LOST In Freeper Propaganda

(Posting might be spotty for a bit; we’ll see….by the way, the cartoon is more applicable to global warming, I realize, but I still thought it was good; ties in somewhat to the topic.)

Yesterday in the New York Times, John Bellinger, the legal adviser to Secretary of State Our Gal Condi Rice, wrote that we “didn’t need a new treaty for the Arctic” in response to an incident where two Russian explorers planted a symbolic flag (here).

I was all set to take off on another rant about how this lawless administration doesn’t give a fig about treaties, until I read this (a refreshing bit of good sense)…

So what should the United States do about the Arctic? For starters, it should do nothing to advance a new comprehensive treaty for the region. Instead, it should take full advantage of the existing rules by joining the Law of the Sea Convention. The convention, now before the Senate, would codify and maximize international recognition of United States rights to one of the largest and most resource-rich continental shelves in the world — extending at least 600 miles off Alaska.

Yes, well, the problem is that the treaty is universally scorned by the conservative punditry (this is a typical sampling).

…the administration's declared support for the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) caused it to be approved unanimously by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — even though this accord would constitute the most egregious transfer of American sovereignty, wealth, and power to the U.N. since the founding of that "world body." In fact, never before in the history of the world has any nation voluntarily engaged in such a sweeping transfer to anyone.

(Don’t you just love the way the wingers come up with these annoying little acronyms? It actually is referred to as UNCLOS, just for the record.)

And before he said Dubya should be impeached because of the recent salmonella outbreak here (don’t do us any favors, OK?) Lou Dobbs opined as follows…

The Law of the Sea Treaty would undermine our national sovereignty and act as a back door for global environmental activists to direct U.S. policy.

It would hold the United States to yet another unaccountable international bureaucracy and constrain our national prerogatives. Aside from that, the treaty is wholly unnecessary. The U.S. Navy already enjoys international navigation rights by customary practice.

Fortunately, the New York Times provided the reality perspective; more info is available from last October’s post…

…unless the United States joins up, it could very well lose out in what is shaping up as a mad scramble to lay claim to what are believed to be immense deposits of oil, gas and other resources under the Arctic ice — deposits that are becoming more and more accessible as the earth warms and the ice melts.

And Bellinger concludes as follows…

Canada, Denmark, Norway and Russia are parties to the convention and they are already acting to protect and maximize their rights. The United States should do the same. Signing on would do much more to protect American security and interests in the Arctic than pursuing the possibility of a treaty that we really don’t need.

You’re preaching to the choir, Mr. Bellinger. Try communicating this to Dubya’s “base” (what’s left of it, anyway) and let us know if you have any luck, OK?