Monday, December 31, 2007
The LOST debate
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
Reisinger is a resident of Blacksburg and attends law school in Ohio.
There is an intense political and legal debate going on just below the surface in Washington. The controversy has to do with whether the United States should ratify a somewhat obscure international treaty, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, also called the Law of the Sea Treaty -- LOST to its opponents. Surprisingly, however, the LOST debate is taking place entirely within the Republican Party (Democrats all support it) and is indicative of a fundamental debate about the future of the GOP itself.
LOST, which has been ratified by more than 150 countries but not yet by the United States, codifies rules for use of the world's oceans. For example, it defines the territorial waters of nations, gives coastal nations economic rights to resources off their shores, and requires all signatories to protect the marine environment. LOST has been around since 1982, when Reagan rejected it. Congress has just taken it up again, and the treaty is currently awaiting action in the Senate.
But the real intrigue comes with global warming. Because the treaty will delineate how nations can use and exploit arctic resources like oil -- which are becoming more accessible as a result of melting polar ice -- LOST holds potentially huge economic implications for America. If the United States doesn't ratify the treaty, we might forfeit rights of access to new shipping lanes and yet-to-be discovered oil and natural gas to other signatories such as China and Russia. As melting polar ice reveals more explorable -- and exploitable -- arctic land, the United States wants access to the region.
So the Law of the Sea controversy has been a prickly one for the GOP. By ratifying LOST, the United States would be ceding some of its rights to an international body -- a prospect the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress typically loathe. Further, the major reason for ratification is to gain rights of access to arctic seas and lands that are expanding as the polar ice caps melt. Thus, by supporting ratification, the GOP would also be admitting, albeit tacitly, that global warming is in fact real.
The GOP's anti-LOST faction is led by one powerful lawmaker who consistently opposes the UN and is skeptical (to understate) of the threat of global warming. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) is the loudest isolationist voice in the Senate and has vowed that the treaty will never pass under his watch. As Inhofe describes it, he is fighting the good fight against "one of the most far-reaching international challenges to American sovereignty we have ever faced." And it is safe to presume that in his mind the global warming issue is no reason to support LOST. (Inhofe has called global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated upon the American people.")
Meanwhile, the GOP's pro-LOST faction is led by President Bush himself. Bush has said recently that he wants the Senate to ratify LOST, even though his administration has often rebuffed the United Nations and denied the existence, or at least the threat of, global warming. The major oil and gas corporations, traditional Republican allies, also support LOST because they know that the treaty could be necessary to allow U.S. companies to access new energy sources.
Bush's position is a result of economic pragmatism: He knows that it is in our best economic interests to ratify LOST, even though it means ceding some of our sovereignty to an international organization, and even though his support serves as a tacit acknowledgment that global warming is real. LOST, in short, has forced Bush to make two admissions he wishes he didn't have to make: that the U.S. needs international treaties and that global warming is not a myth created by Al Gore.
If we can call Bush the leader of the "pragmatic" or "rational" wing of the Republican Party, then Inhofe leads the isolationist/anti-science wing. Bush is quite willing to bash the U.N. and belittle climatologists as global warming "alarmists" during the good times. But when push comes to shove, Bush the pragmatist has proven willing to change his rhetoric if necessary to protect the long-term interests of American business. Inhofe's anti-LOST and anti-science faction, however, has remained firm, even though American business stands to lose.
The Law of the Sea is just one representation of major icebergs on the horizon for the GOP, perhaps as big as the ones freed by melting ice caps. Bush realizes that the global economy and climate change are here to stay, and he knows that accepting these facts is key to preserving American economic prosperity. His fellow Republicans must also learn to admit that sometimes international cooperation is a good thing and that climate change might be real. Otherwise the party risks losing the business support that sustains it, which could be a titanic blow to a party already struggling to stay afloat.
