Official U.S. Navy Imagery/Flickr
It's become extremely difficult -- far more difficult than any point in American history -- for Congress to pass legislation. But treaties are even harder, since they require 67 votes for passage. Even if every member of the Democratic caucus backs a treaty, it would need 14 Republicans to go along, and in this Congress, that's an implausibly high number.
This is particularly relevant this week because of the Law of the Sea Treaty, negotiated 18 years ago, and ratified by 161 countries around the globe. Here in the U.S., it's been endorsed by the Clinton administration, the Bush administration, the Obama administration, business leaders, the State Department, the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs, and specifically U.S. Navy leaders who, as Josh Rogin explained, see the measure as necessary "to allow the United States to fully participate in the growing multinational system that governs the open seas."
In the Senate, hopes were raised when the treaty earned the backing of Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Committee Ranking Member Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), who began the ratification process with a "24-star hearing" -- a panel with six military officers with four stars each. For its part, the Obama administration told senators the treaty would allow the U.S. to "secure mineral rights in a larger geographical area, would ensure freedom of navigation for U.S. ships, and would give the country better leverage for claims in the Arctic."
And yet, despite all of this, Senate Republicans have apparently succeeded in killing the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
As of [yesterday], 34 Republican senators have expressed opposition to Senate ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty, a number that would add up to rejection of the treaty if all those senators vote against it when it comes to the Senate floor.
"This is Victory Day for U.S. sovereignty in the Senate," Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), a passionate opponent of the treaty, proclaimed on the Senate floor late Monday. "With 34 opposed to LOST (the treaty), this debate is over."
Inhofe's declaration of victory came after two Republican senators, Romney surrogates Rob Portman (R-OH) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), announced Monday they would vote against the treaty.
What happened? Why would Republicans dismiss the pleas of American military leaders? Well, it's an odd story.
As Kerry and Lugar began their efforts in earnest, so too did far-right activists, who had irrational fears, based on little more than paranoia, that the measure would give the United Nations power over American laws. Fox News and other conservative media outlets soon began trumpeting the talking points, which were aggressively pushed by John Bolton and other extremists, that our "sovereignty" was being put at risk by treaty backers, including the U.S. military.
Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, James Baker, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice -- Republican Secretaries of State from Republican administrations -- wrote an op-ed, urging Senate ratification, but GOP senators were more inclined to listen to Dick Morris.
Yesterday, Sens. Portman and Ayotte were the apparent nails in the coffin. It's no coincidence that both Portman and Ayotte are being considered for their party's vice presidential nomination, which means they have to take ridiculous policy positions that make the GOP base happy. Had either endorsed the treaty, Fox News would not have been pleased.
And so international rules for the world's oceans will have to wait once more.
Leave a Comment:
i cannot even type what i think. it would be bleeped.
The US never signed or ratified this treaty. It was not ratified even though Bush urged the Senate to ratify it. There is no time limit on signing and ratifying it, but there are negative economic and military consequences to perpetuating non formal adherence to the treaty. See wikipedia article for a rich set of cited authorities on the subject.
The political question is why does Reid bring the vote now? Two theories
Let me help. Order the Navy Seals to kidnap and keelhaul those traitor Rethug congress-critters. I am so far beyond the point of tolerating their stupid behavior.
You know, there are times when it is not possible to avoid hoping for some very unfortunate health problems on a lot of Republicans.
This is one of them.
UnAmerican is sufficient.
Yeah, the treaty has been talked about for 30 years, but never ratified or signed. More political blathering. Go fish.
It appears as if the "demand" has not gone out with proper instructions from the GOP's corporate overlords.
We can be sure, if their super-mega-rich puppet masters saw an opportunity in the international rules this treaty would support, it would be at the top of the GOP voting agenda, even over the top of the Fox News mouth-foaming need for obstructionism.
Their mothers must be so proud...
There is an opportunity. Sign the treaty, then cancel all drilling permits to foreign countries drilling within the 200-mile limit.
There is a lot more to this thing than most people consider as Chris Boese said above, take a very close look at this treaty first.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), also called the Law of the Sea Convention or the Law of the Sea treaty, is the international agreement that resulted from the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), which took place from 1973 through 1982. The Law of the Sea Convention defines the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world's oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the environment, and the management of marine natural resources. The Convention, concluded in 1982, replaced four 1958 treaties. UNCLOS came into force in 1994, a year after Guyana became the 60th country to sign the treaty.[1] To date, 162 countries and the European Community have joined in the Convention. However, it is uncertain as to what extent the Convention codifies customary international law.
While the Secretary General of the United Nations receives instruments of ratification and accession and the UN provides support for meetings of states party to the Convention, the UN has no direct operational role in the implementation of the Convention. There is, however, a role played by organizations such as the International Maritime Organization, the International Whaling Commission, and the International Seabed Authority (the latter being established by the UN Convention).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea
I don't have to get past the first sentence where the UN has been proposing it for years.....enough said UN = One World Order = BAD IDEA. PERIOD!!
What a useless conglomeration of "we know better than you".
Time to start a movement to have them evicted from our soil..........let them set up headquarters in Theran, since they seem to think the Iranians are such peaceful, well intended folk...........GIVE ME A BREAK!!
GOP slogan in 2008: "Country First." - GOP motto immediately after the 2008 elections: "One-term president". Need I say more?
"This is Victory Day for U.S. sovereignty in the Senate," Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), a passionate opponent of the treaty, proclaimed on the Senate floor late Monday. "With 34 opposed to LOST (the treaty), this debate is over."
Yay! LOST lost, so we won!
Such a clear illustration of GOP desire for American failure.
So to be clear, you think it is a failure that we did not give the U.N. rights to all of our water? The L.O.S.T. is a part of the U.N.'s Agenda 21 plan for assaulting American's property rights. Look it up and do some reading. NBC is not a place to get information. It is a place get to the information the Obama admin wants you to have. Brian Williams would tell you that if he had time to remove his lips from Obumbler's sphincter.
Oh, Justin. You don't know the half of it. We Obama liberals are plotting to give all American sovereignty to the U.N. as soon as we can get you freedom lovers to avert your eyes long enough. What you don't know is there's nothing you can do to stop it. All your guns have been programmed to become useless so when our blue helmeted U.N. soldiers come after you, your big guns will offer you no defense.
We're serious. Your freedom is what we're after, and there's nothing you can do to save it. Any day now, Mitt4Brains.
Justin - are you also suggesting all those military guys that were for this as well as lefties like Henry Kissinger also hadn't read the treaty and are part of the conspiracy? Yikes. Guess even our military leadership is unamerican.
The right's idiocy on treaties is mind-blowing. So is all their idiocy, but this one really takes the biscuit since these people regard themselves as such great constitutional scholars. Yeah, they're so great that they've apparently never heard of the supremacy clause, which defines the supreme law of the land as: the Constitution itself, federal laws, and treaties. Treaties do not supplant or infringe upon American law; when ratified, treaties become American law.
Why is it that wingers feel that they are so clever by being such willfully ignorant and paranoid jackasses?
Much of the right wing opposition is due to paranoia over UN black helicopters but the real root of it, in my opinion, is their insistence that "sovereignty" requires that this country be allowed to do whatever it wants regardless of world opinion or treaty obligations.
Bingo!
As much as the GOP claims to lurve Condi, they never take her advise. The majority of them didn't listen to her on the treaty with Russia and these yahoos didn't listen to her now.
They listen to the screaming heads at Fox.
Why are Republicans voting against the treaty? I want some reporting, not the usual Republicans are against something because they are unAmerican.
From what I'm seeing, they believe that we should be seen as a unilateral force, that as the US, we don't need to ever be a part of any multinational agency. That since we are the 'big guy on the block', we can go it alone quite nicely, thank you very much.
Would explain quite well why they see the UN as a threat to US 'sovereignty'. It's a crock and they know it. But they'll never admit their paranoia.
Steve, for us mere mortals, what does this treaty do and what is the likely (negative) impact for the country? And yes, in fact, I am too lazy to google it. :)
I googled it for you, gordo.
Apparently LOST has to do with an airplane wreck, an island that moves, a mysterious smoke monster, and "others."
My guess is, the GOP doesn't want anything to do with "others."
Further proof that "the only 'good Republicans' are pushing up daisies."
If Obama came out and said there is a Christian God these pukes would pass a law denouncing God;s existance--hint hint.
There must be lots of money there somehow for someone. Only a very small part of the GOP base would even know there was a treaty. This is more than just a stick it to POB ploy.
First, we refused this treaty starting under the Clinton administration. Second, how much money does this treaty require we commit to the UN and/or these efforts and for how long?
I dare someone to answer and source that question!
Why don't you tell everybody.
So again, the United States plays the part of the rogue state. How long will it be before the civilized nations decide that our bases, port access and nuclear arsenals may be pointed at them, and they rescind their welcome?
Given the lawlessness, lying and irresponsibility of the Republicans, it should not bee too long.
I don't know. How long before we kick the U.N. to the curb and take back all sovereignty?
It makes me sad that someone as obviously intelligent as Rachel Maddow actually buys this "the 2 parties are different" nonsense. Wake up kid. They are all stealing your nation.
Warning!!!! Low-quality trolling ahead!
When they start babbling about the UN and "sovereignty" it's an especially bad sign, usually of a hard-core John Bircher.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-to-give-un-control-of-our-water/
Uh, huh. Very convincing.
All his pals in the John Birch Society think it's brilliant!
I honestly don't understand what the ranter was getting at. But then, I don't think rational argument or factual enlightenment were his goals.
For those of you too lazy to use Google - http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_00.shtml
...and for those who are too stupid - http://bit.ly/O8gLS7
Thank you for your laborious labors. Unfortunately, because of your previous low-quality trolling, no one will follow your links.
Have a nice day, wingnut.
@justin
Thanks for the link, which I did follow since it is to the UN website and am bookmarking it for future reference. [Division for Sustainable Development]
Just looking at the first page - essentially the table of contents - it appears to be a rather thorough guide on what we can all do - working together - to make this a better place for us all.
Sounds good to me.
hmm insults instead of intelligence. You must be a liberal. I'll also say it as an insult so that you understand it: You must be a liberal a-hole.
If you read into it you will find that Agenda 21 is the U.N.'s plan for population control and assaulting individual property rights under the guise of a friendly way to save the world. I don't know about you but I intend to defend my right to own land with my very last breath and drop of blood. Fire up your search engine and start digging. You will learn.
@justin
I never call people names and have been told I am excruciatingly tolerant.
I followed your link, looked it over briefly - marked it for future reading, stated my initial opinion that happens to not match yours, and thanked you for the link.
You reply by claiming that I insulted you. ???????????
wow - amazing...
{Please note that I am still not going to call you names back}
I dont think he was talking about you but the tard disgustedwithitall.
you seem to be a decent person with a good head on there shoulders.
Get out of the UN as soon as possible!! They have no interest in the U.S. or any other nation as a free society. All they want us to do is stand around the campfire while singing Kum-ba-ya while big oil, big pharm, and big banks bend us over rape us for every penny they can get their hands on. If the U.S. was to sign the treaty, we would give away parts of our sovereignty and let other nations pillage and plunder what little we have left.
Oh yea, I voted for Obama, but never again! give me a president that will give us jobs not welfare and food stamps.
WARNING!! Concern troll. Avert eyes.
It is at least as convinceing as anything from NBC. You have clearly enjoyed the Kool-Aid and have only get your news form one source. You offer no dispute other than to say "uh huh". You sir are a fine candidate for this link since you fall into the category of "too stupid to think for yourself": - http://bit.ly/O8gLS7
Disgusted...,
(sarcasm alert!)
Yes, the old "I voted for Obama, but..." ploy is always so convincing!
I'm sure theres a whole lot of people wishing the heck thay had'nt voted for the lieing traitor.
The major problem is the Senator's eccentric idea of America's place above the judgment of the rest of the world. It is of a piece with the fuss made concerning the Supreme Court's consideration of the trends in the decisions of foreign supreme courts.
For info on the treaty, see:
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm
The "idea of America's place above the judgment of the rest of the world" seems to have become core dogma for those on the right. Even if they do gain total control of the US, that attitude must inevitably cause their destruction.
There is truth in Jared's post. But I would also venture this right wing dogmatic position is merely a campaign prop so they can wave the flag and accuse anyone who opposes their position as unpatriotic. Republicans have been doing this since McCarthy. I would expect that each president who has dealt with this issue has respected its terms even though it has not been ratified.
The only way to solve this is to close "all" U.S. military bases on forien soil bring those troops and equiptment home place them on all 4 borders "this alone will save American tax payers 100s of billions a month"cut off all forien aid, yes i know it'll hurt for awhile" but then we could do real studys to see who realy needs it i,e it doesnt go to petty warlords instead of those who realy need it. And in a few years the world implodes becouse Americans arent bailing it out,and lol well i guess its all over but for the crying huh?
unless your an American that understands that in the real world reality isnt as sweet as idealist would have you think.Me and mine will remain Free and as informed as possible Americans.!!! not deluded simi content "drones" in the socalled "one world gov."hive.
comments are illrelivent the math is sound.
Inhofe gives the "whip count" at 35 (with the hint of more "no" votes if Kerry brings LOST to a floor vote). Inhofe gives the dissenter's reasons in this YouTube video (7-16-2012). I find his concerns credible. LOST is a stealth "cap-n-trade and KYOTO" on steroids!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPS-VsEUZ08&feature=player_embedded
The Heritage Foundation has more on LOST
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/07/law-of-the-sea-treaty-bad-for-american-energy-policy
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/05/us-accession-to-un-convention-on-the-law-of-the-sea-unnecessary-to-develop-oil-and-gas-resources
The HILL Blog
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/238069-ratification-of-law-of-the-sea-advances-world-government
In order to be a Republican in 21st century America one must dispose of any common sense they have, be prepared to switch moral values in an instant, always opt to cause misery to other humans in order to enrich oneself, lie, cheat and steal as often as possible when dealing with ordinary taxpayers. If you Republicans don't want to be associated with racists, bigots, liars and thieves, then don't let them into your party. When you associate with them as much as you do all we can do is assume you support their agena of hate.
Hell hath no fury as A lib/dem scorned.lol especialy when the scorn is deserved.
know thy enemy and laugh.!!!
Once again we see a demonstration of the unpleasant reality that not all veterans are decent people. And, as recurrent scandals in the Air Force and elsewhere demonstrate, not all active duty personnel are decent people.
For all of you that are pro L.O.S.T, are you going to be paying the tab for these third world countries that want to participate but can't afford to develop their infrastructure to comply? I think America can take care of itself without trying to develop third world countries to prove a point. We can NOT afford it. Let's push this one down the road for a while.
LOL the only thing more sickining than stupid people is there predictability.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Rachel Maddow is starting to annoy me.