"Its name may be dull, but there's some lively politics behind the long-languishing Law of the Sea Convention.
After decades of debate and setbacks, proponents this spring appeared within grasp of Senate ratification, which would add the United States' name to the treaty signed by 145 nations. With President Bush's support, and a unanimous Foreign Relations Committee endorsement, only a full Senate vote was needed.
Then the conservatives stepped in. Phyllis Schlafly, Paul Weyrich, Frank J. Gaffney Jr. and other staunch conservatives with Web sites and followers began denouncing the treaty as a dangerous sop to those who prefer a one-world government to muscular U.S. sovereignty. Now, to treaty backers' frustration, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) suggests there's not enough time to tackle the issue this year. And the White House shows little interest in changing his mind. "It's obviously up to
to determine their legislative schedule," White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said Friday.
The United Nations-sponsored treaty establishes rules on ocean navigation, seabed mining, commercial fishing, pollution control and other issues. The State Department's Web site says that "the United States will benefit, perhaps more than any other nation" from joining the convention. Not so, say the conservative activists. "U.S. adherence to this treaty would entail history's biggest and most unwarranted voluntary transfer of wealth and surrender of sovereignty," Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, recently wrote for National Review."
EDIT
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39937-2004Apr24.html