(UN) Law of the Sea Treaty Threatens Sovereignty

election may be over and conservatives have won, but that does not mean we can relax. We still need to stand guard to protect our nation's sovereignty. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted in February to send the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) to the Senate floor. Fortunately, conservatives and other defenders of American sovereignty derailed the effort to rush the treaty to the Senate floor for a quick vote on ratification. Next year, with a new Congress, the forces in favor of the treaty would like to have LOST ratified by the Senate. If they try to make their wish become a reality, conservatives must rise up in defense of our country and its sovereignty. The grassroots of the conservative movement have a very important role to play by exercising continued vigilance. National conservative leaders--Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum, Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy and me--are starting to speak out now on this vital issue. So is Dr. Peter Leitner of George Mason University, author of Reforming the Law of the Sea Treaty. We intend to do our part to fight against ratification of this sovereignty-destroying treaty. But it is your voice that your state's U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative will heed when deciding just where they stand on LOST.

To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37665

Saturday, March 20, 2004

Sovereignty-sapping treaty getting scrutiny

Posted: March 20, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Part XI of the Law of the Seas Treaty is right out of an Orwellian novel. A magnificent International Seabed Authority is created, which will operate a state-of-the-art production facility called the "Enterprise" - a world-government-owned operation to mine the mineral riches of the seabed, and distribute its wealth for the "common heritage of mankind" - after expenses, of course.

The treaty demands that the technology of developed nations be shared with the Enterprise first, and then with developing nations; that any other mining operation in non-territorial seas pay an exorbitant application fee and royalties as much as 12 percent; that member nations finance the International Seabed Authority and the Enterprise; and that all treaty organs and entities be immune from lawsuits, search and seizure, and from any accountability to anyone other than its own member nations, each of which has one vote.

Ronald Reagan rightly rejected this treaty in 1982.

Since no U.N. enterprise is meaningful without U.S. participation, LOST proponents decided to scrap as much of the treaty as was necessary to get the U.S. on board. Part XI was "renegotiated" during the Clinton years and was signed by President Clinton and advanced to the Senate for ratification.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee "studied" the renegotiated treaty until 2000 and then sent it back to the president.

At the request of the State Department, the current Foreign Relations Committee studied the treaty again, on Oct. 14 and 21, 2003, and on Feb. 24, and unanimously voted to send the treaty to the full Senate for ratification, in hopes of a voice vote with no further debate or recorded tally.

Nothing has changed about the treaty. It is the same treaty that was rejected by the Foreign Relations Committee in 2000. What is different is the chairman of the Committee, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., instead of Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C.

Nine people were invited to testify in behalf of the treaty. No one was allowed to speak in opposition to it.

Assistant Secretary of State John Turner spoke of the treaty in glowing terms and then yielded to the State Department's legal adviser, William H. Taft IV. Taft's assignment was to convince the senators that the changes made to the treaty by the 1994 renegotiation made it a great treaty that would bring many benefits to the U.S.

Taft told the committee: "With a guaranteed seat on the Finance Committee of the International Seabed Authority, we would have an absolute veto over the distribution of all revenues generated from this revenue-sharing provision."

Actually, the treaty says: "Until the Authority has sufficient funds other than assessed contributions to meet its administrative expenses, the membership of the Committee shall include representatives of the five largest financial contributors to the administrative budget of the Authority." (Agreement Section 9(3))

There is no guaranteed seat on the powerful Finance Committee once the Authority has sufficient funds to cover its administrative expenses. Moreover, there is no "absolute" veto granted. Procedural decisions are to be taken by a majority vote. "Decisions on questions of substance shall be taken by consensus" (Agreement Section 9(8)).

This is precisely the same language that the Foreign Relations Committee rejected in 2000. Why should the Foreign Relations Committee or the U.S. Senate now find it to be acceptable?

Taft revealed a fundamental flaw in the State Department's thinking when he told the committee that "... the convention give[s] the United States the right to regulate fisheries in the largest EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) in the world. ..."

The United States already has this right, acquired by Presidential Proclamation 5030, March 10, 1983. Ratification of the treaty simply subordinates this right to the rules and regulations of a U.N. body.

In fact, this treaty can provide no benefit or right that the United States does not already possess. Ratification by the U.S. would benefit every other state party -- at the expense of the United States.

Were there no other flaw with this treaty, Article 2 provides sufficient reason for its rejection. This article requires of every state party that: "... sovereignty over the territorial sea is exercised subject to this Convention and to other rules of international law."

A "yes" vote for this treaty is a vote to surrender sovereignty over our territorial seas to an international power.

The hope for a non-recorded voice vote is fading fast. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., has scheduled additional hearings in the Energy and Public Works Committee March 23. Sen. Inhofe has asked to hear opposition testimony that Sen. Lugar would not allow.

Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization and chairman of Sovereignty International.

Here's how they will likely do it: By stealth.

Henry Lamb

New U.N. treaty ratified quietly
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

The U.N. Convention to Combat Desertification was ratified by the U.S. Senate on October 18, but few Senators yet know that it has been ratified. Senator Craig Thomas (R-WY) introduced a package of 34 treaties, all of which were ratified by a show of hands -- no recorded vote.

Initially, Senator Thomas' office told callers that the Senator had nothing to do with the ratification. On December 8, his office called to explain that Senator Thomas just happened to be on the Senate Floor late in the afternoon of October 18 -- and was asked by the leadership to handle procedurally, the package of treaties. Senator Thomas has asked the Foreign Relations Committee to explain how, and why, the Desertification Treaty was included in the package.

At the recent climate change talks in the Hague, Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) said the treaty had not been ratified, until corrected by one of his staff. Phone calls to Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN), and other Senators, caught staffers off guard: Nobody knew how their boss voted on the ratification. They could not know -- there was no recorded vote.

This treaty was signed by the Clinton administration in 1994. It has been locked up in the Foreign Relations Committee since. Normally, treaties of such monumental importance are debated in committee and then forwarded to the Senate floor for further debate and disposition.

Not this time. The treaty appeared in a package of 34 treaties -- most of which were single-issue treaties with single nations, dealing with stolen vehicles, criminals, and the like. The Desertification Treaty, however, is not a single-issue treaty with a single nation.

This treaty is one of several environmental treaties that emerged from the 1992 U.N. Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro. One of those treaties, the Convention on Climate Change, was ratified in 1992. The Convention on Biological Diversity failed ratification in 1994. The Convention to Combat Desertification was skillfully maneuvered through the Senate to avoid the public reaction which killed the Convention on Biological Diversity.

The Desertification Treaty claims jurisdiction over 70% of the earth's land area -- virtually all of the land that is not covered by the Convention on Biological Diversity. Moreover, this new treaty creates a structure through which all other environmental treaties are supposed to be integrated under a common United Nations implementation regime. A companion treaty is now being developed by the U.N. Commission on Water for the 21st Century. The United Nations is, in fact, creating the structure in international law and, through its extensive bureaucracies, to control the use of all natural resources on earth.

The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on October 18, 2000 -- whether or not it knew what it was doing. On November 17, the Clinton administration delivered the ratification documents to the United Nations. The United States is now bound by the international law that claims the power to dictate land use in 70% of the earth's land.

The name of the treaty implies that it is concerned about deserts -- in fact, it is concerned about all land use. To combat desertification, the treaty seeks to prevent land use that its enforcers think may lead to desertification. Converting forests to pasture, for example, or pasture to row crops, or crop land to subdivisions, are all uses that may lead to desertification, according to literature produced by the United Nations.

There is no distinction between federal land and privately owned land when it comes to land use under the jurisdiction of the U.N. The U.N. sees its role to be the establishment of policy -- it is up to the participating nations to see that the policy is implemented. The recent rash of land acquisition measures promoted by the administration and Congress seeks to get more land under federal ownership. The vast expansion of regulatory control over land use by all federal agencies makes it easier for the United States to comply with its international obligations under a variety of international treaties. This new treaty extends even further the U.S. obligation to control land use.

According to the treaty itself, no reservations can be included in its ratification (Article 37). The Resolution of Ratification adopted by the Senate contains several reservations -- all of which will be ignored by the United Nations.

Withdrawal from the treaty cannot even begin until after three years of participation -- and then another year must pass before withdrawal is recognized by the U.N. -- assuming, of course, that there is some desire in the Senate to withdraw.

Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization and chairman of Sovereignty International.

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.