Meese: Reagan would nix Law of the Sea Treaty
October 10, 2007 | By Nathaniel Ward
The Law of the Sea Treaty would impose a supranational agenda on the United States and promote a collectivist ideology that compromises American sovereignty, Heritage scholar and former Attorney General Edwin Meese writes in The Wall Street Journal.
The first time the treaty, known as LOST, was seriously considered, Ronald Reagan was in the Oval Office. And President Reagan “would likely encourage the Senate to do today what he did in 1982: Reject LOST,” Meese writes with William Clark, President Reagan’s national security advisor.
Meese and Clark provide insight on Reagan’s position on the treaty, which has often been distorted. The treaty’s backers, they write, have attempted “to portray President Reagan’s concerns as relatively circumscribed. They contend that those objections were subsequently and satisfactorily addressed in a multilateral accord known as the Agreement of 1994.”
In truth, however, Reagan adamantly opposed the Law of the Sea Treaty, and would continue to do so even if the 1994 Agreement actually changed anything. “He was troubled by a treaty that had, in the course of its protracted negotiations, mutated beyond recognition from an effort to codify certain navigation rights strongly supported by our Navy into a dramatic step toward world government.”
Meese and Clark cite Ambassador James Malone, who said that “the collectivist and redistributionist provisions of the treaty were at the core of the U.S. refusal to sign.”
—Colin Gowan
America’s ‘rudderless’ ally
Britain has for six years stood firmly alongside America in the war on Islamic extremism, which continues to pose a threat to both countries. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, however, does not seem to recognize that “he is a war leader whether he likes it or not,” Heritage Foundation foreign policy expert Nile Gardiner writes in a new analysis.
“Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s announcement this weekend that Britain will reduce her troop strength in Iraq from 5,500 to just 2,500 by spring 2008, sends all the wrong signals,” writes Gardiner, the director of Heritage’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom.
“There are no compelling military or strategic reasons for a British withdrawal,” Gardiner explains. Instead, “the momentum for such a move is purely political” and reflects the British electoral cycle instead of military reality. “On both Iraq and Iran, Prime Minister Brown looks rudderless and held hostage by the polls and the left-wing of his own ruling Labour party.”
The consequences of this move could be devastating. Gardiner notes that “a British withdrawal from Iraq will be interpreted by the West’s worst enemies as a huge display of weakness and portrayed as a major defeat for Britain.”
Time for ‘civil obedience’ on immigration
The federal government is taking a welcome stand against state governments that refuse to comply with national immigration law. The Department of Homeland Security has announced a lawsuit against the state of Illinois, whose legislature barred employers from participating in a national system used to track down phony Social Security numbers and thereby identify illegal workers.
Heritage fellow and former Congressman Ernest Istook hopes this is the prelude to future enforcement measures. “Here’s hoping [Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff] will be consistent and go after other places that have made amnesty policies official.”
“Will his department now also sue the states that have granted in-state tuition to illegal immigrant college students, in direct violation of federal law?” he asks. “And will DHS now sue the cities that thumb their noses at the law with what they call sanctuary policies and the rest of us call amnesty?”
Istook proposes that conservatives recruit government workers to blow the whistle on municipalities that violate immigration laws. “The left is urging civil disobedience on immigration. Conservatives should urge civil obedience.”
In other news
- Government regulators expect to see 32 new applications to build nuclear power plants in the next year. The last application was submitted in 1979.
- Mass murderer Che Guevera, beloved by leftist revolutionaries everywhere, died 40 years ago this week.
- Liberal plans to raise taxes on private equity firms have stalled for the time being in the Senate, according to news reports.
- The Washington Post reports that leaking national security secrets to the media can have harmful consequences. In this case, the leak of an al Qaeda video exposed a private firm’s successful efforts to monitor the terrorist organization.
- The government may butt in where it doesn’t belong, the Associated Press reports: “The federal government is considering buying out as many as 17,000 homes along the Mississippi coast and remaking the land into a vast hurricane-protection zone.”
- Proposals to withdraw from Iraq are being placed on a back burner in Congress, according to news dispatches.
- Rep. Jo Ann Davis (R-Va.) passed away over the weekend. She was the fifth member of Congress to die in office this year.
- Union workers are striking against another automaker. This time, UAW members are walking out on Chrysler.
Coming up at Heritage
To attend these or any other Heritage Foundation events, RSVP at Heritage’s events website. Or you can watch these events live online at Heritage.org. All times are Eastern.
- On Monday, Oct. 15 at noon, Pacific Research Institute scholars Lance Izumi and Vicki Murray discuss their new book, Not as Good as You Think: Why the Middle Class Needs School Choice.
- On Tuesday, Oct. 16 at 10:00 a.m., Heritage’s Lisa Curtis and Jim Phillips participate in a discussion about the campaign in Afghanistan with a panel of experts.
- On Thursday, Oct. 18 at noon, author Abraham H. Foxman delivers a rebuttal to the idea of “The Israel Lobby” and the myth of a global Jewish conspiracy.
Nathaniel Ward is the Editor of MyHeritage.org—a website for members and supporters of The Heritage Foundation. Colin Gowan contributed to this report.
