Posted on 07/10/2004 4:55:55 AM PDT by datura
By Tom DeWeese
National Sovereignty Vote Index
Those driving the battle to entangle the United States in the United Nations' Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) are fighting back, determined to paint any opponent as a radical who is out of touch with the way the world really works.
Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN) and his allies are mad because they had hoped to sneak LOST through the Senate before anyone noticed. Opponents to the Treaty foiled that trick, and blasted it to the nation. Americans rose up in protest, and now, the Law of the Sea Treaty is stuck. Lugar seemed genuinely shocked by the strength of the anti-treaty protests. Now it appears LOST is being held up without a scheduled vote by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN).
So, Lugar and the pro-LOST forces have taken off the gloves, fighting back by increasing lobbying efforts, invoking the list of powerful government offices and departments which testified in favor of the treaty. These include the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Chief of Naval Operations, the Departments of Defense, State, Commerce, Justice, and the EPA. Lugar insists that the Bush "Administration even helped write the resolution of advice and consent accompanying the treaty."
In addition, Lugar insists that:
"Contrary to some claims, the Law of the Sea Treaty provides no decision-making role for the United Nations. The words "United Nations" appear in the title of the Convention only because that is where negotiations physically took place."
"The Convention affirms unchallenged American rights to our ocean resources."
"Every major American ocean industry supports the Convention."
"The Convention does not levy taxes or require any technology transfers."
"Some claims have tried to portray President Reagan as being against the treaty. In fact, in 1983, he proclaimed that the United States would abide by all provisions of the Convention, except those dealing with deep-seabed mining in the open ocean."
Those are pretty powerful arguments in favor of ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty, if true. The fact is, not one of these statements by Senator Lugar is true.
Amazingly, sources close to President Bush reported, just days after Senator Lugar started the drive for ratification in the President's name, that the President said he knew nothing about it. Others have reported that President Bush is actually opposed to ratification. So, who in the Administration is pushing the Law of the Sea Treaty that President Ronald Reagan not only refused to sign, but actually fired the U.S. State Department staff that had negotiated it?
Some have speculated that Vice President Dick Cheney is the driving force behind the sudden move to ratify a treaty that should have been dead twenty years ago. The real force behind the renewed efforts for ratification appears to be John Turner, Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs.
Turner comes from the world of radical environmentalism, having served as the CEO of the Conservation Fund and on the boards of the Land Trust Alliance, the National Wildlife Refuge Association, the Trumpeter Swan Society, and several more "green" groups. These groups stand to gain massive power over the oceans through ratification of LOST. That's why they have been the main forces in demanding its passage.
Moreover, Turner is a close buddy of Dick Cheney, so his efforts for the treaty have been interpreted as being official White House policy. If Turner wins this round, his next attack will be for ratification of the U.N.'s Biodiversity Treaty, that the Senate refused to consider ten years ago.
Does the Law of the Sea Treaty give the U.N. decision-making power over the world's oceans? Of course, it does. It is a common trick used by those who seek to implement U.N. policy to mention only the particular document in question, as if it lived in a vacuum. In fact, most of the U.N. treaties and programs are designed to couple and piggyback on other such programs, creating an all-encompassing web of control.
The Law of the Sea Treaty is closely integrated with the Convention on Climate Change, the World Heritage Treaty, the Convention on Desertification Treaty, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on Ozone Depleting Substances, and its Montreal Protocol, the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species, and several more that can be traced back directly to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
Six departments of our federal government (including the Department of State) and 44 U.S. environmental organizations are members of the IUCN. The IUCN uses the United Nations as the conduit to funnel the treaties to member countries for ratification.
As such, the United Nations becomes the monitor for enforcement and implementation of the treaties. For Senator Lugar to imply that the U.N. is not even part of the process is beyond disingenuous; it's downright deceitful.
That's not Senator Lugar's first attempt to mislead and deceive on the issue of LOST. His Foreign Relation's Committee hearings would not allow a single negative word to be spoken against the treaty. Those testifying were carefully chosen to paint an urgent need for LOST.
Senator Lugar claims that LOST "affirms unchallenged American rights to our ocean resources." This Lugar falsehood completely ignores Article 2, Paragraph 3, of the treaty which says, "The sovereignty over the territorial sea is exercised subject to this Convention and to other rules of international law." In addition, LOST's most powerful creation, the International Seabed Authority (ISA) will be the entity to enforce that section.
According to testimony submitted to the House International Relations Committee by Dr. Peter Leitner, the Center for Naval Analysis believes that the International Seabed Authority may one day be able to "take on a variety of low-intensity policing functions in support of international agreements." In other words, the Seabed Authority could become an ocean police force, answerable to the United Nations.
The ISA has the power to set production controls for ocean mining, drilling, and fishing, to control ocean exploration, issue permits and create regulations, and settle disputes in its own court. Private companies seeking to drill oil or mine ocean floors must first obtain a permit from the Seabed Authority. The Seabed Authority will be a regulatory agency, police force, and court system all in one.
If the permit is granted and production begins, the Seabed Authority then charges a royalty fee, or tax. Those royalties are then evenly distributed to all participating nations. Land-locked nations with no interest in the oceans will now profit from the efforts of private companies. Such a taxing system is now seen as a model for the creation of a global taxing system. Senator Lugar tells outright lies when he says the treaty levies no taxes.
Senator Lugar says that "every major American ocean industry supports the Convention." That is blatantly false. However, those who are in support do so because they believe that by being part of the process they will get a leg up on the competition. They believe in the system of "pull" rather than in free market competition. Pull is a system of powerful, non-elected bureaucrats who pull the strings, set the prices, dictate the playing field, and control the market. It's how things are done when there is no freedom of choice. Businesses that have signed on to LOST are either lazy, or scared.
Even worse, the Seabed Authority doesn't just have the power to issue or deny permits and collect royalties. It also has the power to directly compete with private companies in the mining and drilling of the ocean floor through an entity called the "Enterprise." In this way, royalties paid to member nations would be much higher because they wouldn't have to share any profits with private companies.
Now, a reasonable person may conclude that an agency that has the power to issue permits to private companies or compete on its own for higher profits would likely choose the latter. Of course it would! And that's the point.
Imagine what such a system would do to the world economy. Imagine what will happen to oil prices and mineral prices needed to sustain our nation. Imagine such power in the hands of small, corrupt, jealous nations as would make up the seabed authority, and you can understand why the Law of the Seas Treaty is a trap for the United States.
The mantra put forth by Senator Lugar and the other proponents of LOST is that we need to ratify it in order to get "a seat at the table" so we can make decisions as to who serves on the International Seabed Authority, but the United States would have only one vote out of abut 140. China, Cuba, and Barbados will have an equal vote. A block of small, third world nations that see LOST as an opportunity to "make America pay" can form a cartel to control policy.
One final point must be made. There is little understanding on Capitol Hill as to just how powerful and all-encompassing the Law of the Sea Treaty can be. During hearings by the Senate Armed Services Committee, Chairman James Inhofe asked former U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, "What about the air over the sea?" Does LOST have jurisdiction there? Her answer: not only the air, but also the space could become subject to U.N. authority under this treaty.
And there's still more. Most opponents of LOST truthfully argue that it will give the U.N. control over all of the world's oceans; that includes 70 percent of the earth's surface. The situation may be even worse than that.
The tangle of international agreements to be policed by the Law of the Sea Treaty leads one to be wary of a new report by the United States Commission on Ocean Policy which calls for new federal regulations to affect oceans and coasts. The Commission's report calls for an "eco-system management approach that goes far beyond the political boundaries like state lines" to strengthen the link between coastal and watershed management. Such language is straight out of the U.N.'s Biodiversity Treaty.
The report is concerned with protecting estuaries where oceanic species breed. Estuaries are fed by rivers. American rivers are lined with cities. Under the excuse of protecting the oceans, will the policing powers of LOST allow it to sail right up into the rivers of America, giving the U.N. inland control as well?
The Law of the Sea Treaty doesn't provide anything to the United States that we don't already have. It blatantly takes away our rights to free movement and private enterprise, and endangers our national sovereignty and independence. We don't need this treaty. If we allow it to pass, we will regret it.
There is only one way to stop this madness. Keep the United States from ratifying the Law of the Sea Treaty and ignore its authority. Do that, and there won't be any "table" to sit at.
For those who have never been to Eco Logic, don't let the name fool you. The site is completely conservative, virulently anti-UN, and anti- Green all the way. Their main goal is to keep America free from the UN's Agenda 21 - which is a great cause. Please visit the site and see for yourself.
A real treat to see what they do with it (new issues biweekly).
Six departments of our federal government (including the Department of State) and 44 U.S. environmental organizations are members of the IUCN. The IUCN uses the United Nations as the conduit to funnel the treaties to member countries for ratification.
Can someone please explain to me how it is that departments of our nation's government can belong to an external organization that is in direct opposition to our nation's constitution????
They have sent out vicious attackers against Americans involved in alternative fuels for years.
They fund terrorists and terrorist organizations.
Some say they even get pensions from Saudi Arabia.
President Bush ignored this when he was elected.
I'm glad I'm not alone in liking their site - there should be a lot more of us in here that read their articles.
There should be a lot more in our government reading them as well.
Did Clinton sign the treaty in order to allow the Senate to consider ratifying this? A private school science book was glorifying this junk in the mid-1980's.
Howdy Dio!
I see that one of the major recipients of Foggy Bottom's largesse is none other than Yasser and Co. It figures. That is one den of snakes that needs a complete razing and start over - from top to bottom.
Idiocy. Lugar is a has-been.
I'm not sure about that. I think that it is older than 'toon. I doubt that GHWB signed on to it, so maybe it was 'toon.
Allow me to add that Eco-logic is free and you can sign up to receive their bi-weekly bulletins at the Eco-logic site. It's cutting edge writing.
every two or three months somne media type explains why Luger is so valuable to the repbulican party. then stories like this show up to remind conservatives that he is a RINO of the worst sort. he loves the power of Washington more than the everyday good will of working people. may he rot in ----.
My thanks.
FMCDH(BITS)
Is the treaty 'self-enacting' in US law?
Response: Sovereignty! Sovereignty! Given those who have held office since 1945 what Sovereignty?
A: It doesn't matter.
If she picked Daschle, she'd have to kick fairly low, though, as if kicking a football off the ground.
SOT
I'm not close enough to this to even discuss it. I don't want to see any loss of American sovergnty.
That said. There is some need for ecological laws to protect international waters. I've heard that some processes that generate hazardous materials are now being performed off our costs in international waters by Chinese firms. They dump the hazardous materials into the ocean and since it's international waters, nobody can touch them.
Plus, American firms that properly handle the hazardous wastes can't compete with them.
So there is a need for some form of international regulation. Lets just make sure it's targeted and doesn't limit our sovergnty, except in a way, dumping hazardous wastes, that is limited and makes sense.
No problo. Treaties supersede the Constitution and are first on the hierarchy of the supreme law of the land.
At least that's what the treasonous courts would have us believe, but many of us know beter. Nay, ENOUGH of us know better.
If this stupid thing gets legs, United States warships will be dipping their flags to the UN flag on the high seas.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.