Just when you thought it was safe to pull your head out of the sand and embrace the “global community”…
I received an alarming email from the CEI yesterday, alerting me to the LOST, which up until then I had never heard of. LOST, or Law Of the Sea Treaty, is a UN pet project that has been floating around for more than 60 years and was rejected by President Ronald Regan in 1982 because it was not in America’s best interests. Not to much surprise, the Treaty was revived by the Clinton administration and was signed; however we were spared the nightmare because the Republican controlled Senate wouldn’t ratify it.
However, the LOST is rearing its ugly head again, and this time both congress and President Bush are on board with this ugly little chunk of socialist tripe. That’s bad news.
So just what is LOST and why is it so bad? Well, according to the CEI:
“The LOST treats the ocean’s unowned seabed resources as property of the United Nations (U.N.). It essentially creates a second U.N.—the International Seabed Authority, ruled by an Assembly and a Council—to govern deep seabed mining and redistribute income from the industrialized West to developing countries. The Enterprise would mine the ocean floor, with the coerced assistance of Western mining companies, on behalf of the Authority.”
Well that doesn’t doesn’t sound good! But wait, it gets worse. Much worse. I won’t get into all of the details, and I would suggest that you read this draft letter to congress that outlines some of the threats to our sovereignty, I will briefly address one aspect of it which I find particularly appalling:
“We believe that the U.S. Navy’s support of LOST is particularly misplaced, since the Treaty will afford fresh opportunities for what has come to be called “lawfare” – the use of such legal instruments to interfere with our military, its operations and logistical support…”
Is this really in America’s best interest?Anybody who has paid attention to the recent war activities knows that part of the reason why we’re having the trouble we’re having in Iraq and Afghanistan is due to this “lawfare” concept which ties the hands of our military forces. Do we really need to have a branch of the UN legislating our Navy too?
Here is a scary example of what this sort of “lawfare” could mean to us via the NRO:
“International-law professor Jeremy Rabkin points out that when the Cambodian communists seized the USS Mayaguez in Cambodian waters in 1975, President Ford responded with military force to rescue American sailors and free the ship. He notes this type of action would be problematic under UNCLOS. For example, if a treaty signatory (e.g., China, Burma) seized a U.S. ship in its home waters, under the terms of Law of the Sea Treaty, the U.S. could not free her sailors by force, but would have to submit to mandatory arbitration by the Hamburg tribunal or an ad-hoc court, where the U.S. could very likely lose the case. In any event, vital decisions over American security and American lives would not be made by Americans, but by foreign judges, many of them unsympathetic to American interests (coming as they often do from third-world regimes or EU legal elites).”
Another interesting and disturbing aspect of this Treaty is the fact that it gives the UN authority to regulate certain elements on land as well. According to the CEI blog, OpenMarket.org, the Treaty has the ability to impose global rules and regulations beyond the oceans. For instance, article 207 states:
“1. States shall adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from land-based sources, including rivers, estuaries, pipelines and outfall structures, taking into account internationally agreed rules, standards and recommended practices and procedures.”
This sounds an awful lot like the Kyoto Accord for the ocean, since it looks to impose international rule over all nations involved.
The problem with LOST is that it is all about global collectivism. It works to boost third-world nations at the expense of industrialized nations; not only because it would manage mineral resources, but also because it would establish an international tax on mineral and energy resources. This means that industrialized nations – the nations capable of utilizing deep sea resources – would have to share profits with third-world nations as distributed by the UN.
We have to start asking ourselves who it is that we want running our country. If we are, in fact, a sovereign nation and a nation that values that sovereignty, we can’t allow the UN to come in and legally and economically micromanage our country. Global socialism is a tool that benefits third-world countries at the expense of industrialized nations. Is this really what is best for us?
For more information, read up at CEI’s page on LOST.
This is one of those “stealth” treaties that while on the surface have some positive points, has a lot of subclauses and “hidden” sections that erode a nation’s sovereignty. Nearly 2/3 of this “treaty” are redundant, as those aspects are already covered by existing admiralty laws, and international accords on territorial waters, and salvage rights.
Want an example of how the current structure works? Look at what the USS Arleigh Burke did in Somalian waters just yesterday, in pursuit of a hijacked ship. All it took was a single radio message to give the US Navy the authority to pursue the pirated ship into what had previously been “safe waters.”
This treaty will severely hamstring any nation’s ability to defend their coasts. Be it from foreign aggressors, or illegal smugglers (drugs, counterfeit goods, humans), or other criminal activity. It adds a completely unnecessary level of administrative control, and bureaucracy that serves no one’s best interest.
The problem is that the Bush administration is seeing this as a tool to get US companies into areas previously off limits to them. While this would be a benefit, the same could be done to us, which would erode not only our ability to defend ourselves, hurt US companies (thus jobs), and weaken security by allowing hostile foreign powers to get real close to our shores.
Well, you are right, this is the scariest treaty I never heard of.
“redistribute income from the industrialized West to developing countries.”
One giant socialist world, where is this country headed? It could get even worse after the next election if voters don’t pay attention to what is going on here. We have socialist candidates running in the Democrat party, we need to stop them.
Ah fuck it !
We already ship out millions of jobs to other countries and let any Toms Dick is Harry into the country.
The United Countries of the world. One world , one ruler, one government.
Wouldnt that be great ? Just one big economy and family ?
We wont have to worry about the UN being an impediment to our Navy, we wont need one !
nobody will.
The US, Canada, Europe, Japan, China. they can carry all the other asswipe nations that dont have a clue on how to run a fucking lemonade stand.
Sam Kinesen had it right. We should give these fucking idiots U- hauls and Winnebagos and tell em to get the hell out of the desert. you want to come here and work and make money and be a citizen? Great!
Dont expect me to pack up my country and spread it out amongst you.
Grrr.
How can the Bush Admin. be on board with this? I cannot believe that they would sell out our future stability and security for the short term benefit of drilling in previously out-of-bounds areas. The pay-off will be miniscule compared to the compromises. They need to look at the much bigger picture and realize that we do not need the treaty. We have plenty of our own oil and eventually we will get to it.
This is very much a stealth treaty. While there are good aspects to it, those aspects already exist. The treaty will simply be codifying and standardizing many of the existing maritime laws and regulations. However, it is the small things that are slipped in that make it so dangerous. It’s a typical bait and switch routine, where things look good on the surface, but in the small print lies the greater threat.
The US government needs to learn that the UN is not America-friendly. Far from it. There is nothing that the UN does that benefits this country. Many of the UN members are openly hostile (or at least resentful) of America. To open ourselves up to be governed by the UN at all is a big mistake. Sooner or later they are going to have to realize that a global government is just not going to work. It only benefits the “less fortunate” countries through redistribution of wealth, resources and technology.
It’s like a giant Democratic party!
I too fully agree with many of the comments above and the need for the US govt to learn that the UN is not America-friendly.
In addition to these sovereignty stripping stealth treaties, one other feature of the UN and the USA’s interaction disturbs me. Why are we the biggest financial contributor to what is largely a failed institution? To follow up on that, the spending of US tax dollars on funding the UN does not strike me as being in tune with the Constitution we are supposed to be following. How does exporting US money to international bodies equate into what the Constitution allows of only using it to fund necessary government functions?
Update from CEI:
“The Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote in favor of ratifying the Law of the Sea Treaty is disappointing, but grassroots opposition is still building against the treaty. The strong statements against LOST in recent days by Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and Mike Huckabee are an indication that their campaigns have already felt this movement against the treaty. The opposition of the Senate’s Republican leadership is another good indication. If Majority Leader Harry Reid brings LOST to the floor for a vote, it is going to be a real fight.”
Anyone done a rough “head count” of pro and anti Senators yet? Be nice to know who to pressure if they are on the fence on this issue.