I have just secured a private letter -- not yet publicly released -- from Senator Chuck Hagel to President Bush and copied to Condoleezza Rice, Robert Gates, and Stephen Hadley. I should add that I did not receive this letter from Senator Hagel but from other sources.

The letter urges the President to pursue "direct, unconditional, and comprehensive talks with the Government of Iran."

In the letter, both attached (Hagel letter pdf) and reprinted in full below, Hagel warns that "unless there is a strategic shift [from the current situation], I believe we will find ourselves in a dangerous and increasingly isolated position in the coming months." Hagel continues, "I do not see how the collective actions that we are now taking will produce the results that we seek."

Senator Hagel encourages President Bush to take the bold strategic step of offering a completely different course for US-Iran relations. He writes about direct unconditional talks:

An approach such as this would strengthen our ability across the board to deal with Iran. Our friends and allies would be more confident to stand with us if we seek to increase pressure, including tougher sanctions on Iran. It could create a historic new dynamic in US-Iran relations, in part forcing the Iranians to react to the possibility of better relations with the West. We should be prepared that any dialogue process with Iran will take time, and we should continue all efforts, as you have, to engage Iran from a position of strength.

We should not wait to consider the option of bilateral talks until all other diplomatic options are exhausted. At that point, it could well be too late.

This letter is a call for serious, level-headed rationality from one of the Senate's most stalwart "classic conservatives."

I have since learned that the letter somehow made its way to US Central Command Commander William Fallon, perhaps through Defense Secretary Gates or other avenues, and Fallon allegedly communicated with the Senator that serious articulations of American interests and consideration of the options Hagel recommends are much needed in this current political and policy environment.

I need to also report that while I am in complete agreement with the content of Senator Hagel's letter and had the privilege of moderating a dinner discussion with him yesterday evening, the content of this letter came via other sources to me -- and I trust the Senator and his staff will respect the fact that I felt it important to bring this letter to public attention and have not violated any trust with any person in his office.

Full Text of Letter from Senator Chuck Hagel to President George W. Bush on US-Iran Policy, 17 October 2007:

October 17, 2007

The President

The White House

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

I write to urge you to consider pursuing direct, unconditional and comprehensive talks with the Government of Iran.

In the last two years, the United States has worked closely with the permanent members of the UN Security Council, Germany, Japan, and other key states as well as the UN Secretary General and the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency to pursue a diplomatic strategy regarding Iran's nuclear program. I have supported your efforts. Maintaining a cohesive and united international front remains one of our most effective levers on Iran.

In the last year, you have also authorized our Ambassador in Iraq, Ryan Crocker, to hold bilateral talks with Iranian officials regarding the situation in Iraq. I have also supported this effort. Although Iran has continued dangerous actions in Iraq, this channel for dialogue is important.

I am increasingly concerned, however, that this diplomatic strategy is stalling. There are growing differences with our international partners. Concerns remain that the United States' actual objectives is regime change in Iran, not a change in Iran's behavior. Prospects for further action in the UN Security Council have grown dim, and we appear increasingly reliant on a single-track effort to expand financial pressure on Iran outside of the UN Security Council. Iran's actions, both on its nuclear program and in Iraq, are unchanged. Iran's leaders appear increasingly confident in their positions vis-a-vis the United States.

Unless there is a strategic shift, I believe we will find ourselves in a dangerous and increasingly isolated position in the coming months. I do not see how the collective actions that we are now taking will produce the results that we seek. If this continues, our ability to sustain a united international front will weaken as countries grow uncertain over our motives and unwilling to risk open confrontation with Iran, and we are left with fewer and fewer policy options.

Now is the time for the United States to active consider when and how to offer direct, unconditional, and comprehensive talks with Iran. The offer should be made even as we continue to work with our allies on financial pressure, in the UN Security Council on a third sanctions resolution, and in the region to support those Middle East countries who share our concerns with Iran. The November report by IAEA Director General ElBaradei to the IAEA Board of Governors could provide an opportunity to advance the offer of bilateral talks.

An approach such as this would strengthen our ability across the board to deal with Iran. Our friends and allies would be more confident to stand with us if we seek to increase pressure, including tougher sanctions on Iran. It could create a historic new dynamic in US-Iran relations, in part forcing the Iranians to react to the possibility of better relations with the West. We should be prepared that any dialogue process with Iran will take time, and we should continue all efforts, as you have, to engage Iran from a position of strength.

We should not wait to consider the option of bilateral talks until all other diplomatic options are exhausted. At that point, it could well be too late.

I urge you to consider pursing direct, unconditional and comprehensive talks with the Government of Iran.

Thank you for considering my views.

Best wishes.

Sincerely,

Chuck H.

Chuck Hagel
United States Senator

cc: Condoleezza Rice

Robert M. Gates

Stephen J. Hadley

This is a letter benchmarking the views of one of the most grounded, foreign policy savvy, common sense thinkers about the eroding state of America's military and national security portfolio. And he's a Midwestern American Republican who served in the United States Military.

Senator Hagel will be speaking for the Center for Strategic and International Studies on Thursday, 8 November, at the Capital Hilton at 11 am on the subject of America's Iran policy -- and no doubt this letter that I have secured will be among the topics of discussion.

-- Steve Clemons

Steve Clemons will be on the Rachel Maddow Show this evening discussing Karen Hughes's departure from the State Department. You can listen to it live here at 6:30 pm EST.

Also, for those ocularcentric types who have moved on to television as the news medium of choice, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson (Ret.) will be on the Colbert Report tonight at 11:30pm EST. Lately, Col. Wilkerson has been quite critical of US-Cuba policy and has not held back on his assessments. And after the administration's Cuba policy speech last week, I'd look out for some zingers on tonight's show.

--Sameer Lalwani

I just got back from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee business meeting on the Law of the Sea. The final vote was 17-4 in favor of consideration by the full Senate.

The New York Times editorialized on the subject this morning:

Today, the treaty will face yet another critical moment in its long and troubled life when the Foreign Relations Committee votes on whether to send it to the floor. The vote is expected to favor the treaty. But the task facing the Democratic chairman, Joseph Biden of Delaware, and the ranking Republican member, Richard Lugar of Indiana, is to produce not just a favorable vote but an overwhelming vote sufficient to persuade the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, to finally move on ratification.

Ask, and ye shall receive. Senators Jim DeMint and David Vitter are the treaty's hard-core opponents; they were certain "no" votes. According to Michelle Malkin, they targeted four more: Senators Voinovich, Sununu, Murkowski, and Isakson. They've also lobbied Senators Bob Corker and Norm Coleman very hard. That means they were shooting for a 13-8 vote. While not all of those votes were ever in play, this is a major defeat for the black-helicopter opposition. With a vote this strong, Senator Reid now must devote floor time to the Law of the Sea.

The Washington Post and the Orlando Sentinel got in a word, too. Both are worth a read, as is Senator Biden's statement supporting the convention, now up at Taylor Marsh's site.

Of the "no" votes, the biggest surprise was Coleman, who voted in favor of the treaty in 2004. What's more, during today's business meeting, Coleman acknowledged that there "have not been any significant changes since 2004 [to the treaty]."

But substance means little to Coleman, who was John Bolton's strongest supporter in confirmation hearings during the last Congress. What has changed since 2004 are the politics. In an election year, the judgments of Bolton and Frank Gaffney apparently hold more sway than those of the Navy, Coast Guard, President, Joint Chiefs, and State Department -- not to mention his own politically independent judgment three years ago.

Interestingly, Coleman raised points specifically debunked yesterday by treaty opponent numero uno, Senator Jim Inhofe. And the one opponent Coleman quoted during his brief remarks is Jeremy Rabkin, the George Mason University professor who said earlier this year:

"The Senate won't ratify the Convention if it is controversial, and I'm doing everything I can to make a controversy."

Those running against Coleman for Senate could have a field day with this. For now, it's time supporters of responsible global engagement to celebrate a little.

Below the fold is the full roll call vote.

-- Scott Paul

Update: Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer is the first of Coleman's challengers out of the gate to point out this massive and as-yet-unexplained flip flop. He may not be the last.

Nelson-Pallmeyer's release:

Nelson-Pallmeyer Condemns Coleman's Caving to the Far
Right in Flip-Flop Vote Against Law of the Sea Treaty

Today Sen. Norm Coleman voted in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to kill the Law of the Sea Convention, a UN agreement supported by environmentalists, business associations, oil, shipping, and fishing companies, and the military. He was one of only four Senators on the committee to oppose the measure. It passed the committee by a vote of 17-4.

Coleman voted for the legislation in 2004 and admitted that the legislation he voted against today is essentially the same. His flip-flop was apparently in response to a chorus of far-right voices, including John Bolton and Frank Gaffney.

The Navy and Air Force support the Law of the Sea Convention as a strong legal foundation for their navigation and over-flight rights, as well as for their Proliferation Security Initiative program to intercept illicit shipments of weapons material. The Coast Guard supports it as a critical tool to enhance port security. Environmental organizations support it as a means to strengthen global efforts to protect the marine ecosystem. The oil and gas industry supports it for defining a reserves area larger than the continental United States. Membership in the treaty would give US firms legal certainty to compete with foreign firms for marine resources.

"Norm Coleman is so deeply in the pocket of the far right that he is willing to flip-flop and break faith with our men and women in the Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard and vote against the treaty," said Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer. "By Coleman's own admission, nothing has changed since 2004 -- when he voted in favor of the treaty -- except politics. Senator Coleman seems more concerned with placating the far right than protecting our environment, restoring our international leadership role, keeping us safe, or helping our economy."

Continue reading this article

-- Scott Paul

(Senator Chuck Hagel, Steve Clemons, and International Peace Academy Chair Rita Hauser)

Yesterday evening, I helped organize a private salon dinner with Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE). I'll be posting more on the event later today -- along with some other interesting news.

But I spoke during the day with someone else deeply involved with trying to carve out a course with Iran that is neither "appeasement" or "war."

This person believes that Senator Hagel's criticism of the administration's current course on Iran does not encompass the reality (in this person's view) that everything the Bush team is doing on Iran from tightened sanctions to the increasingly bellicose rhetoric are part of a "diplomatic strategy."

I think that the "third option" team in the administration has a tough job -- not only because any reasonable benchmarks of their work do not seem to be producing the kind of tangible results needed to keep the "nuke 'em now and get it over with crowd" around Vice President Cheney at bay but because there are Iranian government interests as well as White House colleagues trying to undermine their work.

Hagel's frustration with the White House is an important measure of how a sensible, grounded, informed American sees the potentially catastrophic results of the administration's current course.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee votes tomorrow on the Law of the Sea. The Committee is likely to approve the treaty, as it should.

Frank Gaffney publishes a weekly column in the Washington Times. For the last three months or so, his column has targeted the Law of the Sea week in, week out. I have a general policy against repeating opposing arguments, but I do plan from now on to rebut Gaffney's weekly diatribe. I'll call it "The Weekly Gaff."

"But that will have to wait one more week. Before I even found Gaffney's column today, which is a predictable rehash of the old misinformation, I found Jim Inhofe's Law of the Sea op-ed. Amazingly, Inhofe confesses that the opposition arguments are completely unfounded. Many critics are saying that U.S. military activities could be subject to "lawfare," but Inhofe responds:

"Part of the [Navy's] endorsement stems from the fact that the Navy is highly supportive of the aforementioned rules of navigation. The Navy also argues, and textually it is true, that military activities are exempted."

Messrs. Gaffney and Bolton, take note. The dispute settlement provisions do not apply to military activities, and the U.S. gets to define what is military.

What about the myth that the Law of the Sea could subject the U.S. to foreign courts? Inhofe:

"It is important to note that no foreign or international entity could actually force the United States into any international court."

Senator Inhofe then explains why he really believes we shouldn't ratify the Law of the Sea:

"The United States could go on about its business as if everyone else in the world is misinterpreting the treaty -- but our standing in the world would suffer because of this.

No matter how right we may be in our conduct on the high seas, this treaty will give our enemies the opportunity to stand in front of the United Nations and criticize the United States for its unwillingness to fulfill its treaty obligations. We do not need a treaty that puts our standing in the world in this predicament."

Senator Inhofe is amazingly out of touch. The truth is that rejecting the International Criminal Court, the Kyoto Protocol, and a host of other reasonable agreements broadly embraced by the international community has done untold damage to America's image. Our absence from the Law of the Sea is what hurts U.S. standing -- not misunderstandings of the agreed rules between state parties.

The argument seems extremely defensive -- almost as if Inhofe woke up this morning, realized that Americans care about world opinion of the U.S. and tried to retrofit his foreign policy to this "new reality."Andrew Rice could have a field day with this.

I certainly do hope tomorrow's Committee vote is decided in part based on how the Law of the Sea might affect U.S. standing. If it's decided on any basis other than irrational fear of international institutions, we should be in for a big win.

-- Scott Paul

We will have this program recorded digitally and posted as an update on this blog post, but for those of you in Washington, this will be an interesting meeting. It takes place from 1 pm - 2:30 pm today.

The session is titled "The View from a Divided Palestine" and will feature:

Rita Hauser
Chair, International Peace Academy
Advisory Board Chair, International Crisis Group
Former Member, President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board

The Honorable Mustafa Barghouti
Secretary General, Palestinian National Initiative
MP, Palestinian Legislative Council

Daniel Levy
Director, Middle East Policy Initiative
New America Foundation
Publisher, Prospects for Peace

Steve Clemons
Director, American Strategy Program, New America Foundation
Publisher, The Washington Note

The event is free and open to the public. We provide sodas -- you bring your brown bag lunch.

-- Steve Clemons

A loyal TWN reader informed me this morning that Oakley the Amazing Weimaraner now comes up as the "2nd image" when image googling the word "Weimaraner."

It's just a proud family moment we wanted to share.

-- Steve Clemons

Ed. Note: Thanks to David B. for the head's up!

(But for how much longer?)

I have to give credit to Senator John Sununu. He showed up at the Arab American Institute's National Leadership Conference in Dearborn, Michigan this weekend and openly talked about his search for his Palestinian grandfather's home in old Jerusalem.

Sununu also talked about his attempts to hold back the loss of civil liberties -- to a large degree aimed at Arabs and Arab Americans -- embedded in the Patriot Act.

And then Sununu talked about his work on a Senate Resolution calling for firm resolve in achieving a two-state solution in the Israel-Palestine stand off and said explicitly that America must help engineer the conditions that will lead to the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state.

Sununu was saying things before the 600-plus audience that I couldn't imagine any Republican presidential contenders saying -- with the sole exception of Ron Paul who also spoke at the conference (though I was still flying back from India and missed his comments). But I couldn't really imagine most of the Dems saying what he said as boldly either. Perhaps I'm wrong on that -- but I got a quick sample in Hillary Clinton's "videotaped" message to the Arab American summit.

Hillary seemed genuinely interested in the importance of Arab Americans and sent one of her National Campaign Co-Chairs Lebanese-American William Shaheen (husband of Jeanne and a legend in New Hampshire Democratic politics) to represent her at the conference.

Shaheen was great and connected with the audience and did a great job trying to assure the Arab Americans there that she really does care about the rights of Palestinians and the value of Arab and Arab-American lives as much as she does about Israeli security.

But odd thing about Hillary's commentary -- unlike Sununu, Hillary just did not say "Palestine" or "Palestinian state" in her taped message.

Continue reading this article

-- Steve Clemons

(Huene Island, pictured above, part of the Carteret Island chain, has literally been cut in two by rising sea levels)

Papua New Guinea's Mission to the United Nations recently announced that it would evacuate the Carteret Islands, a horseshoe-shaped group of islands in the South Pacific. 2,000 Carteret Islanders slanders will receive funding to resettle on Bougainville Island, which is a four-hour boat ride away.

The Carteret Islanders are not the world's first climate refugees, but since they have all been displaced together, they may become some of the best known. Meanwhile, people like Jim Inhofe insist that we sit on our hands.

Below is the press release from the Papua New Guinea Mission to the United Nations (I'd link to it, but as you can see, the PNG Mission web site isn't quite up and running).

Continue reading this article

-- Scott Paul

Frankly there's not a whole lot new here to comment on -- they're feuding over the recent bombings, IAEA inspectors, terrorism, and democracy. Expect plenty more through January. But I did want to highlight some fantastic acrylic paintings created by my friend over at Chapati Mystery.

The latest are a batch of Musharraf and Bhutto acrylics that tell a set of stories -- some familiar, some relatively unknown (who would have guessed the General cherished his Pekingese dogs so).

An old roommate of mine had an Andy Warhol painting of Mao in his room that really offended a defense policy researcher from AEI, who was over for a dinner party and simply could not embrace the irony.

For those who can appreciate "the search" in the art, definitely take a look at some of the other paintings which can be found here ("To Us" is also quite priceless) or at the blog Chapati Mystery.

--Sameer Lalwani

An underreported story that is finally getting some ink in the US mainstream press is the redirection of Saudi Arabia's oil wealth to new, dare I say progressive, ventures. Most pundits are racing to catch up with the latest intellectual fads by decrying the "oil curse" that few have time to contemplate how the latest oil boom might actually provide the conditions for a new positive direction in Saudi Arabia.

But that is what appears to be happening according to the dean of a Saudi women's college quoted in today's cover article in the New York Times:

Suhair el-Qurashi, dean of the private all-female Dar Al Hekma College, often attacked as "bad" and "liberal," said a vigorous example of free-thinking at the university would embolden the many Saudis who back the king's quest to reform long-stagnant higher education.

"The king knows he will face some backlash and bad publicity," Ms. Qurashi said. "I think the system is moving in the right direction."

Continue reading this article

-- Sameer Lalwani

Sens. John Sununu, Norm Coleman, and George Voinovich all voted for the Law of the Sea in 2004. According to sources in the Senate, all are now reconsidering their votes under heavy pressure from the likes of John Bolton, Frank Gaffney, and their most vocal black helicopter-fearing constituents. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will vote on the convention next week.

If you want to learn more about these opponents, by the way, read Elena Schor's news analysis piece in the Guardian, published yesterday.

The Law of the Sea convention should be a no-brainer. What's more, it should be an opportunity for moderate and old-school conservative Republicans to slam down those in their party who think that the threat of force alone can advance U.S. interests. The votes are still there to pass it on the floor, but now it is becoming a real fight.

These three senators, in particular, need to understand that there are consequences for so transparently choosing politics over principle. Men and women in the Navy and Coast Guard, shipbuilders, fishermen, and others are counting on them to do the right thing. I still think they each will -- but the fact that they are even on the fence speaks to how deeply misinformation about the treaty is taking hold.

It's time for progressives to stand up. We've complied with the treaty's rules since President Reagan insisted that we do so 25 years ago. Joining entails zero sacrifice.

At some point, we'll actually care about working internationally that entails some measure of give-and-take, be it on climate change, nuclear diplomacy, or something else. If we let John Bolton and Frank Gaffney dictate the Senate's foreign policy on this one, we won't be able to stop them on the next one.

Yes, this is a rant, but I'm not apologizing. Call senators now.

-- Scott Paul

Update: Matt Stoller and Taylor Marsh weigh in.

I feel bad. I've now bumped Jennifer Buntman's first post on this blog down two notches. Not bad enough to hold back my post, but bad enough to urge you to read it here. Please, help assuage my guilt.

Mitch McConnell and Trent Lott announced yesterday that they would oppose the Law of the Sea in the Senate. They didn't get a whole lot of mileage on the announcement, though. Aside from E&E News, a subscription service, and a bunch of conservative online forums, not a single media outlet picked up on the announcement. My colleague Don Kraus sounded off on it this morning.

This does make the fight a little bit tougher, but Lott's prediction that the 67 votes aren't there rings hollow; finding 67 votes on the Senate floor will not be much of a problem. What we should be worried about is the will of Harry Reid and Dick Durbin to spend floor time on this issue. This is a good time to pick up the phone and let them know that this matters.

In the end, going up against the White House, environmentalists, the military, oil and gas, and every other ocean industry is going to leave Lott, McConnell, and the rest of their troupe looking way out of touch with U.S. interests.

-- Scott Paul

The National Democratic Institute hosted a terrific (and huge and really long) lunch yesterday honoring the Fifty Fifty Group in Sierra Leone and Liberian President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf.

The work that Fifty Fifty has done to bring women into politics in Sierra Leone is very impressive. Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, whose term as President has gotten off to a promising start, seems to be focused on development and democracy from the right perspective -- that is, she believes both must be built from the bottom up.

It was fitting that the event took place on UN Day. Sierra Leone and Liberia are two rarely acknowledged success stories for the world body. Without UN help, neither country would have likely emerged from vicious civil conflict, and neither country would have successfully held legitimate elections. Plus, Johnson-Sirleaf herself is a former UNDP regional bureau administrator.

The NDI lunch also offered a healthy dose of measured idealism. The U.S. does have a role in promoting democracy internationally, just so long as it's done peacefully, with sense of humility, and with an acknowledgment of the shortcomings of our own process.

Bush, Cheney & Co view democracy as a silver bullet. NDI has the right idea: promoting democracy is celebrating imperfection. Democracy is messy -- and that's nothing to be ashamed of.

-- Scott Paul

Speaking at the Center on Law and Security at NYU Law School last Friday, New York State Governor Spitzer announced the endorsement from Richard Clarke for his plan to start providing illegal aliens with driver's licenses from. Spitzer's last minute decision to ask NYU to play host was likely because the Center's Executive Director, Karen Greenberg served as co-chair to Spitzer's Homeland Security transition committee. Given the year Spitzer has had, he needs all the friends and support he can find.

Spitzer does not seem fazed that 70% of New York State voters reject his proposal. He has the support of most Democrats in the NY State Assembly but faces harsh criticism and opposition from the majority of Republicans in the Assembly. This week the State Senate passed a vote (39-17) that would overturn Spitzer's policy.

Spitzer has asked Democrats and Republicans to "set aside the demagoguery surrounding the national immigration debate and pragmatically evaluate this important policy for its impact on the safety and security of New Yorkers." But Spitzer must surely recognize that immigration is one of the most divisive political issues and intrinsically tied to security. Why would he think it necessary to announce endorsements of the plan so publicly when he knows that the majority of people are already so opposed to it?

Continue reading this article

-- Jennifer Buntman

As part of our ever expanding TWN media empire, Jennifer Buntman will be joining us as a regular contributor and one of the newest "Notetakers" for The Washington Note.

Jennifer is a masters candidate at the Fletcher School at Tufts University. Prior to this she worked at NYU's Center on Law and Security and before that she worked at the New America Foundation and helped to launch the American Strategy Program and its first mega-conference "Terrorism, Security and America's Purpose".

If you ever want to discuss any of her posts, you might find her at Sherman Cafe in Union Square or the B Side Lounge. She could also teach you a thing or two about how to wield a tennis racket.

--Steve Clemons

Doug Rediker is Co-Director, along with Heidi Crebo-Rediker, of the New America Foundation's newly launched Global Strategic Finance Initiative

Between mouthfuls of canapes, business card exchanges and polite toasts, my prime take-aways from this past weekend's G7, IMF and World Bank meetings here in Washington were, first, how yesterday's poor third world countries have become, almost overnight, today's wealthy investment banking target clients, and second, the increased disconnect between the official and unofficial (private sector) events.

In particular, in dealing with Sovereign Wealth Funds (foreign government-controlled investment funds with assets approaching $3 trillion), this year, the divergence between the considered deliberations of the finance ministers and the goings-on in the simultaneous gatherings of the investment bankers, asset managers and their clients seemed even starker than usual.

The public face of these annual meetings is that of a group of august ministers presenting considered approaches to today's esoteric global financial issues. This year, the G7 ministers soberly pondered, among other things, how to address the rise of SWFs and the risks they may pose. Apparently, when Norway was the poster child for SWFs no one gave them a second thought. But with China, Russia and even Libya flush with cash - and looking to use it -- suddenly the issue takes on a more ominous tone.

Continue reading this article

-- Sameer Lalwani

Conservatives are asking What Would Reagan Do on the Law of the Sea. Personally, I don't care all that much and would defer to the unanimous judgment of today's national security, business, and environmental leadership. But some conservatives do care.

The answer to WWRD? Ratify. It's not even close. All living Chiefs of Naval Operations, all living State Department Legal Advisors, and both of Reagan's Secretaries of State say that his objections were solely related to deep seabed mining. They agree that Reagan would have approved of the most recent version of the treaty.

All that notwithstanding, opponents have maintained that Reagan was fundamentally opposed to the Law of the Sea. They cite an entry in The Reagan Diaries from June 29, 1982:

"Decided in [National Security Council] meeting - will not sign 'Law of the Sea' treaty even without seabed mining provisions."

Most members of the Reagan administration interpret this entry to mean that it would be unfeasible to sign the treaty without the seabed mining provisions. In other words, Reagan decided that it was an all or none proposition.

So, WWRD? On January 29, 1982, Reagan said:

"Last March, I announced that my administration would undertake a thorough review of the current draft and the degree to which it met United States interests in the navigation, overflight, fisheries, environmental, deep seabed mining, and other areas covered by that convention. Our review has concluded that while most provisions of the draft convention are acceptable and consistent with the United States interests, some major elements of the deep seabed mining regime are not acceptable. I am announcing today that the United States will return to those negotiations and work with other countries to achieve an acceptable treaty."

After listing the problems with the seabed mining provisions, Reagan continued:

"The United States remains committed to the multilateral treaty process for reaching agreement on Law of the Sea. If working together at the Conference we can find ways to fulfill these key objectives, my administration will support ratification."

WWRD? I don't care all that much. But, for those of you that do, is there really any doubt?

-- Scott Paul

Note: If you haven't seen it yet, Kate Sheppard has