Senators hear how UN Law of the Sea Treaty will cripple national security

Center For Security Policy. ^ | March 25, 2004 | CFSP

[FairOpinion]

Advocates of a United Nations treaty that would severely erode US sovereignty and national security were stealthily trying to push the measure through the Senate - until Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma invited Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney and former treaty negotiator Peter Leitner to tear the treaty apart.

With the Bush Administration focused on fighting terrorism, arms-controllers within the bureaucracy have been working quietly with their allies in the Senate to ratify the UN Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) without the proper vetting from senior officials appointed by the president. In a recent meeting with conservative leaders, President Bush, when asked, said he new nothing about the treaty.

Gaffney testified before a Senate committee on March 24. Among his concerns:

(1) the treaty will hand control of seven-tenths of the Earth's surface to an unelected supranational buracracy, (2) that supranational bureaucracy would have the power to levy taxes on US interests, (3) those taxes would finance the supranational organization, removing any leverage the US would have against it, (4) the new organization would control the world's ocean research and exploration, (5) it would create a multinational court to render and enforce its judgments, (6) it would force the US to share billions of dollars' worth of underwater mapping and other exploration crucial for the US Navy to dominate and control the seas, (7) it would gravely harm US intelligence collection at sea, and (8) it would establish precedents for weakening US control of space, where such control is vital to the nation's economic and military well-being.

Gaffney joined Peter Leitner, a Pentagon official who was part of the LOST negotiating delegation, who told the Senate that the treaty appears to prohibit US at-sea interdiction efforts necessary to stopping seaborne terrorists.

Senator Inhofe, Chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, held the hearing in response to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's exclusion of treaty critics from testifying.

He asked two senior administration officials about what would happen under the treaty if the US Navy needed to board a ship on the high seas. The officials, Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and Environment John Turner and State Department Legal Counsel William Taft IV, didn't know what to say.

[FairOpinion]

Original article also has links embedded to the actual Gaffney's testimony at the Senate Hearings.

[FairOpinion]

PING

I noticed you posted a thread on it earlier -- in fact, that's how I first found out about this.

[ETERNAL WARMING]

The officials, Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and Environment John Turner and State Department Legal Counsel William Taft IV, didn't know what to say.

I'll bet they didn't. LOL Not a square inch of our land or sea should be ceded to this hideous organization.

[B4Ranch]

ping

[B4Ranch]

"Blue Hulls

Asked about the possible development of a squad of "Blue Hulls" to police the world's oceans as a marine equivalent of U.N. "blue helmets," Leitner said while not specifically spelled out in the LOST, it's very likely.

The problem is "there's nothing limiting the International Seabed Authority from going out and attempting to raise a navy or have contributing member states contribute vessels or act on behalf of the Authority to enforce its rules," he explained.

Leitner said the "blue hull" concept came from a report written by the Center for Naval Analysis in 1993, at the time of the earlier negotiations. The Center is a "gold-plated think-tank," funded by tax dollars, but is not a government agency.

"One of the things the Center recommended was that in the post-Cold War era – when we had a relatively large Navy before Clinton dismantled most of it – was an operational mission for the Navy." The idea was for the Navy to donate vessels and crew to the Seabed Authority "to assist them in enforcing their judgments and rules."

"So there were these two things. The think-tank for the Center for Naval Analysis writes a report suggesting this, and you look in the treaty and there's absolutely nothing prohibiting that from happening. And in fact if they ever got the U.S. into the treaty, I think there's a very good chance that they would actually do something like this. So it's not required or specifically spelled out, but it's possible and people have been thinking about it and actually suggesting it."

Taxing matters

While not having specific authority to send American citizens a tax bill, a very large revenue stream will be generated by American companies for the International Seabed Authority.

The Enterprise is the operating arm of the Authority and would be the part "that will actually go out and do something active to generate additional capital," Leitner explained. The revenue flow would come from the fees "just for a simple permit," for activities on the continental shelf beyond national jurisdiction, beyond the 200-mile limit. A company would also have to pay royalties on the sale of extracted resources, and the royalties and all payments would go to the International Seabed Authority.

As a by-the-way, Leitner added that the annual capitalization of the International Seabed Authority is required from all signatories of the treaty, and it's based on the U.N. formula of 25 percent for the U.S.

"So basically the United States will pay at least 25 percent of the cost of the Seabed Authority – that's required as part of the price of admission to the treaty," he observed. "

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1103893/posts?

[patj]

Senator Inhofe, Chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, held the hearing in response to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's exclusion of treaty critics from testifying.

Which RINO's are on the Foreign Relations Comm.? Why in the world would they go along with not hearing from critics? This is soooo disheartening.

[rickyc]

Who is trying to sneak this through, and why??

Treason in our midst?

[Libertarianize the GOP]

ping

[Quix]

YEA! THANKS MUCH.

GOD, PLEASE HELP PRESERVE US AND THE USA!

[varina davis]

BTT

[citizen]

In a recent meeting with conservative leaders, President Bush, when asked, said he new nothing about the treaty.

hmmmm....somehow, I don't believe that.

Seems to me that the professed ignorance of this NAFTA, FTAA, WTO, GATT, amnesty-loving White House about this latest U.N./globalist/anti-freedom outrage is right in character based on their performance to date.

I'm to believe that a major piece of legislation is moving on the Hill and the WH knows nothing of it? No way that's possible.

[hedgetrimmer]

Thanks for the post.

LOST PING.

[onyx]

Another good post, FO.
Thanks for ping, ht.

[glock rocks]

President Bush, when asked, said he new nothing about the treaty.

and my mercedes is paid for.

[Carry_Okie]

Interesting that the most significant issue regarding LOST is lost in the article. If the source hadn't been dedicated to defense policy, I would have said that such a glaring oversight could be deliberate misdirection.

The land use control gained by this global bureaucracy will gain via LOST will be justified to "protect" the marine environment. It isn't hard to see. Many oceanic species breed in estuaries within the United States. Estuarine health isn't doing very well for a number of reasons (many of which politicized science will conveniently miss). The estuaries are fed by rivers. The rivers are lined with cities.

Marine sanctuaries and global biospheres are model for what is planned for LOST. If all we accomplish is to alter the treaty to gain protection for our military, we will have missed the point.

LOST is a straitjacket fully capable of crippling this nation (which certainly affects its ability to defend itself). That the White House says it knows nothing about it belies the fact that, according to the email I get from ALRA, the White House and Chuck Hagel are the instigators in pushing this treaty through in the dark of night after the Reagan Administration had rejected it out of hand.

[DoctorMichael]

Bttt

[Quix]

THANKS

[varina davis]

You're welcome. I am so tired of the constant and insidious erosion of our sovergnity.

[B4Ranch]

If you think how much we all despise the "Blue Helmets", well, the "Blue Hulls" is a United Nations Navy supported by all the member nations! Guess who will be the donor of the ships? Yup, The compassionate US of A! It will be signed and done before the election by a voice vote unless we keep our ears open about everything to do with LOST.

[ought-six]

Damn it, we have to get out of the UN!

[B4Ranch]

The New World Order promoters think the UN is GREAT!

[Boot Hill]

"The land use control gained by this global bureaucracy will gain via LOST will be justified to "protect" the marine environment."

You nailed it, Carry_Okie, that is a gigantic back door into private property rights via treaty. It's got to be stopped.

--Boot Hill

[esta2410]

This is submitted in reply to Mr Gaffney's article in this forum on U.S. Accession to the Law of the Sea. I consider myself to be one of the most conservative people I know, yet I am aghast at the description of the Law of the Sea hearing that Mr Gaffney is writing about - and which he testified at. I attended that hearing, and have attended every recent hearing that has been held on this treaty, including the two hearings that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held in late 2003. In fact, I was also at the hearing held yesterday (May 12, 2004) by the House International Relations Committee. But it sounds like I attended a different hearing than Mr Gaffney describes.

Mr Gaffney states that this treaty would be bad for the U.S. for a variety of reasons, yet other experts refuted that testimony, including the Vice Chief of Naval Operations (this time) and the Chief of Naval Operations (in previous hearings). Are you saying they don't know what they are talking about when they say they need the U.S. to accede to this treaty to fulfill their national security mission? The State Department as well strongly support sthis treaty. Another expert on the Law of the Sea (John Norton Moore) masterfully & successfully blew every point of yours out of the water in his testimony at various of these Hill hearings. Was he is error, too? The shipping folks have come out in favor of U.S. accession to this treaty, stating they need it for the protection of unarmed commercial vessels. Are they in error too? I understand your concerns - I have them too (enough to spend my time attending these hearings). I despise the United Nations and am very leery of multinational treaties. But I still haven't seen it demonstrated exactly how this particular treaty would be anything but positive for the U.S. To misrepresent the Hearings as you have here in this forum is truly exasperating. I'm tired of liberals claiming that conservatives are one-sided in their arguments, yet that is exactly what I see here in this forum. Over and over witnesses have successfully refuted your Congressional testimony and even said you were "180 out" on your statements and assertions. If you're "going to a knife fight" at least bring a knife and prove your points!

[Paul Ross]

I consider myself to be one of the most conservative people I know

? Jumpin Jim Jeffords! Is that you?!

...yet other experts refuted that testimony, including the Vice Chief of Naval Operations (this time)

Liberal.

and the Chief of Naval Operations (in previous hearings).

Sorry, another liberal. Let's face it, your side can't survive critical dissent. Not to mention that you have systemmatically suppressed it. And flat out lyingly ignored Reagans REAL reasons for terminating the Law of Sea Treaty...which was evidenced by his FIRING all of its negotiators. Permanently. Clearly for BAD FAITH. They were not trustworthy. Clinton brought them back...and here we have the same schmucks palming off the same crap.

Reagan's wonderful and long-overdue approach to curing what ails Foggy Bottom and the Globalist Lobby...needs to be applied again.

Are you saying they don't know what they are talking about when they say they need the U.S. to accede to this treaty to fulfill their national security mission?

Yes. And Damn yes! Let's get a sense of the REAL non-liberal Brass in the Navy ...the actual "fighters" in the Navy...not the blithering idiot desk jockies who never had the Russkies scraping hulls with them.

The State Department as well strongly support sthis treaty.

Big surprise that the communists at Foggy Bottom are still at it.

Another expert on the Law of the Sea (John Norton Moore) masterfully & successfully blew every point of yours out of the water in his testimony at various of these Hill hearings. Was he is error, too?

Not only in error. He lied. As are you. Have you even read what the terms are? Not the promises mind you that the Xlintons hoked up with their fellow world croneys at the UN. Which will be all "non-operative" the second the US surrenders to this piece of filth.

The Authority must never be given suzerainty over US jurisdiction on the High Seas. Ever.

But I still haven't seen it demonstrated exactly how this particular treaty would be anything but positive for the U.S.

Do you at all understand the analogy of the "camel's nose"?

[pissant]

Is this guy still a freeper? LOL

Let’s elect Duncan Hunter. This is our best insurance against any supranational, sovereignty usurping boondoggles.

[Paul Ross]

esta2410 hasn't created an about page. Account created May 13, 2005. Never heard from before this issue...or since.

I think if you show again...the admin moderators need to track you down for the troll you are.

I think it fair to say that not one thing you said of yourself was true.

I don't believe you have a scintilla of conservatism in you.

Nor do you have any likely "concerns" as these asserted:

I understand your concerns - I have them too (enough to spend my time attending these hearings). I despise the United Nations and am very leery of multinational treaties.

Rooooooooooight!

[Paul Ross]

Is this guy still a freeper? LOL

He was never a FReeper. He was a schill for the UN. If you notice...he never ever breaks down a single issue that shows how Frank Gaffney was "refuted". He relies only stacking up supposed "experts" who blathered against Gaffney's points. esta never once mentions what they actually had by way of substance.

Let’s elect Duncan Hunter. This is our best insurance against any supranational, sovereignty usurping boondoggles.

I agree. We need him badly...

[Paul Ross]

LOST is a straitjacket fully capable of crippling this nation (which certainly affects its ability to defend itself).

Agreed.

That the White House says it knows nothing about it

...President Bush explicitly declared that to Gaffney...and I believe Gaffney.

... belies the fact that, according to the email I get from ALRA, the White House and Chuck Hagel are the instigators in pushing this treaty through in the dark of night after the Reagan Administration had rejected it out of hand.

Either Bush is lying point blank to a mainline Reagan national security official...or he is less-than-a-puppet with someone else actually running the show.

I confess I lean heavily to the conclusion that when confronted on the White House's ulterior liberal foreign policy agendas... Bush is not above lying to us. He is not conservative. He feels no common ground.

As for Chuck Hagel...his little run for the Presidency needs a good set of "LOST" torpedoes up his fan-tail....this really needs to be made an issue in the debates Wednesday...

[Admin Moderator]

He made one post in 2004, I would let it go.
Thanks

23 posted on 05/13/2004 12:13:13 PM CDT by esta2410

[Carry_Okie]

As for Chuck Hagel...his little run for the Presidency needs a good set of "LOST" torpedoes up his fan-tail....this really needs to be made an issue in the debates Wednesday...

Fox News is soliciting questions...

[Czar]

"...the White House and Chuck Hagel are the instigators in pushing this treaty through in the dark of night..."

And lets not overlook that little RINO faux conservative weasel, Orrin Hatch of Utah, who has been a prime advocate of LOST.

The 2006 midterms have taught the GOP nothing. They deserve another good whacking from the conservative base in 2008. And they're well on the way...

[James W. Fannin]

Good luck getting Murdoch’s crew to focus on hard news that makes the RINO establishment look bad.

[Carry_Okie]

No kidding.

I just want them to hear it, over and over. They still have to keep the preferences of their audience in mind.

[Paul Ross]

Good luck getting Murdoch’s crew to focus on hard news that makes the RINO establishment look bad.

You got that right. Fox News just had Orrin Hatch as a featured panelist this morning for their debate coverage spin.

They are apparently not going to be so rude as to reveal that these emporers have no clothes...