The problem with the LOST deal

George Will:

There they go again. Like those who say climate change is an emergency too obvious and urgent to allow for debate, some proponents of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, a.k.a. the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), say arguments against it are nonexistent. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says any such arguments “no longer exist and truly cannot even be taken with a straight face.” Favoring condescension over persuasion, she ridicules people who she says think that, because the treaty was negotiated under U.N. auspices, “the black helicopters are on their way.”

Clinton’s insufferable tone is not a reason for the necessary 34 senators to reject ratification. It is, however, a reason for enjoying their doing so.

... Five former Republican secretaries of state (Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, James Baker, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice) support LOST, saying in a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece, “we would strengthen our capacity to influence deliberations and negotiations involving other nations’ attempts to extend their continental boundaries.” But would such influence be wielded vigorously by some administrations? And would this influence be superior to existing U.S. influence, particularly that of the U.S. Navy? 

Donald Rumsfeld, who is five times more persuasive than these former secretaries of state, opposes LOST because it “remains a sweeping power grab that could prove to be the largest mechanism for the worldwide redistribution of wealth in human history.” It “would regulate American citizens and businesses without being accountable politically to the American people.” Which makes it shameful that the Chamber of Commerce is campaigning for LOST through an organization with the Orwellian name the American Sovereignty Campaign. 

If the Navy supports LOST because the civilian leadership does, fine. But if the Navy thinks it cannot operate well without LOST, we need better admirals, not better treaties. Here is an alternative proposal for enhancing the lawfulness of the seas: Keep the money LOST would transfer to ISA, and use it to enlarge the Navy.

This proposed treaty first came to my attention in around 1970 in an International Law course.  I felt at the time and still feel today that it is a device for wealth transfer to countries who do not have the competence or where with all to mine the sea beds.  The drafters through in a few provisions on navigation that are supposed to compensate for the wealth transfer mechanism.  Rumsfeld nails it.  I oppose the treaty as not being in the interest of the US.  But, it does seem to be the kind of redistribution scheme that would appeal to Obama.

The fact is the world will be better off if our companies mine where they can and make as much money from the activity as possible so they can hire people and help payoff the huge debt Obama has run up.