Posted on 03/09/2004 7:01:54 PM PST by 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.
Hank
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?
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.