Thursday, January 3, 2008

U.N.’s Law of the Sea Treaty

U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty, International Criminal Court
The Secret of Ron Paul’s Success
By Cliff Kincaid Thursday, January 3, 2008


While the ICC looms as a major issue, conservative activists have been currently trying to defeat the U.N.’s Law of the Sea Treaty, which is now pending in the U.S. Senate. They found that Ron Paul had come out against it many years ago. He was way ahead of his time in confronting the dangers posed by international arrangements, treaties and institutions that sap U.S. sovereignty.

He introduced a bill to get us out of the U.N., which not only would have saved some of our sovereignty but billions of American tax dollars that ended up in the coffers of corrupt bureaucrats.


Paul also denounces the U.N. for promoting a global tax on America, saying, “…if we are going to stop ongoing attempts of this world government body to tax us, we will need leadership from the White House.” Such a tax was proposed at the recent U.N. climate change conference, where the Bush Administration promised to help draft a new global warming treaty tougher and potentially more damaging to our economy than the first one that it rejected.

A fascinating article has just appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle on where the candidates stand on the U.N.’s International Criminal Court. In looking at Democrats and Republicans, it notes, “At one end of the spectrum is Mike Gravel, a former senator from Alaska and one of the Democrats who backs U.S. membership in the court. In a recent San Francisco appearance, he said he considers himself a ‘globalist’ and ‘a citizen of the human race, first and foremost. Only secondly do I consider myself an American.’ At the other end is Ron Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas, who said in 2002 that both the court and the United Nations ‘are inherently incompatible with national sovereignty. America must either remain a constitutional republic or submit to international law because it cannot do both.’”

“Unlike the rest of the Republican field,” reporter Bob Egelko said, “Sen. John McCain has said he would like to see the United States join the international court, although he would first require more protections for U.S. personnel.” The ICC would strip Americans of Bill of Rights protections if they were apprehended and put on trial for alleged international crimes. The article did not explain how McCain would change the institution, which is now in existence, in order to require those protections. Most of the rest of the world, led by the European Union, rejected any safeguards for U.S. citizens.

One of the most critical constitutional protections rejected by the ICC is trial by jury. Foreign judges preside over ICC cases. So it really cannot be “fixed” to accommodate American concerns.

The fact of McCain’s support for the anti-American ICC could prove fatal to his campaign, if it is widely publicized. It has gotten very little attention until now. However, I discovered a press release from the Citizens for Global Solutions (CGS) back in January of 2005 hailing McCain for his support of the ICC. While McCain was quoted as saying about the ICC, “I’m not satisfied that there are enough safeguards” for U.S. citizens, the CGS said that “his declaration at the World Economic Forum was the strongest indication to date that he would be in favor of the United States joining the ICC in the near future.”

One can understand why McCain wouldn’t want these comments publicized, as he seems to be gathering momentum in the presidential race, and why he wouldn’t want the CGS “endorsement” of his views given any publicity. The CGS is the new name of the World Federalist Association, a group that openly favors world government financed by global taxes. Democratic Party presidential candidate Hillary Clinton endorsed the group’s activities when she was First Lady.