the year ahead. let me start with national security. that is obviously the most important defense of our country against threats. i start with the proposition, not just a natural -- national security, but across the board. in secular terms, on this earth, there is no authority superior to the constitution. that is it very simply. people talk about the role of international law. does international law trump the constitution? is it superior to the constitution? their only three possibilities. either international law is superior to the constitution or is inferior or it is equal. i do not know how system works for it is equal. if you ask most international law scholars, they would say that international law trump's the constitution. the constitution is a reflection of what international law

scholars called municipal law. as opposed to international law. i do not view it that way. i think this is a break point. this is a decisive question that we ought to be asking politicians. in a priority, in the hierarchy of the legal system, where does the constitution fit? for americans, if it's at the top. i do not think there is anything superior to it. when you hear people challenge to our ability to do things as basic as provide for our own defense and make decisions about when we can legitimately act in self-defense, this goes right to the heart of the sovereignty issue. ense, this goes right to the heart of the sovereignty issue. and it's been posed very graphically. if you go back to 1999, then secretary general cofian said the following, unless the

security council is restored to the preeminent position as the sole source on the use of force, we are on a dangerous path of the use of anarchy. military action without approval we the u.n. security council was a threat to what he called, and i'm quoting again, the very core of the international security system. only the u.n. charter provides a universally legal basis for the use of force. now that is as clear of a statement as you can make. that the security council's approval for the use of force is required whether or not the u.s. following it's own constitutional procedures decides to use force in self-defense. i thought at the time that was pretty remarkable statement. although i've comet to understand how widely shared his view is around the world. so when senator helms went to

new york in january of the year 2000, taking the senate foreign relations committee for it's first ever hearing out of washington. he went up to visit the united states and he held a hearing in new york. i was one of the witnesses to testified. this was shortly after his statement. so i testified to the committee. there was senator helms chairing it, right now, senator joseph biden, the ranking democrat on the committee, and other remembers of the committee. and the press and so on. so i played out what secretary general had said and posed the following possibility. i said, why shouldn't we have a debate in the united states senate over the secretary general's remarks? let's find out those who think that the security council is the sole source of of legitimacy on the use of force in the world? and let's find out who supports

that and let's find out who opposes it. now up until that point, senator biden was very quiet. i think i woke him up. because he said, wait a minute. i'm quoting senator biden now, nobody in the senate agrees with that. nobody in the senate agrees with that. there is nothing to debate. he is dead flat, unequivocally wrong. he's a statement that i might make on another matter, but i hope he did not mean it. if he did. i love him but he's flat out wrong. so here we have a statement by then senator biden as the leading authority in the democratic party on foreign policy in the senate rejecting the idea that the security council's the sole source of legitimacy on the use of force. it will be very interesting to see if the dozens of lawyers that the obama administration

has brought into their administration actually agree with that statement or not. going forward, very interesting to see how it affects their view of american national security. this is something i think that obviously goes beyond the national security area, the relationship between international law and american sovereignty. and i think it's something that the devotion to international layoff really infuses much of what the administration does. again, president obama said to the u.n. security council last fall, we must demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise and the treaties will be enforced. now he was not specific about how treaties would be enforced. whether he would go to the international court of justice to do that. whether he would use military force. but the idea that somehow or another treaties that many

nations sign and then dishonor before the ink is dry can be enportioned. i think shows the near theological significance that the administration attaches to the utility of treaties to achieve objectives, regardless of the actual performance of the signature tour nations. and i think much of the administration's policy in a variety of areas is motivated by an effort to implement that view. let's take the global war on terrorism. whereas the administration has famously announced through an executive order would close the base of the facility on guantanamo bay, that it would seize the use, and that it would prefer more often than not to resort tetryls and civilians court rather than military tribunals of terrorist that we apprehend. i think it's clear from the

administration's rhetoric that much of the reason that they have desired to do those things is to satisfy international public opinion. not because they feel they are actually object -- obligated to, but because they want to satisfy the view, particularly widespread in europe that those are the norm that is they should follow. when we see the administration either unable to achieve it's objectives of confirming american behavior to the european norm. it's not because the president feels it's the right thing to do. it's because he feels politically he's unable to achieve the objective that he still seeks and will continue to seek when the political at a miss fear becomes more conducive for him to do it. in the area of the international criminal court there's little doubt that the administration

yearns to find a way to sign the treaty that was unsigned during the bush administration and ultimately to have the senate ratify and have the united states become a full member of the icc, secretary of state hillary clinton said last year that it was quote, a great regret. but it is a fact that we are not yet a signatory, closed quote. this is something that has significance for many on the international left. and bringing the united states into closer cooperation with the icc is very high on their agenda . closely related to that of course is the con september of universal jurisdiction, states without any right nonetheless have the ability to try people from any country in the world who are alleged to have committed such violation. even today the administration has not yet said definitively,

it will refuse to turn over officials from the bush administration who might be accused of violation international rights norms through advanced interrogation techniques. i think it's a signal, another sign of the administration unwillingness to break from the theology of many people in europe and many people in the academic left this this country. in yet another area where i think we are going to see more and more effort by the administration and it will have -- if they are success, accumulative impact on our sovereignty is in the area of arms control agreements. we've seen recently the publicity attendant with the signing of what they called the new star treaty, a bilateral arms control treaty with russia to be signed in prague in april the 8th. you can see in that treaty, you

can see in the president's statement announcing why we had entered into this treaty, part of that almost religious view in the obligations and the implications of treaties because he said that signing the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty is a way for the united states and russia to fulfill their obligations under the nonproliferation treaty which starts about the legitimate nuclear weapons state, eliminate their weapons capability at some unspecified point in the future. and the president said, secretary of state collinton has said the decision by the united states and russia to reduce their nuclear warhead capability will influence others to reduce theirs as well and not to seek nuclear weapons. that is a statement of stunning naivete because the implications is we come down, the rulers of

northern korea, iran, and other nuclear prolivelators will say i think we should relook at our policy of getting nuclear weapons. afterall, if the united states is reducing its warhead levels, maybe we don't need nuclear weapons. in fact, i think the people in places like tehran, fantastic, the united states is coming down. let's ramp up to get the capability even more quickly. but it's not just this particular bilateral treaty. the administration has made it clear it wants to resume what in their view is progress for embedding the nos a web of multilateral treaties that i think could constrict america's strategic options in the years ahead to seek once again ratification of the comprehensive test band treaty defeated in the senate during the clinton administration to resume negotiation over a cutoff

treaty and a treaty to prevent what they called the arm's race in outer space. and a variety of other treaties like the land mine's convention that were opposed by the united states when they were negotiated because they constricted us in areas that were vital to our strategic interest in the case of the land mine's particularly on the korean peninsula. and finland also opposed that treaty. they remember prior conflicts with russia. the finnish ambassador of the negotiation was one criticized by media scandinavia, that pointed out sweden fully supported the land mine and limited frustration said that's because sweden thinks of finland as its land mine. the point being that there are a

lot of important issues at stake here. and the rhetoric of the arm's control advocates often is very divorced from important and legitimate american security concerns. this fascination with international law though goes well beyond including in the area of human rights where we've seen this administration demonstrate it's commitment to binding the u.s. and international conventions by rejoining or by joining for the first time the new human rights council at the u.n., the body set up to replace discredited human rights commission. and we see in the session just concluded, just how effective american membership and a new body has been. thanks to ann who counted the number of countries specific resolutions in the session that

just concluded. we find there were nine country specific resolutions for critical, burma, north korea, congo and ginn -- guinea. israel got 0-50% of having these resolutions. in short, this council is no different despite u.s. participation and indeed precisely as predicted during the bush administration than it was its predecessor. the reach for restrictions on u.s. sovereign they are particularly on the question of funding for international activity. ever since the mid-1980s when the senate began substantial withholding of u.s. assessments to the u.n. system, the advocates of global governance

have looked for ways to fund multilateral activities that did not depend on appropriations by national legislatures. particularly by the congress of the united states. almost exclusively, their concern was that congress of the united states not providing money. they have tried to find ways around to fund these international activities. we saw in the case an effort to use royalties from mining activities to fund the authority set up by the law of the sea treaty. we saw in copenhagen, numerous schemes for taxation to fund environmental activities under the various proposals that were being negotiated in copenhagen. we see even today proposals by prime minister gordon brown of the united kingdom for an

international banking tax to set up a fund that would be used for future bank bailouts. the ideas come in a variety of different forms, all -- often very technical, often obscured in a larger efforts that mean they did not get a lot of attention. let me be very clear. the minute the united states loses the sole authority to tax its citizens and to decide where those tax revenues go, the minute that authority is delegated to international organization, it is is clear of violation of sovereignty that we can imagine. can imagine. now that maybe painful for the international left to hear, but i think it's critical for americans given the basis of our own revolution. not to recognize that the taxes

authority, like the prosecution international delegated out to the international criminal board is something we should not let go. now finally in a whole range of areas that i think we normally would consider issues that should be debated in our domestic politics. take whatever position on them that you will, that the advocates of global governance keep trying to push these issues into the international arena. i think one reason for that -- one very important reason is that they typically don't get the results they want in the democratic process in this country. they don't succeed at the federal or the state level. so they say we are going to broaden this debate. we are going to internationalize it. we are going to get more support internationally from the fellow citizens. our hope is to negotiate international conventions that than they can bring back the congress and get through

indirectly that way. now it's certainly true that it requires 2/3 senate approval. but very often in these conventions the provisions that are critical for the domestic purposes don't get adequate scrutiny. they are not entirely clear. and the consequence of that is treaties get ratified and then a few years later, you find that actually what the senate penalty, although probably nobody in the senate understood it was something that had a dramatic consequence. this has happened in a range of areas. i think the administration is going to try in others as well. one good example is firearms control. just last year under secretary of state helen, talking about negotiations for what they called an arm's trade treaty said happily that they had broadened the negotiations and quoting now so we have an a to z

list on how to limit or elimination small arms, anti-personal land mines, and other indiscriminate weapons. for those of you who have a handgun for production, your alarms are now in the same category at anti-personal land mines and other indiscriminate weapons. this is the patterns that the advocates of gun control in the united states have failed to achieve what they want are working with the international to internationalize that concern through negotiations over the arm's trade treaty. and this pattern has taken place in averted of other context, the death penalty, for example, or on issues of fame law and discrimination. now again on all of these issues, it doesn't really matter what your position is let's say on the death penalty, whether you are for it or against it. in this country we have a full

debate. sometimes new states adopted. sometimes state repeal it. but it's a matter of open public debate. the question is who gets to decide it? do we decide it? or does somebody else decide it? and that's true of a whole with range of treaties on issues where we've had legislation in this country on the rights of disabled persons, or race discrimination, or gender discrimination opinion we have debated these issues. we've come to the conclusion we come to, sometimes the debates go on. actually we are capable of debating these issues without the aid of international treaty to tell us what standards are acceptable. i think that's something that we should prize far more than the substive outcome of a particular debate. because once these issues move into the international arena, and become matters of international discussion, that is a substantial reduction of

american sovereignty. now what should we be doing over the next month and years on this question? what should we as citizens do to be concerned about threats to and erosions of our sovereignty? let's begin remembering what james madison said during the debate of the ratification of the constitution in 1788. there are more instances of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment than violent and sudden use. that is central to understanding the continuing threat. to goes across a wide battle front. the so many areas are involved. i think the basic steps we should take are these. one we have to understand better the implications for sovereignty as these issues are being discussed. often the sovereignty implications are ignored. we have to fair the amount. we have to be alert to them.

we have to take care that our fellow citizens are aware of them. i think just generally we've got to make foreign policy issues higher priority in our domestic debate. i mean, i know the president doesn't want to deal with foreign policy, much rather restructure our health care or restructure or financial or restructure our energy of whatever else he wants to restructure. but as citizens, i don't think we can ignore the fact that the rest of the world isn't waiting around for us to get our economic outs in order. and these questions of foreign policy generally in sovereignty in particular need greater attention. and i think finally what that means is we have to insist on getting clear answers from candidates for congress and incumbent members of congress for the presidential candidates as we get into the presidential season and the not too distant future to make it very clear that we've used sovereignty and the preservation of american

sovereignty as a high priority. thank you very much. [applause] >> john thank you very much. john has got us off to an excellent start. he has agreed to some questions and answers. the ground rules are please if you could, do we have microphone? >> yes. >> okay. excellent. wait for the microphone. if you could identify yourself before you pose a question, that would be greatly appreciated. also in the interest of time, just hold it to one question. it's all yours, john. >> thank you. why don't you go around, people raise hands. we'll try to do it as quickly as we can. my name is sasia.

i just graduated. i'm interested on what your input is on global issues of climate change? since climate change is a global issue how would it be dealt with while still respecting state sovereignty? >> i think that looking at what happened first at kyoto in the 1990s and then at copenhagen at the most recent negotiations shows that the solution that people are talking about are really solutions to problems that have little or nothing to do with climate change. many of those advocate greater authority, greater control over the economy, generally. whether at the international level or national level favored those same solutions before global warming became a

problem. and, in fact, i think that some of these people would favor exactly the same solution if the problem were global cooling, instead of global warming. whether they favor exactly the same solution if the temperature of the earth wasn't changing at all. i'm prepared to accept for purposes of the discussion that there is global warming and that it's largely man caused. that doesn't dictate what the solutions are. even if you simply accept all of that. the kinds of centralized control over the economy and over huge areas of human activity effected by the climate change, i think are unacceptable. if the only way to save mankind from global warming is by that kind of centralized control, then i think we've got a hugely serious problem. now as i said, i leave out the debate because i'm not a

scientist over the extent of global warming and the extent of man caused. because i think focusing simply on the solutions that are being proposed show they are untentable from the perfective of anybody that values individual liberty. yes, sir? >> stewart roy here. would you care to comment specifically on the law of the sea, better known as l.o.s.t., because i'm concerned that some of our military, especially navy, have come out in favor of that which seens counterintuitive. >> the military lawyers have favored the sea treaty for a long time. i think it's a mistake. i think the regime it creates over seabed and subseabed mining is a mistake.

i think the authority and tribunal that have been created a mistake. that wasn't something that people really focused on during the reagan administration when president reagan proposed the law. we can see even in the early decisions of the tribunal that it's already prepared to expand it's jurisdiction well beyond questions that directly affect the oceans and the seas. the reason that the military lawyers have favored ratification is they believe that the treaty codifies existing customary international law on use of the sea, sea lanes, in ways favorable to the united states. and they think locking it into therefore in a treaty is a positive development. i think that is absolutely wrong. customary international law when it's not being determined by university academics is determined by state practice. over time. and the united states is and

having and remained the dominants maritime power in the world. if we don't agree with something it's not international law. whereas if you put it into a treaty with 120, 130 other parties to change the legal standards in that setting required their concept. so i think the united states actually is better off relying on customary even on the areas where our military lawyers think it's advantageous. that's the question that anybody raised that would justify the law of the sea treaty, since i think that reason is wrong, there's no way we should ratify or have the senate ratify it. frank? >> frank with the center for security policy. thank you for both a terrific presentation and the claireian call to arms on our

sovereignty. i'm sure all of us look forward to reading the book. >> buy it first. then read it. >> buy it and read it. right. can i just -- you focus mostly on secular transnationalism and the threat that it represents to our sovereignty. i wonder if i might ask you to address the parallel andean -- and often combined threat that raises from a religious or normally religious form of transnationalism under those who believe under shier rei ya and ask you to talk about one the most recent developments, really the united states government co- sponsored an agreement with egypt that would effectively prohibit, and criminalize, a speech that is deemed to be of