Ronald Reagan, according to Meese and Clark, "actually opposed LOST even before he came to office. He was troubled by a treaty that had, in the course of its protracted negotiations, mutated beyond recognition from an effort to codify certain navigation rights strongly supported by our Navy into a dramatic step toward world government."
Meese (Reagan's Attorney General) and Clark (Reagan's National Security Adviser) noted that James Malone, the ambassador chosen by the president to undertake the negotiations on behalf of the U.S., said the treaty provisions "were intentionally designed to promote a new world order — a form of global collectivism known as the New International Economic Order (NIEO) — that seeks ultimately the redistribution of the world's wealth through a complex system of manipulative central planning and bureaucratic coercion."
Clark and Meese say if anything, adopting the treaty would be even more contrary to American interests than it was when Malone said that the 1994 Clinton administration "fix" not only failed to address seabed mining provisions, but "the collectivist ideologies of a now repudiated system of global central planning still embedded in the treaty" prompt a "new and potentially serious concern."
Their Meese-Clark article notes the treaty leaves the U.S. vulnerable to such factors as
"increasingly brazen hostility" of the UN and other international entities to American interests;
the UN's ambition to impose international taxes;
the world environmentalist drive to force the U.S. to adopt jobs-killing policies rejected by our elected officials;
a worldwide "jurisprudence" that would "trump" American constitutional rights;
and enabling adversaries of the U.S. military to impede American military and intelligence operations — in other words, tie our hands so we could not protect ourselves from attack. Just what we need when threatened by bloodthirsty terrorists who want to kill Americans — any Americans.
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/vernon/071015
