- The Washington Times - Monday, September 12, 2005

Since it seems the only news fit to print (or air) these days has to do with Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath, finding a related angle to call needed public and leadership attention to something else requires a little ingenuity.

But since the stakes associated with another, largely unremarked story — involving a drama that will reach its denouement at United Nations headquarters this week — may be nothing less than the future sovereignty and character of the United States, a way must be found.

As it happens, the answer lies in the toxic liquid now being pumped out of New Orleans into waterways that will, inexorably, contaminate the international reaches of Gulf of Mexico, and perhaps beyond. The United States unilaterally determined this potentially huge environmental damage is justified by the need to recover and restore a major American city, its population and economy.

Interestingly, shortly before Katrina precipitated this crisis, a gaggle of former senior government officials wrote Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist demanding he swiftly effect ratification of the controversial Law of the Sea Treaty (or LOST) accord. The authors dismissed concerns of conservatives that LOST would impinge upon U.S. sovereignty and vital interests.

If the United States were a party to the Law of the Sea Treaty today though, it is very likely America would be enjoined from dumping New Orleans’ toxic stew into Lake Pontchartrain and the Mississippi River. For one thing, this would violate the Treaty’s environmental obligations to protect marine life and its habitats, obligations whose sweep makes those of the Kyoto Treaty seem modest by comparison.

For another, the Law of the Sea Tribunal — the sort of multilateral legal institution whose tendency for politicization and anti-American actions has prompted the Bush administration to reject the International Criminal Court — has already established a relevant precedent. In a case brought by Ireland against Great Britain, the Tribunal established its jurisdiction extends to activities on sovereign member states’ soil that can arguably affect international waters.

Unfortunately, since Ronald Reagan’s day, U.S. governments have tended to pay too little attention to sovereignty-sapping treaties and institutional power-grabs by the U.N. and other multilateral organizations. To his credit, Mr. Reagan recognized the Law of the Sea Treaty for what it was intended to be by the World Federalists and so-called nonaligned movement types who had a significant hand in shaping its supranational International Seabed Authority and related entities: a highly precedential, and undesirable, vehicle for establishing world-government controls of the “international commons” (in this case, the oceans) at the expense of sovereign states.

President Reagan refused to agree to LOST’s ratification in part because he regarded as anathema the idea of empowering an international organization to raise its own revenues through what amount to taxes on seabed mining and energy exploitation. Regrettably, the Bush administration has so far chosen to overlook this and other adverse treaty implications for U.S. sovereignty, and supports LOST’s ratification.

The good news is President Bush seems in no mood to go along with the logical extrapolation of the Law of the Sea Treaty — the so-called “Draft Outcome Document” for the U.N. General Assembly meeting Sept 14-16. The document has been the focus of intense negotiations since Mr. Bush got his representative, John Bolton, in place at Turtle Bay. Despite fresh evidence from former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker that the U.N. is scandal-ridden, corrupt, poorly organized and managed and incompetently led, Secretary General Kofi Annan wants American and other world leaders to ratify this week what amounts to his wish-list.

As of this writing, however, Mr. Bolton has registered strong U.S. objections to language that would bind America to actions that, under this president, it has firmly opposed: ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; negotiations on space arms control; creating what amounts to a standing U.N. army; and forgoing systemic in favor of cosmetic U.N. reforms.

Of arguably greatest importance is the U.S. refusal to empower the United Nations to levy taxes — a step that would, as with the Law of the Sea Treaty, advance the organization’s ambitions to promote world government. Globotaxes would also eviscerate any remaining U.S. leverage to effect real U.N. reform and punish its misbehavior. It is estimated one proposed tax on international currency transactions alone could generate a staggering $13 trillion in revenue.

Just as Hurricane Katrina ruptured the levees protecting New Orleans, the concerted U.N. assault on the barriers to further erosion of American sovereignty threatens to swamp our freedom of action and our Founding principle of “no taxation without representation.” It behooves President Bush to reject any Outcome Document that leaves the door open to globotaxes, let alone one that endorses them outright.

Rather than lend his authority to such an exercise, he should be willing to refuse to attend the U.N. summit this week that Mr. Annan hoped would be the biggest fund-raiser in world history.

Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for The Washington Times.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times is switching its third-party commenting system from Disqus to Spot.IM. You will need to either create an account with Spot.im or if you wish to use your Disqus account look under the Conversation for the link "Have a Disqus Account?". Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide