flashback:
LOST
[As the advisors talked among themselves debating whether the administration should sign the treaty as it stood or demand changes, the President sat by silently and listened. With the debate raging, suddenly the President's voice was heard to say, "Isn't that what it was all about?"
Debate stopped as everyone looked over to the President. "What, sir?" Reagan then repeated his statement. "Isn't that what it was all about -- the election? Doesn't it mean that we don’t have to sign these things?"
The group realized that President Reagan had just cut through all of the debate and stated the real issue. His administration had been elected to defend American sovereignty and independence, and that changes in a bad treaty didn't have to be negotiated. He could just refuse to sign and kill it right then and there. Ronald Reagan understood that he was the President of the United States and not a captive of someone else’s power grab.
And the Law of the Sea Treaty remained justifiably dead for the next 12 years until Bill Clinton pulled it out of the trash bin, dusted it off and signed it. Then, in the spirit of Reagan, a courageous Senator Jesse Helms, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, bottled it up until the Clintonistas were driven from power.]
flashforward:
LOST and Found
[LOST -- the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, also called the Law of the Sea Treaty -- regulates all things oceanic, from fishing rights, navigation lanes and environmental concerns to what lies beneath: the seabed's oil and mineral wealth that companies hope to explore and exploit in coming years.
But critics say the treaty, which declares the sea and its bounty the "universal heritage of mankind," would redistribute American profits and have a reach extending into rivers and streams all the way up the mighty Mississippi.
The U.N. began working on LOST in 1973, and 157 nations have signed on to the treaty since it was concluded in 1982. Yet it has been stuck in dry dock for nearly 30 years in the U.S. and never even been brought to a full vote before the Senate.
But swelling approval in the Senate and the combined support of the White House, State Department and U.S. Navy mean LOST may be ready to unfurl its sails again.
Sen. John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said during a January confirmation hearing that he intends to push for ratification. "We are now laying the groundwork for and expect to try to take up the Law of the Sea Treaty. So that will be one of the priorities of the committee, and the key here is just timing -- how we proceed."
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, saying the treaty is vital for American businesses and the Navy, told Kerry that his committee "will have a very receptive audience in our State Department and in our administration."
LOST apportions "Exclusive Economic Zones" that stretch 200 miles from a country's coast and establishes the International Seabed Authority to administer the communal territory farther out. The treaty's proponents say it clears up a murky legal area that has prevented companies from taking advantage of the deep seas' wealth.]
note the negative Dhimmi theme throughout
everything when they're in control.. *sigh*
==
FWIW a little more current history.
“On May 15, 2007, United States President George W. Bush announced that he had urged the Senate to approve the UNCLOS.”
So this isn’t just an “Obama” issue.
“On October 31, 2007, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 17-4 to send the treaty to the full U.S. Senate for a vote.”
And it doesn’t seem to be a Dem/Rep issue either since the vote wasn’t strictly along party lines.
“In the United States there has been vigorous debate over the ratification of the treaty, with criticism coming mainly from political conservatives who consider involvement in some international organizations and treaties as detrimental to U.S. national interests.”
I understand this and why they would feel this way; I don’t disagree on some of their issues.
“A group of Republican senators, led by Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, has blocked American ratification of the Convention, claiming that it would impinge on U.S. sovereignty. The Bush administration, a majority of the United States Senate, and the Pentagon favored ratification.”
So, we let an Oklahoma Senator determine our national coastal policies? And what exactly is driving this Senators interest in this treaty? The good of his constituents? Or is he doing the bidding of his corporate sponsors?