• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

UN To Take Control Of U.S. Waterways?

Mike

Well-known member
The Senate is gearing up to ratify a Nixon-era U.N. treaty meant to create universal laws to govern the seas -- a treaty critics say will create a massive U.N. bureaucracy that could even claim powers over American waterways.

LOST -- the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, also called the Law of the Sea Treaty -- regulates all things oceanic, from fishing rights, navigation lanes and environmental concerns to what lies beneath: the seabed's oil and mineral wealth that companies hope to explore and exploit in coming years.

But critics say the treaty, which declares the sea and its bounty the "universal heritage of mankind," would redistribute American profits and have a reach extending into rivers and streams all the way up the mighty Mississippi.

The U.N. began working on LOST in 1973, and 157 nations have signed on to the treaty since it was concluded in 1982. Yet it has been stuck in dry dock for nearly 30 years in the U.S. and never even been brought to a full vote before the Senate.

But swelling approval in the Senate and the combined support of the White House, State Department and U.S. Navy mean LOST may be ready to unfurl its sails again.

Sen. John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said during a January confirmation hearing that he intends to push for ratification. "We are now laying the groundwork for and expect to try to take up the Law of the Sea Treaty. So that will be one of the priorities of the committee, and the key here is just timing -- how we proceed."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, saying the treaty is vital for American businesses and the Navy, told Kerry that his committee "will have a very receptive audience in our State Department and in our administration."

LOST apportions "Exclusive Economic Zones" that stretch 200 miles from a country's coast and establishes the International Seabed Authority to administer the communal territory farther out. The treaty's proponents say it clears up a murky legal area that has prevented companies from taking advantage of the deep seas' wealth.

"American firms and businesses want legal certainty so they can compete with foreign companies for marine resources," said Spencer Boyer, director of international law and diplomacy at the Center for American Progress. Without the clearly defined authority established by the treaty, "there's confusion -- a lot of businesses don't want to take that risk."

The American military is looking for another kind of certainty from LOST -- a guarantee of safe passage through all seaways, a right China sought to deny an unarmed Navy vessel Monday in its own Exclusive Economic Zone in the South China Sea.

"The Convention codifies navigation and overflight rights and high seas freedoms that are essential for the global mobility of our armed forces," the Joint Chiefs of Staff wrote in a June 2007 letter to Senate leadership.

LOST has even managed to unify environmental groups and deep-sea miners, who both see something to gain in the treaty.

"We gain sovereignty, we gain territory, we gain access to places that we have not had access to as easily," said Don Kraus, president of Citizens for Global Solutions, a group that advocates strengthening international institutions. "We don't stand to lose anything."

But critics say clauses built into the treaty could directly harm American interests. They say it could force the U.S. to comply with unspecified environmental codes, and that the treaty gives environmental activists the legal standing to sue over river pollution and shut down industry, simply because rivers feed into the sea.

The treaty allows environmental groups to bring lawsuits to the Law of the Sea Tribunal in Germany, a panel of 21 U.N. judges who would have say over pollution levels in American rivers. Their rulings would have the force law in the U.S., according to a reading in a 2008 Supreme Court decision by Justice John Paul Stevens.

"You've got an unaccountable tribunal that will surely be stacked with jurists hostile to our interests," said Chris Horner, author of "Red Hot Lies," a book critical of environmentalists. "This would never pass muster if the Senate held an open, public debate about this."

Legal experts also warn that the treaty demands aid for landlocked countries that lack the access and technology to mine the deep seas -- and that it might not even benefit the U.S. at all.

"You have to pay royalties on the value of anything you extract (from the deep seabed), those royalties to be distributed as the new bureaucracy sees fit, primarily to landlocked countries and underdeveloped countries," said Steven Groves, a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. American money would also go to fund the International Seabed Authority, which Groves warned "would have the potential to become the most massive U.N. bureaucracy on the planet."

"The whole theory of the treaty is that the world's oceans and everything below them are the common heritage of mankind," said Groves. "Very socialist."

Any nation that is party to the treaty can have a seat on the tribunal and seabed authority -- even ones that don't have access to the sea. The current vice president of the tribunal represents Austria, a landlocked nation that hasn't had a sea berth since the Austro-Hungarian Empire was dissolved in the First World War.

Some legal experts worry that without ratification, the U.S. will lose a seat at the table as maritime law continues to be codified and resources get divvied up. But opponents note that many of the benefits offered the U.S., such as navigation rights, are already international custom, and that the U.S. has effected the treaty without being party to it. President Reagan's initial opposition on the basis of seabed laws forced the rewriting of the original treaty in 1994, which led the U.S. to sign it, but not to ratify it.

Its complexity, however, still beguiles even experts, who say it is unlikely to be understood when brought to a vote in the Senate.
 

Ben H

Well-known member
I contacted my RINO Senators well over a year ago with my oposition when this issue was on the table then, I think it was Collins's who sent a letter back saying she was in support of LOST.

I think I'm going to start painting blue helmets on my targets.
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
Ben H said:
I think I'm going to start painting blue helmets on my targets.

Do so.

But make sure that you have YOUR helmet wrapped in an extra-thick layer of tinfoil so that the U.N. spy satellites can't track your training activities.
 

SMN Herf

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
The posts tonight are especially hysterical and conspiracy-laden. It must be the Dow jumping 622 points in the last 3 days has these guys spooked! :roll: :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Yep, economy must be fixed. 622 pt rebound proves it. :lol: :lol: :roll: :roll:

So are you for the LOST treaty or against it and if you are can you explain to me why we need to do this? Why should we support creating an organization that can levy taxes on anything that happens on 70% of the earths surface? For what purpose? I am very leary of these type of things. For good reasons too.

I read some stuff about this a few months ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKgBEMSK3_I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KJSmiAIpcE
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
The posts tonight are especially hysterical and conspiracy-laden

Reader, which definition of conspiracy are you using?

con⋅spir⋅a⋅cy
   /kənˈspɪrəsi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kuhn-spir-uh-see] Show IPA
–noun, plural -cies.
1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.
 

SMN Herf

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
I thought this article summed the situation up well -- there is a lot of support for this treaty. The law is moving in this type of direction and America may or may not be disadvantaged by not being a party. There are pros and cons and it is complex.

Overall, and admittedly at a superficial level, I would be in favor of LOST based only on the points raised in this article, with the caveat that we need to protect ourselves from wild eyed anti American activism and legal actions.

Thats what I was afraid of. Too many people in this country dont really want to know the details of the true effects that some of the laws that are proposed. They are content to get their information from a couple 10 second clips on the news and say thats good enough for me and our politicians know it and use it against us.

This treaty will do NOTHING to protect us from "anti American activism and legal actions", in fact it exposes us to international anti american activism and legal actions.


No wonder why this country is in the situation it is in.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
The posts tonight are especially hysterical and conspiracy-laden. It must be the Dow jumping 622 points in the last 3 days has these guys spooked! :roll: :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Isn't it a full moon now???
 

SMN Herf

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Here's the problem Herf -- there are issues I know more about but no one NO ONE can learn all the issues in depth. They rely upon their elected officials and reading a cross section of the editorials or analyses to understand the issues.

I understand your frustration because I have issues I know well and know are misrepresented.

You did misunderstand me though, I did not say that the treaty would protect us. I said that we should not sign the treat without protections.

My mistake, I did misunderstand you. Its pretty bad though that it has gotten to the point that I can't trust any elected officials to actually study the issues and do what is right for the good of the country.

Brian
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
The posts tonight are especially hysterical and conspiracy-laden. It must be the Dow jumping 622 points in the last 3 days has these guys spooked! :roll: :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:

What's the DOW done since Maobama's election?
 

Ben H

Well-known member
LOST is an erosion of our Nation's soverignty.

What does the Bilderberg Group, CFR and Trilateral Group think of LOST? I'll bet they're all in support of it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
reader (the Second) said:
SMN Herf said:
reader (the Second) said:
Here's the problem Herf -- there are issues I know more about but no one NO ONE can learn all the issues in depth. They rely upon their elected officials and reading a cross section of the editorials or analyses to understand the issues.

I understand your frustration because I have issues I know well and know are misrepresented.

You did misunderstand me though, I did not say that the treaty would protect us. I said that we should not sign the treat without protections.

My mistake, I did misunderstand you. Its pretty bad though that it has gotten to the point that I can't trust any elected officials to actually study the issues and do what is right for the good of the country.

Brian

You are cordially and sincerely invited to Washington. I lobbied in 2004 for food safety and like you, I thought our Congress people understood the issues. Instead I was meeting with their 25 - 29 year old staffers -- legislative assistants. Some were smart and a few really knew the issues but on the whole they were just hard working YOUNG kids. Congress REACTS is my experience.

Government as a whole seldom or never PROACTS- they REACT- and usually they wait so long they OVERREACT.....
 
Top