The time has come for a candid, public discussion in America on the nation’s involvement in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the G-20, and a number of other international institutions.
In the stewardship of the economy and the security of the United States of America, the Obama Administration’s shifts towards a more globalized and integrated “international order” — beholdened to the rule of law and moving forward toward common interests with foreign powers in mutual respect through shared partnerships — has presented a number of new realities that proponents of UNCLOS and those concerned over the inherent sovereignty questions that arise in the wake of its possible ratification must responsibly weigh out, publicly, vigorously, and in the name of American Independence.
We, at The Victory Institute, are concerned over all threats to the supremacy of the US Constitution in the application of the American Will upon the control of our recognized bounds, borders and sovereign commonweal. These threats include foreign entanglements such as war and contingency operations, treaty involvement which places American citizens into a position of subject without recourse through suffrage or legal maneuver, and diplomatic endeavors which legitimize foreign threats as rational players.
We, at The Victory Institute, recognize that there are numerous leadership and organizational challenges in the shrinking and increasingly interdependent world, particularly in relation to the maintenance of a just international order; however, we at VI adhere to the bedrock values of the US Constitution, as writ, that the United States of America might remain independent and retain its sovereignty amid the increasing interdependent times we now find ourselves – as an example and guide to those nations which might flout international limits or borders in the name of an expansionist credo, behind the demagoguery of populist charisma, or due an ideological dogma that refuses to accept internationally recognized limits.
Treaties with international organizations that threaten to subjugate the United States’ economy or security, treaties which cut off reason’s hand in the implementation of American policy or the extension of American resources, treaties which expose America’s citizenry to a wayward morality or to socio-economic totality in the installation of a “just” future peace, treaties which spell out the nature of foreign entanglements that might, in however remote an instance, make of America’s citizens vassals or slaves or dhimmi to the whims and wiles of international blocks of enemy or non-supportive regimes without due recourse and without the guarantee of a diplomatic response worthy of the American people – these treaties and intrigues must be considered patiently and taken on respecting the national sovereignty of the United States of America.
The globalization of our world, it is often said, nowadays, has diminished the role of physical borders in the application of the rule of law in the exercise of responsible governance. We, at the Victory Institute, reject this unguarded assessment of the world as it is, finding it a diminution of the exceptional nature of the US Constitution and the philosophical precepts inherent in the establishment of geographic and rule of law limits through its natural checks and balances aimed at meeting the challenges of and curtailing the hazards of legitimate sovereignty.
In these respects, the discussion of the provisions UNCLOS and the possible ratification of its measures, in the near term, hold a particular value in the legitimate deliverance of America’s national sovereignty concerns, so long as the immediate ratification of the treaty is not ushered in (1) by heightened emotions of U.S. leaders drawn in reaction to disasters such as the tragic oil spill in the Gulf; (2) by any impetus aimed at or advocating punishment of business enterprise or the capitalist system of economics; or (3) as the spiteful resort of a lame duck Congressional majority exercising undue control in sharp contrast to the will of the people of the United States of America.
We, at the Victory Institute, are willing to open a dialogue with those organizations and parties that so wish to discuss the options surrounding the ratification of UNCLOS in a civil manner.
The American people deserve to differentiate the myths and facts of the matter at hand, often referred to by its detractors as LOST.
However, in this regard, it must be noted that it will take time for this process to materialize and develop.
We, at The Victory Institute, stress that political expediency, in this frame, should not trump the rights of the American people to endeavor to establish a reasoned debate to aid public awareness before any Senate Ratification of a Resolution regarding UNCLOS. A premature ratification of UNCLOS would trespass on President Obama’s laudable 2010 NSS recognition that “our national security strategy must be informed by our people.”
Thank you,
Gary H. Johnson, Jr.
Senior Advisor for International Security Affairs
Chris Carter
Founder and Director of the Victory Institute
