Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why is Bush for Law of Sea Treaty?
HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE ^ | July 19, 2004 | John Gizzi

Posted on 07/20/2004 12:57:53 PM PDT by MindFire

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=4517

Why Is Bush for Law of Sea Treaty? by John Gizzi Posted Jul 19, 2004

  Despite its strong record of standing up to the United Nations, the Bush Administration has dismayed conservatives by supporting ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST).

Originating in the 1970s as part of the UN agenda, critics say LOST would severely weaken U.S. sovereignty over territorial waters and subject U.S. oil exploration and other activities on the high seas to the jurisdiction of an international tribunal. In 1982, President Reagan refused to sign the treaty. Twelve years later, with diplomats claiming that the treaty's perceived flaws had been fixed, President Clinton signed the pact, although he didn't push for ratification after Republicans won control of the Senate in 1994.

Earlier this year, however, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously voted to send LOST to the full Senate and President Bush gave his blessings to ratification. Officials of the Navy, Coast Guard, and Departments of Defense, State, and Commerce have all testified in the Senate for ratification, while Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote that the treaty "remains a top national priority." Most conservatives, however, are not convinced and still oppose the treaty. As Doug Bandow, former Reagan Administration official and deputy U.S. representative to the third U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea, put it: "George W. Bush has stepped in where Bill Clinton feared to tread."

Torpedo Needed In May, when I asked White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan about the President's position on LOST, he replied: "Let me get you some more information on that and I'll come back to it." The next day, McClellan's deputy Trent Duffy called and said "the President included the Law of the Sea Treaty on his list for ratification. The administration is working with Congress to address concerns about the treaty--particularly on the issues of intelligence-gathering and security." When I asked McClellan a month later why the President would support ratification of a treaty that members of Congress were increasingly raising doubts about, he did not offer any reasons but made it clear that the administration's pro-treaty stand was unchanged. "In terms of what my staff got back to you on in terms of the Treaty of the Sea, I mean, that's what our position is," McClellan told me June 22. "I don't really have anything more to add to it right now."

Admiral Michael Mullen, vice chief of Naval Operations, has acknowledged that under LOST, rulings by an international tribunal could "harm U.S. operational planning and activities, and our security." Sen. Jim Inhofe (R.-Okla.) recently held hearings on the treaty in his Environment and Public Works Committee. "I am very troubled about the implications of this [treaty] on our national security," he said, "particularly in view of our continuing war on terrorism."

Fortunately, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R.-Tenn.) has said the Senate's packed schedule will not allow a ratification vote this year. Before it can come up in the next Congress, President Bush would be wise to consider the admonition of former Reagan adviser Bandow: "Ronald Reagan was right to torpedo the Law of the Sea Treaty two decades ago. Creating a new oceans bureaucracy is no more attractive today." John Gizzi is Political Editor of HUMAN EVENTS.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: environment; global; governance; kissinger; lawofseatreaty; lost; seatreaty; sovereignty; surrender; un; unitednations
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-75 next last

1 posted on 07/20/2004 12:57:56 PM PDT by MindFire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: MindFire; B4Ranch
"Ronald Reagan was right to torpedo the Law of the Sea Treaty two decades ago. Creating a new oceans bureaucracy is no more attractive today."

bonk.

2 posted on 07/20/2004 1:07:11 PM PDT by glock rocks (peace through superior firepower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MindFire
I have updated my FMCDH sign-off with the addition of (BITS).....Blood In The Streets, which I foresee coming soon, due to the enormous increase of the communist progressive movement being shoved down the throat of this failing REPUBLIC through the Judicial tyranny of fiat law, and the passing of unconstitutional laws by the Legislative and Executive branches of our government.

FMCDH(BITS)

3 posted on 07/20/2004 1:07:25 PM PDT by nothingnew (KERRY: "If at first you don't deceive, lie, lie again!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nothingnew
One small bone for conservatives, one big leap for the New World Order. That's our "Two-Party Cartel" that is exclusively run by the elites at OUR expense. Frist won't put it up this year because he might upset the conservatives who he needs for the shame elections & then next year you can get it stuck to you for the next 31/2 years all while the cartel does what it is told. The amazing part is you all fall for the same old crapola each election cycle.
4 posted on 07/20/2004 1:19:59 PM PDT by Digger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MindFire; freefly

Oh come now, LOST only hands 7/10ths of the Earths surface to UN control and President Bush is a conservative, not like clintoon and company, he wouldn't possibly sign off on this....../sarcasm


5 posted on 07/20/2004 1:25:05 PM PDT by ScreamingFist (Peace through Ignorance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ScreamingFist

well golly gee.. when you put it that way, you're right. we should just support whatever Bush supports. ;-)


6 posted on 07/20/2004 1:31:24 PM PDT by MindFire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MindFire

Our President is supporting the New World Order by supporting LOST.
/truth

Vote Republican!

/sarcasm


7 posted on 07/20/2004 1:48:40 PM PDT by B4Ranch (We're going to take things away from you (guns) on behalf of the common good." Hillary 6/29/2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MindFire

Bush doesn't support US sovereignty in the face of illegal alein infiltration. Why is LOST any different?

I just don't understand this one. Is there deep water oil that big donors are after and can get more easily though this treaty than the status quo? Is it easier to buy off UN members than US Senators?


8 posted on 07/20/2004 1:53:40 PM PDT by Rockitz (After all these years, it's still rocket science.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MindFire

Bush is 25% harmful to me and my nation. Kerry is 75% harmful to me and my nation. I support Bush's reelection 100%.


9 posted on 07/20/2004 1:56:24 PM PDT by FreedomSurge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MindFire
Why is Bush for Law of Sea Treaty?

Perhaps, like daddy, he loves the UN.

10 posted on 07/20/2004 1:57:41 PM PDT by eskimo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomSurge
Bush is 25% harmful to me and my nation. Kerry is 75% harmful to me and my nation.

25% harmful or 75% harmful...The sad state of American politics.....sigh.

11 posted on 07/20/2004 2:00:15 PM PDT by ScreamingFist (Peace through Ignorance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Rockitz
I think the UN and many in Congress have the exact same agenda. As far as the implications of LOST, i have been seeing a lot of articles about desalination and the U.S. water supply. If desalination is the up-and-coming 'technology of the future', then this fits right in line.

"Yes we will be able to finally make sea water 'drinkable'... but golly gee, whatdya know? Now all sea water is under the control & authority of the UN."

Is it a coincidence? of course, I could be 'all wet'.

12 posted on 07/20/2004 2:01:06 PM PDT by MindFire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: FreedomSurge

By your own numbers, shouldn't your support work out to around 75%? ;-)


13 posted on 07/20/2004 2:02:20 PM PDT by MindFire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MindFire
"By your own numbers, shouldn't your support work out to around 75%? ;-)"

Interesting point. I will give it some thought. I was considering the harmful scale to be analog (scalable) and the support for president digital (yes or no). Now I know what I'll be thinking about this afternoon.

14 posted on 07/20/2004 2:08:00 PM PDT by FreedomSurge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Rockitz




LOST at Sea


by Rep. Ron Paul, MD



Back in the 1970s the United Nations launched its plan for a global program of taxation without representation, called the “New International Economic Order.” The goal of this new economic order was not so new at all, however. It sought the involuntary transfer of wealth and technology from the developed world to the third world under the direction of the United Nations. A cornerstone of this dangerous attempt to loot the prosperous nations was the “Law of the Sea Treaty” (LOST).

Under the Law of the Sea Treaty, an “International Seabed Authority” would control the minerals and other resources of the oceans’ seabed. After taking its own cut, this UN body would transfer whatever is left to select third-world governments and non-governmental organizations.

The Law of the Sea Treaty also would give the UN power to tax American citizens and businesses, which has been a long-time dream of the anti-sovereignty globalists. LOST also would establish an international court system to enforce its provisions and rulings. Imagine not being able to do business internationally without the approval of the United Nations!

It all sounds like something out of a science-fiction novel, but it is real.

Fortunately, when the treaty came before President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, he ignored those warning of impending international chaos and refused to sign the treaty. It was the right thing to do. It appeared that the push toward global governance was – at least temporarily – halted.

But that was not the end of LOST. Determined proponents of the treaty worked to “fix” its most objectionable parts in hopes the United States would become a party. The UN and its supporters know that without the participation of the United States, their schemes are doomed to failure.

Satisfied with their efforts to alter the treaty in the 1990s, LOST supporters sent it to President Bill Clinton, who wasted no time signing the treaty and sending it to the Senate for ratification. Fortunately the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, then headed by Senator Jesse Helms, concluded that despite cosmetic changes the treaty remained hopelessly flawed. He sent it back to the president in 2000 with no action.

It seemed as though this treaty would finally die. But it did not. Undeterred, LOST supporters in the State Department sent the treaty back to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2003. This time the Committee voted unanimously, just this February, to send it to the full Senate for ratification! LOST currently sits before the Senate, available at any time for a full Senate vote on ratification. Despite President Reagan’s rejection and Senator Jesse Helms’ rejection, LOST therefore is still very much alive.

Together with 13 of my colleagues in the House of Representatives, I sent a letter last week to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist urging him to reject this dangerous and foolish treaty. Should the United Nations succeed in its dream of taxing American citizens when they do business abroad, how much longer will it be until they begin taxing us at home? Just last month, in fact, UN bureaucrats gathered in New York to look for ways to revive their dream of imposing UN control and a global tax on the internet. Imagine a global policy on internet content dictated by nations such as Saudi Arabia and China – and paid for by Americans! Let us hope that the Senate does the sensible thing and rejects LOST and any further UN encroachments on our sovereignty.

April 7, 2004

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

Ron Paul Archives






15 posted on 07/20/2004 2:08:42 PM PDT by ScreamingFist (Peace through Ignorance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Rockitz

Post #15, this is another UN tax thing. Billions of dollars. Does anyone remember oil for food in Iraq......?


16 posted on 07/20/2004 2:15:10 PM PDT by ScreamingFist (Peace through Ignorance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MindFire

There is a need for some international control over the high seas as far as polution is concerned.

Currently foreign firms due things like silver and gold recovery off our coasts in international water. These processes create a ton of polutants. But because these firms are in international waters, they dump the polutants into the oceans and noone can touch them. What's more they hurt US firms trying to compete lawfully against them.

I don't know whether LOST addresses this issue or not. But it needs to be addressed. Other than that, I'm against any bill that gives any portion of our sovergnty over to the UN.


17 posted on 07/20/2004 3:14:27 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MindFire

I'm against anything that gives more power to the United (redistribution of wealth) Nations. They will bleed us dry.


18 posted on 07/20/2004 3:48:03 PM PDT by janetgreen (CALIFORNIA - ILLEGAL ALIEN HEAVEN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MindFire

So I was onto something- it's about control of the ocean's resources. Follow the money!


19 posted on 07/20/2004 4:01:14 PM PDT by Rockitz (After all these years, it's still rocket science.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MindFire

(snip)
The treaty has returned again and is not without a recall by our own Government UN groupies.

It has reappeared because of assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International environment and Scientific Affairs, John Turner wants the treaty to be ratified. He was CEO of the Conservation Fund and been on the boards of the Land Trust Alliance, National Wildlife Refuge Assoc, the Trumpeter Swan Society and more. He is also life-long and fly fishing buddy of VP, Dick Cheney, appearing to have blessing of the administration, so when it was presented to the Senate Foreign Relation Committee, (One of the most anti-sovereignty Committees in DC), it slid through, since no dissenting voices were allowed to speak, and went to the “consent” calendar to be ratified without contention or any kind of recorded vote whatsoever.

It seems as though our own Senator Lugar is no different than any other pro-UN group by dragging out 14 or 15 co-signers to that treaty. It must be realized what this treaty can do to our country. A few Examples:...

First it is integrated with the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on Ozone Depleting Substances and it’s Montreal Protocol, the Convention on Climate Change, the World Heritage Treaty, the Convention on Desertification, the list goes on and on and all arise out of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (ICUN)
The ICUN membership almost 800 Non Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) and more than 120 Government Organizations (GO’s), 44 US environmental orgs, 6 Departments of the Federal Government. The ICUN conscripts ant treaty they wish to impose on the world and slide it into the UN once ratified.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 started out to be a benevolent act that turned into a land grabbing establishment and are still throwing human beings out of their homes and off their land to give more water to the bottom feeders as in Klamath Basin Area in Oregon, Florida’s 8-1/2 mile area, New Mexico and many more places in the US. The ESA of 1973 relates in Article2(4) that it is enacted to meet the requirements of several UN TREATIES LOST will give the UN authority over 75% of the world’s oceans and unless we want to pay taxes to the UN also and allow our politicians to bring more bedlam and enslavement than what you already have, we must wake up and get our message across firmly to our Senators and Reps in no uncertain terms.

These treaty’s are dangerous on their face and are malevolent to our Republic as we have been warned by George Washington in his farewell address, warned our nation against “The insidious wiles of foreign influence”

But powers that be just keep on keeping on and is destined to charge headlong into chaos again and again. Their motto, “Ordo Ab Chao” (Order Out of Chaos)


20 posted on 07/20/2004 4:56:43 PM PDT by B4Ranch (We're going to take things away from you (guns) on behalf of the common good." Hillary 6/29/2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-75 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson