Posted on 04/01/2005 7:29:01 AM PST by Archon of the East
LOST: A Trojan Horse on America's Shores
by Oliver North Posted Apr 1, 2005
About 3,200 years ago, the defenders of Troy, a maritime power of the day, found a large wooden horse outside the walls of their city where their foes had been encamped. Taking this "peace offering" to be a tribute to Poseidon, the god of the seas, they dragged the horse into the city that had, until then, withstood everything their adversaries could throw against it.
That night, as the people of Troy celebrated "peace," Greek warriors poured forth from the belly of the beast, opened the city gates to admit more of the enemy, slaughtered the helpless occupants and burned the metropolis to the ground. It's a lesson appropriate to our times.
Today, the U.S. Senate is weighing whether to endorse an equally insidious Trojan horse --the so-called United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty--known by its appropriate acronym, LOST. This agreement, conceived by anti-American "globalists" in the 1970s, was backed by the Carter Administration, rejected outright by President Ronald Reagan and ultimately signed by William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. Now, the Bush Administration is inexplicably urging that the Senate ratify the treaty that puts 70% of the earth's surface under the despot-doting, corrupt and unaccountable "governance" of the United Nations.
Advocates of ratification claim that the treaty's Reagan-era deficiencies have been corrected. It's not so. LOST is no "gift from the sea." It's a Trojan horse.
For several months, State Department officials have been quietly telling members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that ratification of LOST will prove to skeptics that we are willing to take a "multilateral approach" to "solve international problems." Yet, it is this very "multilateral" aspect of the treaty--in its definitions, provisions and mandatory dispute resolution--that poses the greatest risk to the United States. A few LOST examples:
Articles 19 & 20: Proscribe the use of territorial waters to collect intelligence, conduct "operational missions," and require that submarines travel on the surface and "show their flag" in territorial waters. These provisions would make certain types of covert intelligence gathering and special operations impossible.
Article 88: Reserves the high seas for "peaceful" purposes. Though proponents of the treaty proclaim that "military activities" are exempted by LOST, Article 298 fails to define such operations, leaving disagreement on such matters to be resolved by an unprecedented requirement that the U.S. submit to mandatory dispute resolution by a UN "tribunal" or through "binding arbitration."
Article 110: Specifies that ships can be intercepted at sea for suspected piracy, slavery, narcotics trafficking and "unauthorized broadcasting," but makes no provision for interdicting vessels suspected of engaging in acts of terrorism or shipping weapons of mass destruction. Communist China has already alleged that this stipulation of LOST renders President Bush's Proliferation Security Initiative impermissible.
Article 301: Requires that states refrain from "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." This noble-sounding language--a nautical Kellogg-Briand Pact updated for the 21st century--could "legally" prevent the United States from ever again launching an operation like Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, the liberation of Iraq or a future defense of Taiwan or the Republic of Korea.
These are just the national security implications of the treaty. There are other economic, commercial and financial obligations of LOST that are equally egregious. The treaty is evidence of the UN's long-standing commitment to redistributing wealth and technology from developed to "less-developed" countries and entities that "have not yet attained full independence or other self-governing status."
For example, Article 144 would obligate private U.S. companies to transfer seabed mining and "other" technologies to a multinational UN bureaucracy called the "International Seabed Authority." The wire diagram of this Orwellian entity looks like a rough draft of Enron's financial arrangements--and is likely to produce enough opportunity for corruption and financial wrongdoing to give Paul Volcker's UN whitewash team work for the rest of their lives.
This so-called "Seabed Authority," through its mining "enterprise," has the final say on which company from which nation has rights to mine seabed mineral deposits. Under LOST, this global entity is empowered to levy "fees" and "other taxes" on private companies to which mining contracts are awarded and can compel industrialized nations to share technologies with others "unable to obtain" sophisticated seabed mining equipment. The billions of dollars this would put under the control of UN bureaucracy makes the oil-for-food program look like pocket change. To an "entrepreneur" in Nepal, Central African Republic, Paraguay, the PLO, or any other land-locked entity, LOST is better than a globalized Small Business Administration.
Taken in its totality, LOST is a loser. The few articles of the treaty that actually benefit freedom of navigation and commerce are already contained in a body of international laws that can be individually amended as needed. To surrender to a manifestly corrupt UN bureaucracy the muscle and money envisioned by this treaty is an invitation to an assault on our sovereignty and security. Ratifying LOST is tantamount to requiring that we pay to build the Trojan horse--and insisting that we drag this "gift from the sea" inside the gates.
The idea that "deficiencies have been corrected" is a foolish idea when consideering anything from the international thugs. To socialist's all treaties and Constitution's are "flexible" so those corrected deficiencies will be re-interpreted at some point.
What is the administration's purpose for this?
I dunno about Bush anymore...this...and the leaky borders...
is this the lesser of 2 evils????
And "the Beast" makes itself known.....
It will create some initial economic benefits with regard to off shore oil drilling. but the long term implications IMO are not even close to being worth it.
Yes, what is the Administration's real motivation here. LOST will impede or prevent the US defense of the Republic of China (Taiwan). It is clear that we are most reluctant to aid Taiwan, maybe LOST will give us an alibi when we don't act.
lost ping.
What is the motivation is the million dollar question. Given the scope of the treaty it ceratinly can't be just one issue. I do believe it is the same motivation that has driven people in power for centuries, IMHO.
And you know China will not feel at all inhibited by this treaty when they decide to begin an amphibious invasion of Taiwan. And the UN, scared to death of confrontation with a power that will not back down, will stand by and say nothing.
The U.S. should attack this proposal with extreme prejudice. It is time to stand tall for America, and reject any and all Globalist, one-world programs and schemes. The U.S. Constitution the final, Supreme law of the land, period. All Representatives and Senators would be well advised to shoot this down, if they take into consideration the best Interests of this Great Country and its Citizens.
The U.S. clearly needs to forcefully reassert its Independence and break free from Global entanglements such as these. It's definitely high time for a totally different kind of political leadership and political ideology at all levels and, in turn, hopefully proposals like these will get shot down and not come back, ever.
I would like to see a President some day that takes a firm stand against globalist schemes and authorizes the military to start protecting and defending the Constitution with military force. The traitors seem to be coming out of the woodwork.
Screw the U.N., we should launch covert and direct actions anytime we damn well please. The littoral regions around CONUS belong to the U.S., NOT the U.N.
How long can our Sovereign nation stand?
The REAL story about why Troy fell.
LOST is going to pass, and it is going to create cash flows for supranational organizations that will some day drawf the the cash flows of any single nation state. It is inevitable, b/c of the reality of what Laocoon teaches us. It is a shame, but inevitable.
If they ratify this treaty you can "KISS THE UNITED STATES GOODBY" The F--ng UN will have complete control of everything. The US will have to share any and all technology with everybody with no compensation or say so in how it's used.
Which is the main wisdom to reject most treaties out of hand. No treaty, no "re-interpretation".
Write an anti LOST article an not even mention my favorite Communist, Richard G. Lugar, Foreign Relations Committee Chairman / United States Senator for Indiana?
A wasted opportunity, IMO.
Then he also skipped mentioning the one Senator who has been attempting to educate the rest of the world about the anti-sovereignty ingediants of the UN's LOST Treaty, Senator Inhofe.
Oliver North is a sad example as a writer on this subject. I wonder if he has researched the matter. Doesn't appear so.
>>How long can our Sovereign nation stand?<<
Did we regain our sovereignty? When? Shouldn't this have been on the news? The Minutemen would all be going home if this were true.
You are absolutely correct. What happened to the Monroe and Truman Doctrines? Instead of appeasing, which, in Churchill's words, is like "feeding an alligator and hoping it will eat you last", why do we not push our agenda. I mean, stay diplomatic, but keep in mind that socialist nations (i.e. China) do not have our best interests in mind. Therefore, we need choke off their military anywhere possible, and have a game plan, in case something goes south. Just look at Reagan, who peacefully finished USSR. He never made concessions, lowered our guard, or put our country at risk, so that, in the case of a war, it would be fair. He actually did quite the opposite. He began financing the SDI, upgrading our military. The only disarmament that occurred was done equally by both parties. I say we keep our technology for our allies (like Israel and Britain and many others). LOST is basically asserting that we are obligated to let our enemies have our technology. Like we have high-tech spy planes and virtually invisible nuclear subs that they cannot detect, so to make it fair, we have to let their diesel subs spy on us and pretend not to hear them. It is congruent to the recurring liberal idea that you take from the winners and give to the losers, so they do not feel "left out" or "insulted", because they are very "sensitive". We are one of the oldest countries in the world, our system has never failed us, these contemporary ideas of socialism are nothing but old news. So, by us pushing our governmental ideals we are not enacting imperialism, we are making man free. I say that if there is ever to be a single world establishment, let it be the United States of Earth, with the United States' constitution.
Looks like Santorum is going to vote in favor of this hideous treaty as are other so called Conservatives. For the first time I fear that we are at the point of no return with regard to true American sovereignty. I am feeling very betrayed.
Let us all encourage all of our representatives in the Senate and in the House to vote AGAINST any weakening of our God-Blessed National Sovereignty and against any and all efforts to weaken our National Constitution!
The U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of The Land (apart from attendant, corollary Biblical principles which went directly into its design...)
The U.N. and any and all other NGOs, have ZERO jurisdiction over the U.S. of A.
Let's hope and pray that as many as possible of our elected Representatives vote AGAINST any weakening of the Sovereignty of the U.S. of A, not just in one proposal, but in any and all proposals that are sent to the House and Senate for consideration.
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.