Posted on 01/19/2005 6:08:57 PM PST by w6ai5q37b
The Bush administration continues to support Senate ratification of the UN's Convention on the Law of the Sea, which would turn the oceans and their incomprehensible riches over to the world body.
During confirmation hearings before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, Secretary of State nominee Condoleezza Rice reaffirmed the Bush administration’s plans to seek ratification of the UN’s Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOST).
During an exchange with Rice, Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), a noted Republican internationalist, quizzed the nominee about earlier statements she had made in support of ratifying LOST. "In your answers to questions for the record … I particularly appreciate your response on the Law of the Sea Convention," commented Lugar.
In her earlier remarks about the treaty, Rice declared: "Joining the convention will advance the interests of the United States military. The United States, as the country with the largest coastline and the largest exclusive economic zone, will gain economic and resource benefits from the convention. The convention will not inhibit the United States nor its partners from successfully pursuing the Proliferation Security Initiative. And the United Nations has no decision-making role under the convention in regulating uses of the oceans by any state party to the convention."
"That’s clearing up an issue sometimes raised by opponents of the convention," asserted Senator Lugar, referring to widespread criticism of the pact as an infringement on U.S. sovereignty. He also quoted Rice as saying that LOST "does not provide for or authorize taxation of individuals or corporations" and concluded: "I cannot think of a stronger administration statement in support of the Law of the Sea Convention."
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...
They can HAVE the oceans! After all, they're all bottom-feeding scum suckers! Just leave the land masses to the sane people!
Ping!
President Bush is just lucky there was no conservative alternative. I never thought I would live to see an American president agreeing to the ratification of a treaty that could have been drafted at any politburo meeting.
If someone can cite paragraph and sentence in the UN's Convention on the Law of the Sea, that guarantees "Joining the convention will advance the interests of the United States military," I'd like to see it.
I'd also like to see that this treaty "will gain economic and resource benefits from the convention." Again, cite paragraph and verse.
Finally, cite paragraph and verse that guarantees this - "And the United Nations has no decision-making role under the convention in regulating uses of the oceans by any state party to the convention."
I anxiously await an answer...
Problem is, it's a two pronged assault. Checked the Southern border lately or been anywhere in Ca and the other States in the Southwest? Soon it will be just as bad elsewhere.
The only "law of the sea" is whoever has the biggest and best Navy... This thing is really stupid.
Any company wanting to mine the sea floor would have to pay a big chunk of the profits into a UN fund that would be distributed to all the mismanaged American hating third world countries of the world.
--"The only "law of the sea" is whoever has the biggest and best Navy..."--
Quite true, which is why we should refer to the treaty as the "U.N. law to restrict U.S. Naval actions in the Open Sea."
The US Navy has endorsed LOST.
Let's set the whole ball of wax out and examine it.
If President George Bush is supporting this stupid-ass UN treaty, he's no friend of the sovereignty of the United States or we the citizens.
Now I can understand that he supports his "one world order" father. But he represents the American people, not his father.
The president needs to make a choice - the American people or his father's "one world order" friends.
Let's see what happens.
This is the fourth or fifth time I've seen references to undersea mining on this topic. Maybe you mean drilling for oil.
I'm a mining jounalist and even if the technology existed to extract minerals from the ocean floor it would be economically unfeasible. It's hard enough to raise financing for land based resources close to infrastructure even during a period of high commodity prices.
Do they believe it is in the best interest of the country or is it a case of "shut up and salute".
On the other hand, The continental shelf extends out 600 miles from the northern Alaska coast and would be in the US's EEZ if it signs. Otherwise, it will be claimed by another nation.
I'd guess it's some kiss-ass admirals saluting their paychecks and fortified positions.
Note the section on Naval Power and Maritime Commerce Interests
The continental shelf averages 300 to 600 feet before it drops off into the deep ocean. But the question still remains how to you extact minerals even from that depth.
The technology doesn't exist and it would only be feasible if all the earths land based minererals were exhausted. We are along way off from shortages of any mineral or metal that I am aware of.
To put into perspective. The economic and technological challenges of underwater mining are on the same order of magnitude as mining on the Moon which I find to be an equally zany idea.
I think first come, first served has worked well to date.
Hydrocarbons
As I said to Ben Ficklin the idea of inter-planetary and underwater mining is science fiction. The feasibiliy of mining operations the world over are determined by market fundamentals and engineering limitations.
We are far from running out of metals or minerals including strategic ones like cobalt or uranium.
The economics are not there to make underwater mining remotely profitable during several livetimes and even then recyling would be more economical.
Chances are the mines of the future will be located in waste dumps and landfills, recovering valuable resources that have been discarded.
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.