We Must Stop the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty!

American Policy Center ^ | March 8, 2004 | American Policy Center

[hedgetrimmer]

Any day now this nation could find itself part of an international treaty that abolishes freedom on seven-tenths of the world’s surface.

That’s because the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, a treaty that has remained latent since Bill Clinton’s presidency, has reemerged as a threat to this nation’s sovereignty, thanks in large part to Senate Foreign Relations Chair Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and his fellow committee members. In February, this committee voted unanimously to bring the treaty to the full senate for consideration; Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist, who is responsible for scheduling legislation for votes, has not yet moved on this request.

With no public outcry in opposition, though, the pressures of support from the Bush Administration, U.S. Navy officials, environmentalists and oil industry executives could result in a vote any day for senate ratification. Once two-thirds of senators approve, America will have yet another U.N. shackle placed about her leg.

The treaty gives the United Nations control of the sea. It compromises U.S. national security, siphons U.S. corporate and taxpayer dollars for global interests in the form of new levies, stifles U.S. development and gives away hard-earned U.S. technology to even non-friendly nations. This treaty represents the "largest transfer of sovereignty to a U.N. body ever," says Brandon Wales, a senior associate with the Center for Security Policy. "This is unprecedented."

If ratified, the United States will no longer hold the right to board and search all suspect vessels - a prohibition that will greatly endanger our nation’s security and impede our progress with the war against terrorism. The United States will no longer hold jurisdiction to freely explore the ocean’s beds and waters for oil and precious magnesium without first obtaining permission and receiving quota limitations from the International Sea Bed Authority, a U.N. body. The United States will be required to pay a tax on all ocean discoveries to this same U.N. body, and the United States will also have to share its mining and exploration technology with the likes of China and North Korea – nations that in turn can use this technology against our own military defenses!

This treaty must be halted before the United Nations is allowed to stretch its powers over 70% of the Earth’s surface and control of the seas!

WE MUST ACT NOW! WE MUST ACT OFTEN!

Call the White House and demand that President Bush revoke his support for this insane treaty. Recall that this is the same treaty that President Reagan tossed aside as contrary to U.S. interests and the same treaty subsequently that President Clinton signed. We should honor the efforts of Reagan, and all those who value a sovereign Constitutional form of government, and throw the shreds of this treaty back to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee! Switchboard: (202) 456-1414 or (202) 456-1111

Call your representatives and tell them to put pressure on the Senate to abolish all chances for U.S. participation in this treaty! If we can’t get senators to listen directly, perhaps indirect pressure through the other side of Congress will get their attention. House switchboard: (202) 225-3121

Call both of your senators and tell them to vote ‘no’ on ratification of the Law of the Seas Treaty. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is trying to push this ratification by unanimous consent, which stifles debate, hides individual votes, and eases the path of compliance for senators who may be facing doubts with this treaty. But they need to be informed of the true nature of this treaty, in the event Frist schedules it for vote in the coming days! Senate switchboard: (202) 224-3121 * For a more detailed report on the treaty and its dire effects to America’s sovereignty and free market system, please contact us to obtain the upcoming issue of The DeWeese Report.

[hedgetrimmer]

I just received this Action Alert

[hedgetrimmer]

PING

[Siobhan]

Ping

[Dog Gone]

We need to bring this to the Senate floor and then deep six it.

[Siobhan]

I'm all for Deep Sixing it, sending it to Davy Jones!!!!!

[davidosborne]

BTTT!

[hedgetrimmer]

I have called my senators, but not the white house yet.But its on my list of things to do tomorrow! Note to self, call house of representatives as well.

[Hank Kerchief]

But, surely President Bush would not allow this to happen!

Selling Out America

Hank

[COEXERJ145]

We should take it out and use it for a W-44 armed ASROC test.

[Tuscaloosa Goldfinch]

BUMP

[CJ Wolf]

AAARRRGH! Me Too!

[CJ Wolf]

How does this effect salvage and fishing? If this is the same crap they tried to pull before it's a deepsea monster with multiple tentiticals sucking out all fun out of boating and adventure on the high seas and the money out of our tax payers.

[Militiaman7]

Biggest RINO supporting this lousy treaty is Senator Richard Luger, chairman of Senate Foreign Relations Committee

[hedgetrimmer]

You said it. I live in the Monterey Bay area, CA. Boaters and fishermen here are saying they feel like they need to bring a lawyer with them whenever they go fishing, because the bay is a "sanctuary", and you have to keep track of the number of fish you catch even if you let them go. It goes on and on.

[hedgetrimmer]

He's the one who wants to put it on the unanimous consent calendar, so there is no recorded vote.

[samadams2000]

Im tired of fighting these people. Its over. I give up.
Ill be there when its time..but for now I'm shutting down.

[GOP_1900AD]

I suspect this to be a PRC plot. They hate the long standing conventions regarding free passage and standard territorial limits, derived initially by the West, and made into a global standard during the late 1800s. If they can shatter the long standing convention, then they can start to make their audacious claims reaching far past their real territorial waters appear to be more reasonable. This must be stopped, or, it will eventually be yet another factor leading us toward world war.

[hedgetrimmer]

Not even one little phone call to the white house?

[dayton law dude]

support from the Bush Administration, U.S. Navy officials, environmentalists and oil industry executives

All these groups support the treaty? Is there a specific reason that the US Navy would like to see its ratifiaction? How about both oil executives and environmentalists? These two groups are always at odds with each other. Can somebody provide any insight on this?

[hedgetrimmer]

Could this have anything to do with the Spratly Islands?

[SandRat]

I just love the acronymn LOST because that's what the UN is LOST.

[hedgetrimmer]

Well, lets make this treaty get lost, and never come back!

[BykrBayb]

DLD, please ping me if you get a rational answer to your question. I can't imagine why the Navy would be in favor of this.

[dayton law dude]

Sure thing

[hedgetrimmer]

They think its dangerous to rely heavily on customary international law to support U.S. uses of the oceans, , and especially think it will guarantee the unhampered movement of our naval forces.

But if they think the UN is going to allow unhampered movement of American naval forces after it is ratified, they are just plain nuts. If they would care to look at any of the environmental treaties made with the UN, they are harmless enough at first, but the UN will hold convention after convention, issuing more and more totalitarian restrictions on Americans. Once the treaty is ratified, we are only one vote out of 281 some odd countries. We will always lose. It is never in our best interest to give the UN any power over us.

[lowbridge]

has reemerged as a threat to this nation’s sovereignty, thanks in large part to Senate Foreign Relations Chair Richard Lugar (R-Ind.)

Which party controls the majority of the Senate? I forget....

[Coleus]

`

[chance33_98]

Bush Administration Urges Senate Approval of Law of the Sea Treaty

NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION

Testimony of Tom Fry

< -- snip -- >

Now, I have been speaking today largely in big-picture terms of what is right and what is wrong with ocean policy. However, I would like to bring an item of particular concern to the commission’s attention, and that is the Law of the Sea Treaty. The Law of the Sea Treaty first entered into force on November 16, 1994, without U.S. participation. While most of the treaty constitutes customary international law, other provisions, namely those related to deep seabed mining were viewed as unacceptable to the United States when the treaty was concluded in 1982. Since then, the international community has amended the seabed provisions and the administration has forwarded the Law of the Sea to the U.S. Senate for ratification. One hundred and nineteen nations, excluding the United States, have become parties to the treaty.

The Law of the Sea treaty is of interest to the offshore industry because it supports U.S. claims to the marine areas that extend farther than 200 nautical miles from our coasts. This provision favors the United States as one of the few nations with broad continental margins, particularly in the North Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, the Bering Sea and the Arctic Ocean. The convention also establishes several institutions, including the International Seabed Authority and the Continental Shelf Commission, a body of experts through which nations may establish universally binding outer limits for the continental shelf. In November 1998, having failed to ratify the convention, the United States lost its provisional membership on the seabed authority and its official observer status on the commission. Of concern to the offshore energy industry is whether the United States can influence treaty interpretation and implementation affecting American interests as a nonparticipant to the treaty.

Today I say to you that the Senate needs to ratify this important treaty immediately.

[hedgetrimmer]

The convention also establishes several institutions, including the International Seabed Authority and the Continental Shelf Commission,

Oh great. Just what we need. Another international soviet to tell us what to do, and funded with US taxpayer dollars no doubt.

An international soviet cannot represent national security interests for the United States.

[Redbob]

"Which party controls the majority of the Senate? I forget....

If you should happen to learn, please call Senator Frist and let him know.
He really should know.

[Coleus]

http://www.stoptheftaa.org

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

[E.G.C.]

BTT!!!!!

[.30Carbine]

More info. Keep trying Sen. Frist's office today!

[OXENinFLA]

President Announces New Measures to Counter the Threat of WMD

This could be use in the argument.

[OXENinFLA]

Pres. Bush:

Breaking this network is one major success in a broad-based effort to stop the spread of terrible weapons. We're adjusting our strategies to the threats of a new era. America and the nations of Australia, France and Germany, Italy and Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom have launched the Proliferation Security Initiative to interdict lethal materials in transit. Our nations are sharing intelligence information, tracking suspect international cargo, conducting joint military exercises. We're prepared to search planes and ships, to seize weapons and missiles and equipment that raise proliferation concerns, just as we did in stopping the dangerous cargo on the BBC China before it reached Libya. Three more governments -- Canada and Singapore and Norway -- will be participating in this initiative. We'll continue to expand the core group of PSI countries. And as PSI grows, proliferators will find it harder than ever to trade in illicit weapons.

[Jeff Head]

Terrible treaty. IMHO, people are being bought off right and left (particularly on the left, but increasingly in the "right" too), either with money, power, influence, misbegotten ideology, globalization, or threats.

This particularl treaty is just another step towards something akin to:

The Dragon's Fury Series

...or something even worse.

Jeff

[sauropod]

bttt.

[TigersEye]

bttt

[Copernicus]

Okay, I am confused. Who is going to enforce this and why is it suddenly top-O'the agenda?

I thought we were going to shut the U.N. down.

Best regards,

[spunkets]

bump

[TigersEye]

Previous threads on the LOST treaty:

Global nightmare: Saving the LOST

Law Of The Sea By Dark Of Night By Paul M. Weyrich March 3, 2004

John Kerry’s Treaty - Outsourcing sovereignty

Sink the Law of the Sea Treaty

Treaty by stealth – again!

[TigersEye]

The LOST treaty is also known as UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law OF the Sea.)

[TigersEye]

The Senate document is known as T. Doc.103-39.
The 'T' stands for treaty, it is not a bill. It was heard before the 108th Congress Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 1st Session, in two hearings on October 14 and October 21, 2003 under the leadership of Senator Lugar. He allowed no dissenting testimony to be heard. The treaty was then approved by the Sen. Foreign Relations Committee.

Senator Lugar has asked Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist ( 202-224-3344 ) to place this treaty on the “unanimous consent” calendar. That is a vote by show of hands; no recorded vote. One dissenting vote would force a floor debate or, better still, one Senator filing an objection prior to placing it on the unanimous consent calendar would also force a floor debate. (If I understand procedure correctly.)

Senate switchboard: 202-224-3121

Call your Senators and ask them to object to a unanimous consent vote on T. Doc.103-39.
Then ask them to vote against T. Doc.103-39.

[Jeff Head]

Amen, LOST needs to be sunk posthaste.

[bondjamesbond]

Does this treaty still include provisions for the permanent funding of the UN through a right to tax use of the ocean and exploitation of sub-ocean mineral rights?

If so, it is the biggest threat to sovereignity imaginable. Once the UN has the independent ability to tax, it will be impossible to control. Right now the only check on them is the fact that they must go to member states, hat in hand, for funding. This must continue to be the case. The UN must never be self-funding.

[hedgetrimmer]

Does this treaty still include provisions for the permanent funding of the UN through a right to tax use of the ocean and exploitation of sub-ocean mineral rights?

Yes.

[TigersEye]

These include the power to: regulate seven-tenths of the world's surface area, levy international taxes, impose production quotas (for deep-sea mining, oil production, etc.), govern ocean research and exploration, and create a multinational court to render and enforce its judgments. Some even aspire to giving the U.N. some of our warships so it can have "blue hulls" — to go along with its "blue helmets" — to ensure that the ISA's edicts are obeyed.

[bondjamesbond]

Then it is the single most dangerous piece of legislation the Senate has ever considered. The UN must never be self-funding.