Likely all Democratic senators will back the treaty. But since a two-thirds majority is needed, the support of 14 Republicans, in addition to all 53 Democrats, will be required for ratification. With 47 Republicans in the current Senate, if 34 vote no, the treaty can be scuttled.
By a razor-thin margin, the Republicans in the Senate seem to be coming through. In July of this year, the bare minimum thirty-four Republican senators signed a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid signaling their intention to vote against the treaty. Is the treaty dead? Not by a long shot! Several of the thirty-four senators only jumped on board the bandwagon at the end and expressed doubts about voting no. Most important, at this writing, the two top Republicans on the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Senate—Dick Lugar (R-IN) and Bob Corker (R-TN)—weren’t among the thirty-four opponents. Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Committee, supports the treaty, and Corker, the likely incoming chairman should the Republicans win the Senate (Lugar was defeated in a primary), is uncommitted. We need to keep up the pressure to make sure these folks stay committed to vote no.
Their letter began: “We are writing to let you know that we believe this Convention reflects political, economic, and ideological assumptions which are inconsistent with American values and sovereignty.”57
The Republicans laid out their reasons: “by its current terms, the Law of the Sea Convention encompasses economic and technology interests in the deep sea, redistribution of wealth from developed to undeveloped nations, freedom of navigation in the deep sea and exclusive economic zones which may impact maritime security, and environmental regulation over virtually all sources of pollution.”58
They particularly highlighted their concerns about the cessation of sovereignty to the United Nations. “To effect the treaty’s broad regime of governance,” they wrote, “we are particularly concerned that United States sovereignty could be subjugated in many areas to a supranational government that is chartered by the United Nations under the 1982 Convention. Further, we are troubled that compulsory dispute resolution could pertain to public and private activities including law enforcement, maritime security, business operations, and nonmilitary activities performed aboard military vessels.”59
They concluded flatly by saying, “If this treaty comes to the floor, we will oppose its ratification.”60
Bravo!
Here’s the list of the Republicans who signed the letter:
Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
David Vitter (R-LA)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Jim DeMint (R-SC)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
John Boozman (R-AK)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Ron Portman (R-OH)
Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
John Barrasso (R-WY)
Richard Shelby (R-AL)
John Thune (R-SD)
Richard Burr (R-NC)
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Dan Coats (R-IN)
John Hoeven (R-ND)
Roger Wicker (R-MS)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Jim Moran (R-KS)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Pat Toomey (R-PA)
Dean Heller (R-NV)61
But what we really need to focus on is the ones who did not affix their signatures.
Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Dick Lugar (R-IN) have publicly endorsed the treaty. That leaves these senators as uncommitted:
Bob Corker (R-TN)
Lindsay Graham (R-SC)
Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Scott Brown (R-MA)
Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
Susan Collins (R-ME)
Likely RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) Snowe and Collins of Maine are going to back the treaty, all the more so since Snowe is retiring.
A bunch of senators from conservative southern states—Alexander (TN), Cochran (MS), Graham (SC), and Hutchison (TX, but retiring)—may be subject to pressure.
Murkowski from Alaska might feel she needs to vote for the treaty because of her worry about Russian Arctic claims. But can she be deluded enough to think that the UN would rule in our favor?
Scott Brown of Massachusetts comes from a liberal northern state and it will be harder for him to vote no, but he’s a man of deep conservative convictions and well might stand up for American sovereignty.
But the larger point is that the ball is in our court. It is not Blue Dog Democrats we must persuade but Republicans who trumpet their conservatism. It is within the Red States and among the Red Senators that we must find courageous members willing to vote no.
If you live in one of the states where these senators are from, go to work! Our sovereignty depends on it!
PART FOUR
The UN Tries to Regulate the Internet
