the national security interests of the United States, including the maritime mobility of our armed forces worldwide. It will secure U.S. sovereign rights over extensive marine areas, including the valuable natural resources they contain. Accession will promote U.S. interests in the environmental health of the oceans. And it will give the United States a seat at the table when the rights that are vital to our interests are debated and interpreted."

So yesterday, Republicans on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue weighed-in on our nation’s important relationship with the only global forum where all countries can work together to solve the problems that we cannot solve alone. And what did Democratic Senatorial leadership have to say?

Well, nothing. Not one word about the United Nations or the Law of the Sea

I’m not sure what’s worse for our nation; misinformation from Republican Senate leaders or silence, and the complicity that it signals, from the Democratic leadership. What do you think?

Don Kraus

I  was reading this important post from Riverbend blog on the Iraqi refugee crisis - 1.5 million Iraqis are refugees in Syria and they need help from the international community. The end of the post needs to be reflected on (although I would encourage you to read it all):

"We live in an apartment building where two other Iraqis are renting. The people in the floor above us are a Christian family from northern Iraq who got chased out of their village by Peshmerga and the family on our floor is a Kurdish family who lost their home in Baghdad to militias and were waiting for immigration to Sweden or Switzerland or some such European refugee haven. The first evening we arrived, exhausted, dragging suitcases behind us, morale a little bit bruised, the Kurdish family sent over their representative – a 9 year old boy missing two front teeth, holding a lopsided cake, “We’re Abu Mohammed’s house- across from you- mama says if you need anything, just ask- this is our number. Abu Dalia’s family live upstairs, this is their number. We’re all Iraqi too... Welcome to the building.” I cried that night because for the first time in a long time, so far away from home, I felt the unity that had been stolen from us in 2003."

Today, October 24, is United Nations Day. This day should remind all of us of our nation’s important relationship with the only global forum where all countries can work together to solve the problems that we cannot solve alone.

If you think about it the U.S. and the U.N. are sort of like an old married couple.

Afterall, it is a historic relationship that works. Since we helped establish the United Nations 62 years ago, we've worked with the U.N. to keep the peace, fight disease and poverty, expand democracy and bring nations together to discuss their differences and find common ground in our interconnected world.

But, we’ve sort of come to a fork in the road. Some people would like us to turn our backs on this relationship, but at this critical juncture, now is the time to recommit to the U.N. and show that we're willing to work with others. One way we do that is by paying our dues in full.

And, let’s face it; the U.N. needs us and we need the U.N. We're going to the U.N. for help on Iran, Iraq, Darfur and North Korea, as well working with our partners to facilitate elections and defeat terrorism. For its part, the U.N. needs the U.S. to be a constructive force for reform and bring countries together to cooperate on the world's most pressing challenges.

Even President Bush recognizes the importance of U.N. Day.  He released a statement yesterday.   Here is a taste of it:

After World War II, representatives from around the globe gathered to begin deliberations on a new international bill of rights.  The document adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, stands as a landmark achievement in the history of human liberty.  On United Nations Day, we recognize the contributions of this important body and underscore our dedication to reforming the institution and advancing the high ideals on which it was founded.

Today, the United Nations must recommit itself to maintaining international security and helping solve economic, social, and humanitarian problems.  This great institution must work for great purposes:  to free people from tyranny and violence, hunger and disease, illiteracy and ignorance, and poverty and despair.  With renewed commitment and courage, we can pursue the vision of the Universal Declaration and build a world where people are free to speak, assemble, and worship as they wish, and where opportunity crosses every border.

Our president puts the onus on the U.N. to "recommit itself to maintaining international security and helping solve economic, social, and humanitarian problems."  Isn't our nation a partner in this effort with the entire global community, Mr. President?

Sometimes stepping away from politics and looking at the big picture is a wonderful thing. I was grateful to be able attend the presentation of the Congressional Gold Medal to the Dalai Lama in the Rotunda last week. It was a moving experience to watch this humble man being honored in our nation’s capitol. The theme of the day, probably expressed best in his speech, was that China should talk directly with him about Tibetan autonomy.

But as moved as I was by the award presentation, I was even more encouraged by the Dalai Lama’s piece in Sunday’s Washington Post, “My Vision of a Compassionate Future ”. Let me share a few choice quotes that speak directly to my own personal philosophy:

“We need to embrace a more realistic approach to dealing with human conflicts, an approach that is in tune with a new reality of heavy interdependence in which the old concepts of "we" and "they" are no longer relevant. The very idea of total victory for one's own side and the total defeat of one's enemy is untenable.”

“When I first saw a photograph of Earth taken from outer space, it powerfully brought home to me how small and fragile the planet is and how petty our squabbles are. Amid our perceived differences, we tend to forget how the world's different religions, ideologies and political systems were meant to serve humans, not destroy them …. Today, more than ever, we need to make this fundamental recognition of the basic oneness of humanity the foundation of our perspective on the world and its challenges. From the dangerous rate of global warming to the widening gap between rich and poor, from the rise of global terrorism to regional conflicts, we need a fundamental shift in our attitudes and our consciousness -- a wider, more holistic outlook.”

So how does this link to my own beliefs? In a recent essay written for NPR’s “This I Believe” I wrote that human evolution consistently rewards “greater cooperation between larger numbers of people.” That “cooperation, not domination, is the key to our success and survival.” The continual question for me is how to translate this belief into sane political decisions?

Don Kraus

The drumbeat for war with Iran has been banging for a few years now. Last week, beginning with President Bush’s “diplomatic” comments about "World War III," the rhetoric really seemed to heat up; and sadly so.

Vice President Cheney, aka Don Vito Corleone, fanned the flames this past weekend when he spoke at the Washington Institute for Near East Studies. According to this morning’s Washington Post , Cheney said:

"Our country, and the entire international community, cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions….”

He said that Tehran's efforts to pursue technology that would allow it to build a nuclear weapon are obvious, and that "the regime continues to practice delay and deceit in an obvious effort to buy time."

If Iran continues on its course, Cheney said, the United States and other nations are "prepared to impose serious consequences." He made no specific reference to military action.

"We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”

Cheney’s rhetorical ramblings, coupled with President Bush’s “World War III” reference run counter to any type of commitment on the U.S. to pursue a diplomatic solution with Iran.

We still are in need of a Tom Hagen. Where are you?

According to GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, ratifying the Law of the Sea treaty would be “the dumbest thing we’ve ever done. It’s like taking our sovereignty and handing it over to some international tribunal. What’s wrong with us?”  And based on his recent interview with Glenn Beck, he's not too keen on international law in general. Don't believe me, or just a glutton for punishment, take a look for yourself...

I would highly recommend that Candidate Huckabee review our Law of the Sea Briefing Book.  Then again, that might mean straying from his isolationist, anti-UN talking points for a few minutes...and that just doesn't seem likely.

On Wednesday, President Bush’s Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey reaffirmed our nation's commitment to international justice and the rule of law as it relates to U.S. interrogation policy.

That might have been seen as a mistake by those who control the “Darth Vader” wing of the Bush administration; because 24 hours later, as Mukasey continued his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he refused to answer whether interrogation techniques such as water boarding are considered torture.

Obviously, Mukasey must have had a change of heart after his first day on the Hill. Or, did the far-right, radical element of the White House that has found every way imaginable to stretch the powers of the executive branch beyond the U.S. Constitution decide to bring the nominee into the room and make him “an offer he couldn’t refuse?”

I am trying not to be too cynical here, but why does this vision, ala “The Godfather” – starring Barack Obama’s distant cousin Vice President Cheney -- seem to be playing out in my head:

SCENE: (Don Vito Corleone (Cheney) sits in a lounge chair; a glass of red wine in his hand [good for the heart, you know], watches Wednesday’s hearing with his oldest boy, Sonny. Mukasey says that even the United States and the president needs to abide by U.S. law and international treaties, i.e., The Geneva Conventions, when it comes to torture and interrogation techniques)

Don Vito (Cheney): “Sonny, did our nominee just say what I thought he said? Get a hold of Luca (Brasi) and make sure Luca and our Attorney General-to-be have a nice, quiet dinner somewhere; maybe a private room at The Palm. Luca will know what to say. Our Attorney General needs to understand our motto: never let anyone outside the family know what you're thinking, ever.”

Sonny (portrayed by David Addington ): “Let me take him to dinner; I’ll make sure he starts singing our song. I don’t need Luca!”

Now, in the best case scenario, Tom Hagen, the informally adopted son of Vito and Carmella Corleone, would step in with a sounder, calmer, cooler and more diplomatic solution to “The Godfather’s” indigestion; however, that’s the problem in the Cheney-wing of the White House: There is no Tom Hagen.

Check out AIUSA's ad in today's USA Today:

 

 

One year ago today, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act. With it, founding principles of the U.S. Constitution were discarded in the name of fighting terror. The Act made it lawful to hold prisoners indefinitely without charge or trial, to assume guilt before innocence, to blur the definition of torture, and to use information obtained through brutal treatment as “evidence.” Other governments, including the British during America’s founding, have tried to exert control in similar ways. It didn’t work then and it doesn’t work now.

Is America safer when we undo the Constitution? Those with first-hand experience of torture, such as Senator John McCain, believe it is not only wrong but counter-productive. This and other abuses erode America’s moral standing in the world. Strong evidence suggests that they even serve as a recruiting tool for those using terror and provide convenient cover for anyone else abusing human rights.

Making the world a safer place requires consistent and universal respect for human rights. Join Amnesty International in insisting that Congress return America to its core constitutional principles of justice by overturning the Military Commissions Act, granting fair and timely trials, treating detainees humanely and reinstating habeas corpus - the right to challenge one’s detention in court.

Strengthen America’s commitment to human rights and the rule of law. It’s up to people like us to demand it. Take action at http://www.amnestyusa.org

Tip o' the hat to Kevin Spidel over at SpidelBlog.

And don't forget to check out the Citizens for Global Solutions End Torture Campaign! 

Amar is a terrific writer/blogger for the Washington Post. He recently headed on "walk about" to pick up the vibe on the global street. His reports have been really interesting and well worth reading. Today he suggests that the simple act of listening to what our friends and allies around the world are saying could be a big help - see here for more details.

Our friend and colleague Mike Otterman is on Tavis Smiley this a.m.

Wednesday, October 17, 8:30am

CHANNEL 32 (WHUT)

• View more broadcast times

Visit the Web site

 

I suppose no huge shock that Mitt "double the size of Gitmo " Romney would have an advisor willing to go on the record supporting torture . Retired General James "Spider" Marks goes on to say:

"We don't need to go with them. We need to preclude them from going there. And that might include some use of torture in order to prevent it."

 

This is why we need to have an independent bipartisan commission on torture.

If you want some way to respond to this consider the following action being coordinated by our friends and partners at AI:

Stand Against the Military Commissions Act

Take part in a national action to mobilize around the first year anniversary of the signage of the MCA into law.

Start Time:

Wednesday, October 17, 2007 at 11:00am

End Time:

Thursday, October 18, 2007 at 12:00am

Location:

Nationwide & in DC

Street:

In front of the White House & in your neighborhood

City/Town:

Washington, DC

Description:

On October 17th, the United States will mark the first year since the Military Commissions Act became law. Amnesty will mark the day with a call to action: mobilizing a grassroots effort against torture through public education, calling for action nationwide to close Guantanamo and reverse the damage done by this deeply flawed legislation. However you choose to participate, the important thing is to get involved!

 

(Andrew Rice, left, is running for Senate against Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma)

Matt Stoller posted this gem last night and Taylor Marsh knocked one out of the park this morning. These two are well ahead of the curve, but there will be lots more progressive advocacy on the Law of the Sea before all is said and done.

The Law of the Sea is picking up attention outside the blogosphere, too. Taylor points out that State Sen. Andrew Rice, who is looking to send Jim "Black Helicopoter" Inhofe back to Oklahoma (or at least to K Street), fired a warning shot today:"

"As a U.S. Senator who constantly portrays himself as a pro-national security public servant, Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe is now choosing to ignore the pleas of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of the Navy, among other military leaders, when they ask for Senate approval of UNCLOS. American military leaders have made it clear that participation in UNCLOS will enhance our national security and that changes have been made in UNCLOS provisions to explicitly protect American interests. And yet Jim Inhofe and a very small minority are working against our nation's best interests, simply because it might hurt the special interests he puts before the needs of Oklahomans again and again. Inhofe is clearly out of step with our national security needs."

Rice is an extremely promising candidate who has learned from the successes of people like Jon Tester and Claire McCaskill. He gets that red-state candidates don't need to pander; they need to speak confidently about their beliefs and prove that progressives are more in touch with local values than the far right.

Inhofe is well entrenched, but then again, so one was Conrad Burns. Rice is off to an extremely promising start.

As for Frank Gaffney's weekly Law of the Sea rant in the Washington Times...well...Mr. Gaffney is nothing if not consistent.

Gaffney uses the Medellin brouhaha to make a sweeping statement that international tribunals are stacked against the United States. He then suggests that, if we join, we will be subject to the jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

One problem with that -- the U.S. will never be subject to that tribunal. Every country gets to choose its preferred method of dispute resolution under the treaty. The U.S. chose arbitration. If countries don't agree, the default method is arbitration. That means, no matter what, any dispute resolution will take place in..arbitration.

Gaffney knows this. He even conceded the point when he testified earlier this month before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. That means this isn't misinformation; it's a lie.

This is the kind of thing that Jeremy Rabkin must have meant when he said:

"The Senate won't ratify the Convention if it is controversial, and I'm doing everything I can to make a controversy."

I know better than to expect the Washington Times to take Gaffney to task for his intellectual dishonesty. Still, that is exactly what should happen.

Scott Paul

Genocide is a word that has deep, deep meaning.  As a global community, after the Holocaust, we stood as one and said “never again.”

Some claim that the G-word gets tossed around too loosely and that it has lost its impact, ala an array of Congressional resolutions and the Bush administration labeling the on-going atrocities in Darfur as “genocide” without backing it up with real action .

My colleague Rich Stazinski has posted two items (here and here ) about this issue as it relates to the Armenian Genocide Resolution, which recently passed the U.S. House of Representatives.

Personally, I am having a difficult time with this…sort of an internal struggle with my own brain (which is a terrible place to be).  The “idealist” in me says that what happened to 1.5 million Armenians was in fact genocide; however, the “realist” in me says, dude, that was nearly 100 years ago; what about what is happening right now in Darfur, Uganda and the DRC? Plus, why should we alienate our closest Muslim ally (Turkey) in a strategically key region by passing such a toothless Congressional action N-O-W?

The lead sponsor of the House resolution, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), has a well written letter to the editor in today’s Washington Post, taking the paper’s editorial board to task for its recent editorial calling the resolution “petty.”

What do you think?

Howard Salter