Article excerpt

Ronald Reagan rejected the United Nations' Convention on the Law of the Sea 25 years ago, but the 202-page treaty generally known by its acronym LOST will not die. Reagan didn't like LOST -- which its conservative critics say would compromise U.S. sovereignty and cede control of the oil, gas and mineral riches of the deepest seabeds to U.N. bureaucrats -- because it was so obviously collectivist, redistributionist, bureaucratic and antithetical to American economic and military interests.

But the Bush administration, the Pentagon and many large mining companies are pushing for the United States to join the 155 countries that have ratified LOST. As Sen. Joe Biden prepares to hold Senate hearings on the Law of the Sea Treaty on Thursday, Sept. 27, we called one of its chief opponents, Cliff Kincaid, president of America's Survival Inc. to find out why Reagan was right and President Bush is wrong about LOST:

Q: What is the Law of the Sea Treaty?

A: This treaty is the biggest giveaway of American sovereignty and resources since the Panama Canal Treaty. It gives the United Nations bureaucracy control over the oceans of the world -- seven- tenths of the world's surface. It sets up an International Seabed Authority to decide who gets access to oil, gas and minerals in international waters. The companies that get those rights to harvest those resources have to pay a global tax to the International Seabed Authority.

Q: Where did this treaty come from?

A: This treaty was negotiated and written by socialists and world- government advocates, mainly under the Jimmy Carter administration. It was so bad that President Reagan flatly rejected it. Bill Clinton claimed he had solved some of the problems with the treaty in a 1994 side agreement. But Reagan's people have said that it was not fixed. The treaty was bottled up for years in the Senate, first by Jesse Helms, who was chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and then when President Bush came into office the State Department maneuvered him into endorsing it.

But it was still bottled up, this time by Sen. Bill Frist, the Republican leader, who felt it had serious flaws that had to be corrected. But with the liberal takeover of Congress last year, Sen. Biden has decided to bring it up for a hearing and a vote.

Q: What does the treaty do that is good or beneficial or necessary?

A: Some people say it guarantees freedom of navigation on the high seas but that is a matter of dispute. The treaty says the oceans have to be reserved for peaceful purposes. That would appear to give the foreign judges who run the International Tribunal for the Law of the Seas, another institution set up by this treaty, the authority to decide what is peaceful and what is not. That is why opponents of the treaty fear that it could be used to inhibit and restrict U.S. military activities on the high seas.

Q: Gathering intelligence, opening sea lanes, seizing terrorist - - all of those?

A: All of those activities are potentially at risk and can be seen by these foreign judges as possible violations of the Law of the Sea Treaty.

Q: Why did Reagan refuse to OK LOST and are his reasons valid today?

A: Some of the supporters of the treaty say Reagan only objected to the provisions on deep-sea mining. But the fact is that his chief negotiator to the Law of the Sea convention, a man named James L. Malone, gave testimony in 1995 saying that President Reagan rejected this treaty as a whole -- that it was flawed in concept and in detail. It was, in fact, a socialist power grab over the oceans of the world designed to increase foreign aid to the Third World through this global tax and other mechanisms in the treaty. Plus, Reagan's diaries have now come out and one of those diary entries quotes the former president as saying he rejected this treaty not just because of the deep-sea mining provisions; his objections were far more broad than that. …