We Must Stop the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty!

American Policy Center ^ | March 8, 2004 | American Policy Center

[Copernicus]

Okay, I am confused. Who is going to enforce this and why is it suddenly top-O'the agenda?

I thought we were going to shut the U.N. down.

Best regards,

[spunkets]

bump

[TigersEye]

Previous threads on the LOST treaty:

Global nightmare: Saving the LOST

Law Of The Sea By Dark Of Night By Paul M. Weyrich March 3, 2004

John Kerry’s Treaty - Outsourcing sovereignty

Sink the Law of the Sea Treaty

Treaty by stealth – again!

[TigersEye]

The LOST treaty is also known as UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law OF the Sea.)

[TigersEye]

The Senate document is known as T. Doc.103-39.
The 'T' stands for treaty, it is not a bill. It was heard before the 108th Congress Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 1st Session, in two hearings on October 14 and October 21, 2003 under the leadership of Senator Lugar. He allowed no dissenting testimony to be heard. The treaty was then approved by the Sen. Foreign Relations Committee.

Senator Lugar has asked Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist ( 202-224-3344 ) to place this treaty on the “unanimous consent” calendar. That is a vote by show of hands; no recorded vote. One dissenting vote would force a floor debate or, better still, one Senator filing an objection prior to placing it on the unanimous consent calendar would also force a floor debate. (If I understand procedure correctly.)

Senate switchboard: 202-224-3121

Call your Senators and ask them to object to a unanimous consent vote on T. Doc.103-39.
Then ask them to vote against T. Doc.103-39.

[Jeff Head]

Amen, LOST needs to be sunk posthaste.

[bondjamesbond]

Does this treaty still include provisions for the permanent funding of the UN through a right to tax use of the ocean and exploitation of sub-ocean mineral rights?

If so, it is the biggest threat to sovereignity imaginable. Once the UN has the independent ability to tax, it will be impossible to control. Right now the only check on them is the fact that they must go to member states, hat in hand, for funding. This must continue to be the case. The UN must never be self-funding.

[hedgetrimmer]

Does this treaty still include provisions for the permanent funding of the UN through a right to tax use of the ocean and exploitation of sub-ocean mineral rights?

Yes.

[TigersEye]

These include the power to: regulate seven-tenths of the world's surface area, levy international taxes, impose production quotas (for deep-sea mining, oil production, etc.), govern ocean research and exploration, and create a multinational court to render and enforce its judgments. Some even aspire to giving the U.N. some of our warships so it can have "blue hulls" — to go along with its "blue helmets" — to ensure that the ISA's edicts are obeyed.

[bondjamesbond]

Then it is the single most dangerous piece of legislation the Senate has ever considered. The UN must never be self-funding.

[RightWhale]

Too bad we're not as concerned with the 1967 UN Treaty on Outer Space.

[F16Fighter]

"Which party controls the majority of the Senate? I forget...."

The RINO Party...

[hedgetrimmer]

I definitely feel concern about that. Problem is, the Senate isn't trying to sneak the outer space treaty through right now like the LOST. LOST is in play right now. Maybe if we show enough political will and clout to stop LOST, we can convince the Senate to revisit the Outer Space treaty. Does it have an acronym btw?

[RightWhale]

UNTOOS?

Not as catchy as LOST. Maybe if it were called Our Basic Treaty On Outer Space . . . OBTOOS

[taxed2death]

Since GWB is a "globalist"....like pappy, he'll buy into this hook, line and sinker.

Same as our borders....."Borders, we don't need no steenkin' borders"

[hedgetrimmer]

It'll take us a year, but we can withdraw. How about lets get this idea rolling?If we're gonna go to Mars, it better be for more than just eco-tourism, doncha think?

***

TREATY ON PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE ACTIVITIES OF STATES IN THE EXPLORATION AND USE OF OUTER SPACE, INCLUDING THE MOON AND OTHER CELESTIAL BODIES

Article XVI
Any State Party to the Treaty may give notice of its withdrawal from the Treaty one year after its entry into force by written notification to the Depositary Governments. Such withdrawal shall take effect one year from the date of receipt of this notification.

http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/treaties/space1.html

[hedgetrimmer]

Make that phone call to the white house. It kicked the amnesty program in the teeth when folks did that, it can kick this thing in the teeth as well.

[RightWhale]

Yes, it ought to be done. During Bush's campaign, while it was at Houston, a spokesman said that Bush's admin would look into private property rights in outer space. They ought to establish private property rights in outer space; that appears to be the key to opening outer space to development. While interesting from the point of view of collecting basic data, NASA robot probes can't do that job--economic development--, nor would manned science bases on the moon, on Mars, or on interplanetary stations.

[hedgetrimmer]

Maybe we should start a space working group to get on this issue. Are there any congressmen that supprt this right now?

[RightWhale]

It will be a tough campaign. Lack of private property rights in outer space is not seen as an obstacle to development by most, but it would be a showstopper at some point.