 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||
| FRANK
GAFFNEY INTERVIEW- FRANK GAFFNEY ON OUR NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE
LAW OF THE SEA TREATY
|
||
|
||
|
Gabrielle Reilly: If ratified, will LOST interfere with President Bush's Proliferation Security Initiative which allows for the intercepting of ships engaging in terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction? Frank Gaffney: One of the most important post-9/11 efforts made to counter terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction is President Bush’s Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). Dozens of nations have agreed to join in monitoring and, if necessary, intercepting and boarding ships on the high seas in the event they are suspected of engaging in one or both of these threatening activities. Unfortunately, LOST does not provide for these as reasons which one can under the Treaty engage in such interceptions. To the contrary, LOST establishes that the transport of arms is a perfectly legitimate activity. Moreover, several nations – among them China and India
– have already said they consider PSI to be illegal under LOST.
And it is a safe bet that, if the United States becomes subject to
this treaty, PSI will be taken up by the Law of the Sea Tribunal and
almost certainly will be found to violate the Treaty. Such an outcome
would, of course, be completely contrary to our national security
interests and unacceptable. Frank Gaffney:. The Law of the Sea Treaty created a supranational organization to regulate what is done with and under the international seabeds. This organization, the International Seabed Authority (ISA), has a judiciary – the Law of the Sea Tribunal – with the ability to issue edicts concerning not only the seabeds, but the waters and even the airspace above them. In fact, it has even asserted its jurisdiction over decisions made by member states about activities on their own sovereign soil. Decisions in most of LOST’s agencies – and especially its Tribunal – will be made on the basis of majority rule. Each country will have one vote. Should the United States become a member, its vote would count no more than those of, say, Fiji or Benin. And even that American vote would only count if the U.S. were one of the countries represented at the time – by no means a certainty, since many LOST entities, including the Tribunal, have rotating memberships. In any event, given the nature of this and other UN organizations,
the U.S. is sure to be outvoted on most matters in which it has strong
interests. It was precisely for this reason that the Treaty became
so unsatisfactory to President Reagan; our concerns were disregarded,
dismissed or simply voted down. Frank Gaffney: LOST requires member states to provide
information about the seabeds that could have considerable import
for our national security. For instance, if an American company wishes
to do mining or oil or gas exploration, it would have to submit detailed
data about the area in which the activity would occur. If the area
were on or near the U.S. continental shelf, such data could well provide
an enemy with strategically invaluable insights into undersea access
routes that could be used to attack some of the millions of Americans
who live on or near our coasts. Frank Gaffney: The most desirable aspects of the
Law of the Sea Treaty pertain to navigational rights. Those provisions,
however, are already enshrined in existing international law and customary
practice. In fact, the United States enjoys the benefits of being
party to these arrangements without being subject to either the Law
of the Sea Tribunal or LOST’s compulsory UN dispute resolution
provisions – something that has been specifically rejected in
the past. Gabrielle Reilly: Is it true that the Law of the Sea Treaty would permit an international organization for the first time to levy taxes on U.S. citizens? Frank Gaffney: The International Seabed Authority would be able to oblige the U.S. government – read, the taxpayer – to pay fees and assessments in exchange for the ISA granting its companies the right to exploit seabed resources. The United Nations has long sought the ability to raise revenues in this manner as a means of reducing its reliance on American and other member nations’ dues to sustain the UN’s operations. In the absence of such independent means of generating revenues, these dues represent a real check – if a singular one – on this and other so-called world bodies’ corruption, overreach and interference with U.S. sovereignty. Against the backdrop of the burgeoning Iraq Oil-for-Food Program scandal, it is hard to imagine a more ill-advised idea than to establish the precedent of certainly undisciplined, and probably unaccountable, revenue streams for the UN and its institutional offspring. This is especially so given that it is not clear how the government would obtain reimbursement from the companies whose activities would give rise to these taxes. End Of Interview A treaty that was created over two decades ago could not possibly address the new world we live in with the War on Terror and our national security issues. It would be reckless for our government to hand over our vote to a world body that is currently under several investigations for billions of dollars of corruption surrounding the United Nations Oil-For-Food scandal. Without your assistance this treaty may be ratified this year. It is essential that you inform you representatives that you do not want this passed. Please forward this link to everyone you know and/or post this interview on your blogs or web site. Thanks very much for the interview Frank, your extensive knowledge and experience is essential to our national security. The SEA Treaty may well have slipped by us unnoticed without your dedicated and watchful eye. For more on Frank Gaffney please visit the Center for Security Policy. Here is some of the contact information to take action: LAW OF THE SEA: Congress Contact Information Leadership Sen. Bill Frist, Majority Leader 202-224-3344 Sen. Mitch McConnell, Majority Whip 202-224-2541 Sen. Rick Santorum, Conference Comm. Chair 202-224-6324 Sen. Jon Kyl, Policy Comm. Chair 202-224-4521 Sen. Jeff Sessions, Steering Comm. Chair 202-224-4124
Relevant Committee Chairmen Sen. Richard Lugar, Foreign Relations 202-224-4814 Sen. Susan Collins, Governmental Affairs 202-224-2523 Sen. Chuck Grassley, Finance 202-224-3744 Sen. Jim Inhofe, Environment 202-224-4721 Sen. Ted Stevens, Commerce 202-224-2235 Sen. Arlen Specter, Judiciary 202-224-4254 Sen. Pat Roberts, Intelligence 202-224-4774 Sen. John Warner, Armed Services 202-224-2023 Sen. Thad Cochran, Appropriations 202-224-5054
Rep. Henry Hyde, International Relations 202-225-4561 Rep. Duncan Hunter, Armed Services 202-225-5672 Rep. James Sensenbrenner, Judiciary 202-225-5101 Rep. Bill Thomas, Ways and Means 202-225-2915 Rep. Joe Barton, Energy and Commerce 202-225-2002 Rep. Richard Pombo, Resources 202-225-1947 Rep. Peter Hoekstra, Intelligence 202-225-4401 Rep. Jerry Lewis, Appropriations 202-225-5861 Rep. Tom Davis, Government Reform 202-225-1492
New Republican Senators Sen. Richard Burr 202-224-3154 Sen. Tom Coburn 202-224-5754 Sen. Jim DeMint 202-224-6121 Sen. Johnny Isakson 202-224-3643 Sen. Mel Martinez 202-224-3041 Sen. John Thune 202-224-2321 Sen. David Vitter 202-224-4623 More Frank Gaffney Articles
ACCOMPLISHMENTS To accomplish great things, - Anatole France |
