U.N. Double Talk From Straight Talker McCain

The State, the most prominent paper in South Carolina, has endorsed Senator John McCain for president, saying he understands the issues and has integrity and independence. But on one of the big issues—the role of the United Nations in world affairs—this so-called “Straight Talker” has been guilty of double talk. McCain has taken contradictory positions on Senate ratification of the U.N.’s Law of the Sea Treaty.

---

The measure, which creates an independent source of revenue for the United Nations, is now pending in the Senate, of which McCain is a member. This is not an obscure or irrelevant issue for him. He could have a big impact on the fate of this treaty, which he has described as providing “a comprehensive regime of law and order in the world’s oceans and seas” and serving “as an umbrella convention under which rules governing all uses of the oceans and their resources are established.” The treaty creates three new international institutions—the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the International Seabed Authority, and the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. U.S. companies would pay taxes or “fees” for access to oil, gas and minerals. But such access would be determined by the treaty organizations, not the weakened U.S. Navy. Testimony shows that it could also affect economic and industrial activities on land. There is growing controversy over when, or if, the treaty will come up for a full Senate vote. It has passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. As noted recently by Congressional Quarterly, “Strong opposition from some GOP conservatives, however, means that taking it to the floor would require a significant effort.” The publication suggests that because Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, has withdrawn from the presidential race and presumably will return to the business of the Senate, the treaty could receive a big push from him. In other words, it could be brought to the Senate floor for a vote quickly. Here’s a listing of McCain’s various statements on the treaty:

* McCain joins liberal Republican Senators Susan Collins and John Chafee in a 1998 letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee urging immediate consideration and approval of the Law of the Sea. * McCain declares to Senator Richard Lugar in 2003 that he wants to testify in support of ratification but a scheduling conflict prevented his appearance before the Foreign Relations Committee for this purpose. * McCain submits written testimony in 2003 in support of the treaty to the Foreign Relations Committee. * McCain tells conservative bloggers on October 25, 2007, that he would “probably” vote against it because it negatively affects U.S. sovereignty. * McCain sends a letter to a constituent on November 14, 2007, declaring that the treaty is beneficial to the U.S. but that he will keep in mind the objections to it.

On his website, there is a 2006 McCain speech to the conservative Federalist Society, in which he says that “We are a nation that limits government so that government cannot limit us. I believe this notion of limited government will stand as our lasting contribution to the world. We are proof that people can frame a government to serve as an instrument of the people, not the other way around.” However, I can find nothing to suggest that McCain wants to eliminate or even reduce U.S. participation in any global agencies or institutions. He declared in a Foreign Affairs article that he is a supporter of global institutions such as the U.N., a so-called “League of Democracies” to “complement” the U.N. or other international organizations, and will work “multilaterally” in foreign affairs. He says America should welcome “a strong, confident European Union,” favors strengthening the U.N.’s Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and says that the annual budget of the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Administration “must be substantially increased so that the agency can meet its monitoring and safeguarding tasks.” He advocates “humanitarian intervention,” a doctrine also known as the “Responsibility to Protect,” which gives the U.N. Security Council unprecedented power to intervene in the internal affairs of sovereign nations. He praised Brazil for contributing to U.N. “peacekeeping” operations. This international edifice was included under the headline, “An Enduring Peace Built on Freedom.” However, in the same article, which appeared in the November/December 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs, he said nothing one way or the other about the Law of the Sea Treaty. But he knew that it was a major treaty pending before the Senate. Did Mr. Straight Talk want to avoid a potential Achilles heel for his presidential campaign? McCain’s only statement of opposition to the treaty came after Republican presidential candidates and Republican Senators were coming out against the measure. Conservative blogger Robert Bluey reported that the Arizona Senator was asked about his position and that he answered in the negative. “I’d like to make some changes to it,” McCain reportedly said. “I think that we need a Law of the Sea. I think it’s important, but I have not frankly looked too carefully at the latest situation as it is, but it would be nice if we had some of the provisions in it. But I do worry a lot about American sovereignty aspects of it, so I would probably vote against it in its present form. I would like to see a treaty as for something to bring order, for example, in a place like the Arctic right now, where thanks to climate change, it’s going to be far more important than it was. You watch the Russians asserting their sovereignty over it, and I’d like to see some order out of that chaos. But I’m just too concerned about the aspect of United States sovereignty being handed over to some international organization.” There were a number of “buts” in the statement. However, it was a clear statement of opposition. Nevertheless, a copy of a letter McCain sent to a constituent about a month later endorsed the treaty. “Historically, the U.S. has been a global leader in advocating the Law of the Sea,” the senator said. “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.” McCain went on to say that “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.” Some of these statements seem to be taken from McCain’s October 14, 2003, written testimony in favor of the treaty. Could it be that this letter was sent by a McCain staffer not informed about his change of position? Or was the statement of opposition an aberration not taken seriously by the senator’s staff? Only McCain knows for sure. The pro-world government lobby known as Citizens for Global Solutions, which strongly supports the treaty, thinks it has the answer. It says that McCain was just pandering to conservatives when he told those bloggers he was against the treaty in its current form. McCain “can’t run” from his record of support for the measure, it says. The South Carolina State newspaper says that McCain “is a brave and tough man who unlike some candidates has no need to bluster.” But would he pander? Our media should ask Mr. Straight Talk to settle this controversy once and for all. The answer could determine whether his campaign bus known as the “Straight Talk Express” takes a detour.