The following letter is the response from Arizona Sen. John McCain to a challenge regarding the disastrous Law of the Sea Treaty sent to him by a constituent—Ray Spitzer. Spitzer is the Republican Legislative District 9 Chairman.
Nothing vague here; McCain supports ratification . Our submarines would require United Nations permission to travel the world’s oceans and our nation’s enemies would be informed of their exact locations. This treaty, rejected by President Ronald Reagan, cedes control of 70% of the earth’s surface to the U.N.. Senator McCain, a U.S. Naval Academy graduate (albeit fifth from the bottom of his 1958 class) and the son and grandson of Admirals, inexplicably believes this is beneficial to American interests.
You may want to let him know what you think.
November 14, 2007
Mr. and Mrs. Ray Spitzer
11228 North 58th Avenue
Glendale, AZ 85304
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Spitzer:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. I appreciate knowing your views.
Historically, the U.S. has been a global leader in advocating the Law of the Sea. Proponents of its ratification strongly believe the Treaty would help strengthen our national security, promote the free and unimpeded flow of international trade and commerce, and protect our vital natural resources. It has been more than eleven years since the Treaty was transmitted to the Senate for ratification.
The Treaty provides a comprehensive regime of law and order in the world’s oceans and seas and serves as an umbrella convention under which rules are established for governing all uses of the oceans and their resources. I recognize there are wide ranging views held on this issue, but please be assured I will keep your position in mind should this resolution be brought up for debate in the full Senate.
Again, thank you for contacting me. Please feel free to contact me again on issues of importance to you or to consult my web page at mccain.senate.gov.
Sincerely,
John McCain
United States Senator
Seeing Red AZ 
The LOS Convention recognizes and protects the right of free navigation on, under and over the seas outside of territorial waters (which go out to 12 nautical miles). It also gives us expanded navigation rights within 12 miles when passing through straits used in international navigation.
The Convention also recognizes our sovereign control over our continental shelf and over living resources within 200 nautical miles from shore.
The UN has no management role over the seas. In the one place where multinational management was needed – the management of a licensing system for mineral deposits beyond national jurisdiction, we created a new organization – one in which the US has a permanent seat on the governing Council from which we will be able to veto any amendments to the seabed provisions, veto any rules to which we object, and veto any plan for distributing revenues.
The Convention also supports the Proliferation Security Initiative – in fact, the PSI was designed specifically to work with the provisions of the Convention. In 2005, John Bolton confirmed that the two agreements are totally compatible.
Given what you have been told about the Convention, I understand your opposition – but what you have been told is wrong. It was negotiated by very competent US civilian and military officials who fulfilled all our objectives with the exception of deep seabed mining in 1982, and then it was renegotiated to meet six specific criteria set forth by President Reagan and the 1994 Agreement on Implementation put Reagan’s criteria into effect.. The Convention not only protects our security and sovereignty, it is a tool by which we can promote both our own economic interests and the long term environmental health of the seas.
John McCain first supported the Convention after the 1994 Agreement came into force. He did so because the Convention protects US sovereignty and security as well as promotes US interests in business and environment.
I hope you will reassess the information you have been given and seek out sources that do not reflect an almost religious attitude that all multilateral agreements are bad. Remember too, the alternative is not the LOS Convention or some legal regime of our own design. The Law of the Sea was codified in 1958 and the US ratified that agreement. The Law of the Sea Convention was created because the 1958 convention did not meet US needs. The package of the 1982 Convention and the 1994 Agreement on Implementation fully meets US interests and that is why Senator McCain has supported it since 1998.
Uh, I was informed by the Fox News Channel a couple of weeks ago that Sen. McCain was against this treaty. What the hell happened here? Is this the same McCain that runs around calling Gov. Mitt Romney “flip-flopper”? Look who’s “flipping” now!I could even add “are you flippin’ kidding me?”, but that would be too “punny” for even me.
President Reagan opposed this United Nations scheme when it was proposed during his administration. This is a great example of what a President McCain would support. He won’t get that opportunity with my vote.
If it’s such a fine plan, why is his chum, Jon Kyl, publicly saying he is not supporting it?
Is this another of their double two-steps that they work out? One takes a left turn and the other a right on certain issues, in order to placate various groups? I don’t believe either of them will run fr the senate again after this term, so what does it matter to them? I long to be able to cast my ballot for a true conservative.
Caitlyna:
You can fess up here among friends. We’re taking bets that you’re on McCain’s payroll. I’ve got a grande caffe mocha with whipped cream riding on this. Please let me know ASAP. I’m beginning to get the mid-afternoon blahs. and could sure use a jolt.
Starbuckian
Caitlyna,
Please read this article and get back with a response:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/wm470.cfm
Thanks.
John
For shame, Caitlyna. I hope you’ve been given a shiny new shovel and being well paid for this snow job.
No Marianne, I’m not involved in any way with McCain’s campaign. In 1981 and 1982 I served on Reagan’s review of the LOS Convention and as a Deputy US representative on his delegation to the Conference. We weren’t able to make all the fixes that were in our instructions and so we rejected the convention as it was. It is that involvement that put me in a better position to know Reagan’s position than the johnny-come-lately ‘experts’ in the think tanks along Pennsylvania Avenue.
While we couldn’t complete the job in 1982, another team came in under Bush I with directions that they had to meet Reagan’s criteria in full. They did, and they passed the nearly complete agreement on to the Clinton Administration to finalize and sign.
John, I have read almost everything written on the subject by Heritage, Frank Gaffney and Cliff Kincaid. I have also read the materials by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the former legal advisors of the State Department, the former Commandants of the Coast Guard, industry representatives and many people involved in the negotiations under Reagan and Bush. Frankly, the expertise of the dozen or so think tanker staff is pretty small compared to the expertise, study and practical experience of the supporters. You might also keep in mind that the convention has been in force for 13 years now and it is working fine, except that we aren’t able to get the full benefits we would have as a party and we have to depend on other countries who are party to make our arguments when point of interpretation arise.
John, my initial comment addressed some of the misinformation in the Heritage Foundation publication. If you respond to those points, then I’ll respond to some other items from the Heritage publication. But don’t just point at someone else’s work and imply you agree with whatever they tell you. Read, ask questions and then decide.
Goodness, Caitlyna, you do get verbose. We get the idea that you are bonded to McCain and his half-truths and downright lies. Such loyalty is admirable, but here in Arizona, where we know him best, he is not held in high regard by many within the GOP.
He tells one group one tale and another to the next assemblage he speaks to. But, he rarely speaks to Republicans in his carpetbagged home state of AZ. Most of us know him well enough to prefer stay home to pick lint out of our navels rather than attend a function for him. He does private events with select invitees who veer left.
You are wrong guys. Caitlyna is a world government globalist as is McCain with his open borders with Mexico and amnesty for illegal immigrants (est. to be ~30 million now & climbing)
Caitlyna wants to see our constitution destroyed and our dominance is this frightening world diminished by the Law of the Seas Treaty. She wants to see U.S. wealth taxed globally and our military and naval operations overseen by the United Nations. She wants environmental groups to be able to arbitrarily tell U.S. companies on U.S. soil to shut down their facilities. She wants 70% of the earth’s surface to be under the contol of an American-hating United Nations unelected, unaccountable body, the International Seabed Authority.
Sadly, many in our Senate have been corrupted to do everything they can to support a world government agenda, be it vote for LOST or refuse to enforce immigration laws and secure the border. They choose amnesty instead which will lead to uncontrolled debt as we support with taxpayer dollars this low-skilled population eligible for benefits. Clinton, Huckabee, Guiliani, and McCain are one and the same.
http://www.sosusa.us
I am amazed that we would even consider any legislation or treaty put forth or backed by the likes of McCain, Kyl, Bush et al. How many times do we have to take it in the shorts before we wise up. They are not trust worthy. Did not the Comprehensive Immigration Amnesty plan open your eyes to their deceit? How about the Dream Act? How about removing funding authorization for securing our border? How about NAFTA, CAFTA, SSP, NAU. etc.
Are you so happy with the UN’s anti-American record that you want more of the same? A piece of paper means nothing without men and women of character who abide by the document. Need you be reminded of McCain’s unconstitutional Campaign Finance Reform? By your grace Lord, in the next election, I pray that we elect people of character who will place the welfare of U.S. citizens first.
Hi CJC,
I appreciate that you might want to speak for me, but, really, I know what I want and can speak for myself:
I want to see the world recognize the right of US ships and planes to navigate freely below, on and above the oceans beyond the 12 mile territorial sea. I want the US to be able to subject foreign vessels to tight constraints in passing through our territorial sea and prohibit entirely any foreign submarine from hiding underwater in our territorial sea, our bays and harbors. I also want our ships to pass freely through international straits even if they have to pass closer than the 12 mile limit of the foreign territorial sea.
I want international recognition of our continental shelf to its most distant geographic extent even when it extends beyond 200 nautical miles, giving us unchallenged control over an additional 1.25 million square kilometers of sea floor. I want to have a domestic deep ocean mining industry that will provide us with our own sources of nickel and cobalt and for that I want a system that provides US firms with exclusive right to explore and develop mineral resources of the seabed beyond national jurisdiction, I want to assure those firms that rules and regulations will be approved by the United States and that the management group will be kept under a close eye by the US and limited solely to dealing with mineral resources.
I want to ensure that our security interests are under our control alone, and I want to have a dispute resolution system for non-security disputes so our allies or opponents can’t use our business interests as chips to trade in games of strategy.
I also want a system that will give us leverage to protect the arctic ocean from pollution as Russia develops its siberian heartland and is tempted to dump pollution from agriculture and industrial development into the arctic waters. I also want to level the economic playing field by having foreign countries come at least part-way to meeting the high environmental standard we have had in the US for four decades.
Most important, I want all this on terms that are compatible with the US Constitution, including Senate Advice and Consent for any future changes to the Convention.
The law of the sea convention achieves all this. I expect that isn’t what you want to hear, but that’s the way it is.
Caitlyna,
Olmert could use you on his negotiating team in Israel. He can’t seem to give away Israel’s land and sovereignty quickly enough with nothing in return but a lot of pie in the sky and empty words. He could really use your liberal naivete.
Keen observer – that’s quite a rejoinder, but a bit off the subject. Do you have anything to say about the details of the LOS Convention (other than the Heritage Foundation has said it is bad, so you are against it)? I’m surprised that a person from Arizona puts so much stock in an ivory tower think tank whose reason for existence is to mingle with the Congress – that, keen, is naivete.
Here is another item from the Convention. It recognizes the right of overflight of international straits that are overlapped by the 12 mile territorial seas of the coastal states. The right of overflight was never before recognized – in fact overflight of the territorial sea was forbidden by both customary international law and the 1958 convention on the territorial sea (and this only applied to international straits – it does not give overflight rights over US waters). Sure, we can send our jets over those waters anyway, but the straits states are among the most critical in the war on terror, and the populations of those states are even more sensitive to afronts to their sovereign rights than are conservative bloggers in the US. Several of those countries have refused to join the Proliferation Security Initiative or to welcome the US into regional security arrangements because the US doesn’t recognize their sovereign rights as specified in the Convention even as we claim for ourselves.
Caitlyna,
“I want to see the world recognize the right of US ships and planes to navigate freely below, on and above the oceans beyond the 12 mile territorial sea.”
We do that now.
“I want the US to be able to subject foreign vessels to tight constraints in passing through our territorial sea and prohibit entirely any foreign submarine from hiding underwater in our territorial sea, our bays and harbors. I also want our ships to pass freely through international straits even if they have to pass closer than the 12 mile limit of the foreign territorial sea.”
We have that now.
“I want international recognition of our continental shelf to its most distant geographic extent even when it extends beyond 200 nautical miles, giving us unchallenged control over an additional 1.25 million square kilometers of sea floor. I want to have a domestic deep ocean mining industry that will provide us with our own sources of nickel and cobalt and for that I want a system that provides US firms with exclusive right to explore and develop mineral resources of the seabed beyond national jurisdiction,”
Why do we need international recognition of our continental shelf ? Private companies that extract and develop the potential resources should own what they extract. US firms before and after the treaty can develop mineral resources beyond national jurisdiction. Except the treaty will put them under an international body.
“I want to assure those firms that rules and regulations will be approved by the United States and that the management group will be kept under a close eye by the US and limited solely to dealing with mineral resources.”
We can pass whatever laws we want on domestic firms based in the US. We already tax income earned in foreign countries, have criminal sex laws against pedophilia acts performed in other countries, and numerous other laws that effect persons and firms outside the country.
“I want to ensure that our security interests are under our control alone, and I want to have a dispute resolution system for non-security disputes so our allies or opponents can’t use our business interests as chips to trade in games of strategy.”
Do you mean like the UN which holds dear all of the US security interest?
“I also want a system that will give us leverage to protect the arctic ocean from pollution as Russia develops its siberian heartland and is tempted to dump pollution from agriculture and industrial development into the arctic waters. I also want to level the economic playing field by having foreign countries come at least part-way to meeting the high environmental standard we have had in the US for four decades.”
Our sovereignty is our best leverage. Not the usage of some foreign body to negotiate our interests.
“Most important, I want all this on terms that are compatible with the US Constitution, including Senate Advice and Consent for any future changes to the Convention.”
How is ratifying a treaty that creates a new government body with enormous powers compatible with our Constitution? Because it was ratified by our Senate which the Constitution gives the power to ratify treaties? But the treaty itself violates the very essence of what our Constitution was written to protect. Individual rights and limited power of government.
The law of the sea convention achieves all this. I expect that isn’t what you want to hear, but that’s the way it is.