Pirates of the High Seas: Robbing with the Law of the Sea Treaty

Thanks for posting this...I didn't know about Cheney being for LOST too! That explains a lot.

Opportunity Knocking: Defeat Law Of The Sea Treaty

by Phyllis Schlafly, February 9, 2005

When Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) asked Condoleezza Rice during her confirmation hearings about the Law of the Sea Treaty, she replied that President Bush "certainly would like to see it passed as soon as possible." Assuming she was authorized to deliver that shocking news, George W. Bush can no longer claim the mantle of the Ronald Reagan legacy.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was a terrible idea when President Reagan refused to sign it in 1982 and fired the State Department staff who helped to negotiate it. It's an even worse idea today because of the additional dangers it poses.
The acronym for the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) is apt. LOST is the correct word for our sovereignty that would be lost under LOST.
Republicans who oppose this giant giveaway are looking at a stunning historical model. Ronald Reagan became the conservative standard bearer when he led the fight against the Panama Canal Treaty which was supported by incumbent Presidents Ford and then Carter.
We lost the battle to prevent the Panama Canal giveaway by one Senate vote in 1977. But that battle made Reagan the undisputed leader of the conservative movement and multiplied its activists.
Hindsight teaches us that the battle was well worth fighting because it brought about the cataclysmic events of 1980: the election of a real pro-American conservative President plus the defeat of most of the internationalist Senators who voted for the giveaway.
Conservatives are currently searching for a man of pro-American principles whom they can support for President in 2008. The Republican Senator or Governor who steps up to the plate can hit a home run if he leads the battle against LOST's enormous wealth transfer to the unpopular United Nations.
The LOST is grounded in such un-American and un-Republican concepts as global socialism and world government. There is not much of a constituency today for giving more power and wealth to the United Nations, whose officials just committed the biggest corruption in history (oil-for-food) and continually use the UN as a platform for anti-American diatribes.
The LOST is so bad that it is a puzzlement how anyone who respects American sovereignty could support it with a straight face. LOST would give its own creation, the International Seabed Authority (ISA), the power to regulate seven-tenths of the world's surface area, a territory greater than the Soviet Union ruled at its zenith.
The LOST would give ISA the power to levy international taxes, one of the essential indicia of sovereignty. This ISA power is artfully concealed behind direct U.S. assessments and fees paid by corporations, but the proper word is taxes.
The LOST would give ISA the power to regulate ocean research and exploration. The LOST would give ISA the power to impose production quotas for deep-sea mining and oil production.
The LOST would give ISA the power to create a multinational court system and to enforce its judgments. The ISA courts would have even wider jurisdiction than the International Criminal Court (to which, fortunately, we do not belong) or the World Trade Organization (which has ruled against the United States a dozen times and forced us to change our tax laws and import duties).
There is no guarantee that the United States would even be represented on the ISA tribunals. The whole concept of putting the United States in the noose of another one-nation-one-vote global organization, which reduces America to the same vote as Cuba, is offensive to Americans.
In the post-9/11 world, the idea of signing a treaty that mandates information-sharing with our enemies plus technology transfers is not only dangerous but ridiculous.
Of course, Bill Clinton is for the LOST; he signed it in 1994. The LOST meshes perfectly with his speech to the United Nations in September 1997, in which he boasted of wanting to put America into a "web" of treaties for "the emerging international system."
Of course, Foreign Relations Chairman Richard Lugar is for LOST. Like Clinton, he is a Rhodes scholar and an internationalist who never saw a United Nations treaty he didn't like.
Vice President Cheney is an advocate of LOST. He doesn't have to listen to American voters because he will never again run for office.
Lugar's Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing about LOST, held without any publicity and with only advocates invited to testify, was an insult to the American people. Majority Leader Bill Frist will forfeit his chance to be in the running for the Republican nomination for President if he schedules a vote before all Senate committees affected by the LOST hold hearings with both sides represented.
The real purpose of LOST is to force the United States to use our wealth and technology to mine the riches of the sea and turn them over to a gang of Third World dictators who are consumed with envy of America. Opportunity is knocking for a Republican Senator or Governor who will lead the charge against the LOST.

Eagle Forum • PO Box 618 • Alton, IL 62002 • phone: 618-462-5415 • fax: 618-462-8909 • eagle@eagleforum.org

Read this article online: http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2005/feb05/05-02-09.html

Lugar and Brookings??! LOL!

To be far more fair and balanced....here is the TRUTH :

FRANK GAFFNEY INTERVIEW-

FRANK GAFFNEY ON OUR NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAW OF THE SEA TREATY
By Gabrielle Reilly

Frank Gaffney: Frank Gaffney was nominated by President Reagan in 1987 to become the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy and is now Founder and President of the Center for Security Policy.

Interview

The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), has been brought forward again to seek ratification after being rejected by President Reagan in 1982. If enacted, this will be one of the most critical agreements of this century. It would give control to an organization, currently under several investigations for corruption, the power to regulate seven-tenths of the world’s surface area and the power to levy international taxes. This is a treaty you should really know about:

Gabrielle Reilly: Frank, has much changed in the Law of the Sea Treaty since President Ronald Reagan refused to ratify it in 1982?

Frank Gaffney: The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (commonly known as the Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST) that Ronald Reagan refused to sign is exactly the same treaty as the one the Senate is being asked to approve today. It has not been amended or otherwise formally altered since 1982. To be sure, President Clinton reached an accord called “The Agreement” in 1994 that purports to address some of President Reagan’s concerns. Since the Agreement does not actually replace or modify the relevant sections of LOST, however, the Treaty is still fatally flawed and objectionable on national security, sovereignty and legal grounds.

Frank Gaffney - Center for Security Policy

Gabrielle Reilly: If ratified, will LOST interfere with President Bush's Proliferation Security Initiative which allows for the intercepting of ships engaging in terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction?

Frank Gaffney: One of the most important post-9/11 efforts made to counter terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction is President Bush’s Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). Dozens of nations have agreed to join in monitoring and, if necessary, intercepting and boarding ships on the high seas in the event they are suspected of engaging in one or both of these threatening activities.

Unfortunately, LOST does not provide for these as reasons which one can under the Treaty engage in such interceptions. To the contrary, LOST establishes that the transport of arms is a perfectly legitimate activity.

Moreover, several nations – among them China and India – have already said they consider PSI to be illegal under LOST. And it is a safe bet that, if the United States becomes subject to this treaty, PSI will be taken up by the Law of the Sea Tribunal and almost certainly will be found to violate the Treaty. Such an outcome would, of course, be completely contrary to our national security interests and unacceptable.

Gabrielle Reilly: Would this Law of the SEA Treaty remove American citizens’ right to vote on decisions that are made on national security, economical, and environmental issues around our coast lines, and hand them to other countries?

Frank Gaffney:. The Law of the Sea Treaty created a supranational organization to regulate what is done with and under the international seabeds. This organization, the International Seabed Authority (ISA), has a judiciary – the Law of the Sea Tribunal – with the ability to issue edicts concerning not only the seabeds, but the waters and even the airspace above them. In fact, it has even asserted its jurisdiction over decisions made by member states about activities on their own sovereign soil.

Decisions in most of LOST’s agencies – and especially its Tribunal – will be made on the basis of majority rule. Each country will have one vote. Should the United States become a member, its vote would count no more than those of, say, Fiji or Benin. And even that American vote would only count if the U.S. were one of the countries represented at the time – by no means a certainty, since many LOST entities, including the Tribunal, have rotating memberships.

In any event, given the nature of this and other UN organizations, the U.S. is sure to be outvoted on most matters in which it has strong interests. It was precisely for this reason that the Treaty became so unsatisfactory to President Reagan; our concerns were disregarded, dismissed or simply voted down.

Gabrielle Reilly: Will the LOST require us to give away some of our nation’s sensitive national intelligence information, perhaps making us more vulnerable to attack?

Frank Gaffney: LOST requires member states to provide information about the seabeds that could have considerable import for our national security. For instance, if an American company wishes to do mining or oil or gas exploration, it would have to submit detailed data about the area in which the activity would occur. If the area were on or near the U.S. continental shelf, such data could well provide an enemy with strategically invaluable insights into undersea access routes that could be used to attack some of the millions of Americans who live on or near our coasts.

Gabrielle Reilly: Do you see any promising aspects to the Law of the Sea Treaty?

Frank Gaffney: The most desirable aspects of the Law of the Sea Treaty pertain to navigational rights. Those provisions, however, are already enshrined in existing international law and customary practice. In fact, the United States enjoys the benefits of being party to these arrangements without being subject to either the Law of the Sea Tribunal or LOST’s compulsory UN dispute resolution provisions – something that has been specifically rejected in the past.

Gabrielle Reilly: Is it true that the Law of the Sea Treaty would permit an international organization for the first time to levy taxes on U.S. citizens?

Frank Gaffney: The International Seabed Authority would be able to oblige the U.S. government – read, the taxpayer – to pay fees and assessments in exchange for the ISA granting its companies the right to exploit seabed resources.

The United Nations has long sought the ability to raise revenues in this manner as a means of reducing its reliance on American and other member nations’ dues to sustain the UN’s operations. In the absence of such independent means of generating revenues, these dues represent a real check – if a singular one – on this and other so-called world bodies’ corruption, overreach and interference with U.S. sovereignty.

Against the backdrop of the burgeoning Iraq Oil-for-Food Program scandal, it is hard to imagine a more ill-advised idea than to establish the precedent of certainly undisciplined, and probably unaccountable, revenue streams for the UN and its institutional offspring. This is especially so given that it is not clear how the government would obtain reimbursement from the companies whose activities would give rise to these taxes.

End Of Interview

A treaty that was created over two decades ago could not possibly address the new world we live in with the War on Terror and our national security issues. It would be reckless for our government to hand over our vote to a world body that is currently under several investigations for billions of dollars of corruption surrounding the United Nations Oil-For-Food scandal. Without your assistance this treaty may be ratified this year. It is essential that you inform you representatives that you do not want this passed. Please forward this link to everyone you know and/or post this interview on your blogs or web site.

Thanks very much for the interview Frank, your extensive knowledge and experience is essential to our national security. The SEA Treaty may well have slipped by us unnoticed without your dedicated and watchful eye. For more on Frank Gaffney please visit the Center for Security Policy.

Here is some of the contact information to take action:

LAW OF THE SEA: Congress Contact Information

Leadership

Sen. Bill Frist, Majority Leader 202-224-3344

Sen. Mitch McConnell, Majority Whip 202-224-2541

Sen. Rick Santorum, Conference Comm. Chair 202-224-6324

Sen. Jon Kyl, Policy Comm. Chair 202-224-4521

Sen. Jeff Sessions, Steering Comm. Chair 202-224-4124

Relevant Committee Chairmen

Sen. Richard Lugar, Foreign Relations 202-224-4814

Sen. Susan Collins, Governmental Affairs 202-224-2523

Sen. Chuck Grassley, Finance 202-224-3744

Sen. Jim Inhofe, Environment 202-224-4721

Sen. Ted Stevens, Commerce 202-224-2235

Sen. Arlen Specter, Judiciary 202-224-4254

Sen. Pat Roberts, Intelligence 202-224-4774

Sen. John Warner, Armed Services 202-224-2023

Sen. Thad Cochran, Appropriations 202-224-5054

Rep. Henry Hyde, International Relations 202-225-4561

Rep. Duncan Hunter, Armed Services 202-225-5672

Rep. James Sensenbrenner, Judiciary 202-225-5101

Rep. Bill Thomas, Ways and Means 202-225-2915

Rep. Joe Barton, Energy and Commerce 202-225-2002

Rep. Richard Pombo, Resources 202-225-1947

Rep. Peter Hoekstra, Intelligence 202-225-4401

Rep. Jerry Lewis, Appropriations 202-225-5861

Rep. Tom Davis, Government Reform 202-225-1492

New Republican Senators

Sen. Richard Burr 202-224-3154

Sen. Tom Coburn 202-224-5754

Sen. Jim DeMint 202-224-6121

Sen. Johnny Isakson 202-224-3643

Sen. Mel Martinez 202-224-3041

Sen. John Thune 202-224-2321

Sen. David Vitter 202-224-4623

This characterization of history by the Brookings paper, which wanted the passage of LOST, "promptly", was almost totally fact-free, when it claimed that:

President Reagan praised the Convention's "many positive and very significant accomplishments,'' but declined to sign because of the deep seabed mining provisions. In March 1983, President Reagan issued an Ocean Policy Statement announcing the United States's intention to act generally in accordance with the terms of the Convention.

The Ocean Policy Statement was not close to being a complete expression of Reagan's views why he terminated the LOST with extreme prejudice. He fired its negotiators. This aspect is omitted in Frank Taylor's of the State Dept., one of the ones fired, but rehired by HWBush/Clinton...in his account. Which Brookings echoes slavishly.

This article gives more of a flavor to the actual Reagan decision...

< Changing Worldviews.Commentary >

Words are powerful - Thoughts shape - Ideas have consequences

Changing Worldviews' Team of Commentary Writers is growing and we are pleased to bring you the following.

Tom DeWeese

The American Policy Center
Posted April 5, 2004

UN Wants Control of the Seas with US Senate's Help
Law of the Sea Treaty Dead at Reagan's hand...until Clinton

Soon after taking office in January 1981, President Ronald Reagan and several of his key advisors were working through a mound of policy matters that had spilled over from the Carter Administration. One of those issues concerned the signing of the United Nation’s new Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST).

As the advisors talked among themselves debating whether the administration should sign the treaty as it stood or demand changes, the President sat by silently and listened. With the debate raging, suddenly the President’s voice was heard to say, “Isn’t that what it was all about?”

Debate stopped as everyone looked over to the President. “What, sir?” Reagan then repeated his statement. “Isn’t that what it was all about – the election? Doesn’t it mean that we don’t have to sign these things?”

The group realized that President Reagan had just cut through all of the debate and stated the real issue. His administration had been elected to defend American sovereignty and independence, and that changes in a bad treaty didn’t have to be negotiated. He could just refuse to sign and kill it right then and there. Ronald Reagan understood that he was the President of the United States and not a captive of someone else’s power grab.

And the Law of the Sea Treaty remained justifiably dead for the next 12 years until Bill Clinton pulled it out of the trash bin, dusted it off and signed it. Then, in the spirit of Reagan, a courageous Senator Jesse Helms, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, bottled it up until the Clintonistas were driven from power.

But today there is no Ronald Reagan and no Jesse Helms, and so the Law of the Sea Treaty has again reared its ugly head and now stands on the verge of passage in the Senate under the forceful hand of Republican Senator Richard Lugar, the current Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. Worse, Lugar is aided in his quest by a hapless Bush Administration.

After unanimously passing the Treaty out of committee, the pressure is on to give it “unanimous consent,” meaning there will be no official vote to ratify the treaty; no record of support or opposition; no one to blame when it’s over. The treaty will just become the law of the land – no muss, no fuss. Business as usual. Senators like to hide from the people that way. It makes life so much easier for them.

For the record, here are just a few of the reasons why Ronald Reagan, Jesse Helms and those loyal to the American ideal believe the United States should never be a party to the Law of the Sea Treaty.

Freedom of the seas has been the guiding principle recognized by sovereign nations since ancient times. It means all nations recognize that ships, government owned or private, are free to sail the seas wherever they like, carrying their cargoes to ports of call for free trade among nations. Freedom of the seas also means the right to mine and fish the resources of the seas, unhindered.

Nations have traditionally claimed a slim line along their coasts as sovereign territory for protection of national interests and defense. Three miles out from shore has been the traditional limit recognized by nations. That distance used to represent the range of a cannon on shore. Any waters outside such limited claims have been understood to be free of control. The rights of individuals and private companies to use the seas for pleasure and commerce has been unquestioned.

That’s all about to change. In the name of “social equity,” a euphemism for “redistribution of the wealth,” the UN’s Law of the Sea Treaty will replace the freedom of the seas concept with central control from an international body, specifically the United Nations. Under UN control a new supranational agency has been created called the Seabed Authority.

The Seabed Authority is organized identically to the UN General Assembly using the one nation, one vote model. That means that numerous, tiny Third World nations can organize a block of votes hostile to the United States and other industrial nations. Such a setup has created an unworkable situation in the General Assembly and it’s why that body achieves very little of worthwhile substance. Now, the same gridlock expects to rule the seas of the world.

The Seabed Authority will have the power to regulate all the seas – roughly seven-tenths of the world’s surface area. It will have the sole power to issue permits for fishing and mining and drilling operations under the surface. It can fix prices of sea products and impose quotas on how much is produced. It can levy international taxes and impose production quotas on deep-sea mining and oil production; control ocean research and exploration; and create a multinational court to enforce its dictates. Don’t be surprised to see Seabed Authority ships plying the waters, stalking ships, and mining and drilling operations it deems in violation of its authority.

The Seabed Authority can force governments and private companies to file for permits and impose fees and it can delay production for years. Yet, in the end, after charging up to a million dollars for permit fees, there is nothing in the Treaty that requires the Authority to EVER issue even a single permit. In addition, the provisions establishing the Authority gives it the power to set up its own mining and drilling activities, and compete right next to private efforts. That provision alone should set off alarm bells concerning the fairness of permit decisions.

The revenues raised by the Seabed Authority make it a powerful force that will likely be controlled by the Third World block. This new wealth and power may lead to the establishment of a cartel of sorts where the Third World nations could control all assets of the seas for their own interests, leaving developed nations at their mercy.

Under the Law of the Sea Treaty, U.S. national defense interests would be dangerously threatened as several provisions of the treaty would prevent inspection or boarding of suspected terrorist ships. When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan after the 9-11 terrorist attacks, several ships controlled by al Qaeda were seen fleeing the area and were chased down and boarded by U.S. war ships. Equipment, weapons and the terrorists who owned them were apprehended.

Yet the treaty offers still more of a threat to our national interests. It demands that nations share information with all others concerning sea exploration. This provision constitutes a mandatory technology transfer and can include military secrets such as submarine detection techniques.

The most dangerous aspect of the treaty has nothing to do with the seas, however. Rather, the danger lies with the United Nations gaining the authority to impose taxes through the Seabed Authority. The UN is basically a club. It has private members who pay voluntary dues. Only governments have the power to tax, operate a court system or field armies. If the UN gains the power to tax through the Law of the Sea Treaty, the cat is out of the bag. There can then be no stopping any of hundreds of taxing schemes now floating around the UN. The UN has already established its own criminal court. Given the ability to tax, it will be two thirds on the way to becoming the global government of its dreams.

The Law of the Sea Treaty is clearly a massive threat to the sovereignty and independence of the United States and our private companies operating internationally. Is it any wonder why Senator Lugar is putting pressure on Senate Majority Leader Frist to push the treaty through without debate and without a recorded vote. He wants none of these facts to get a public airing.

The treaty has been reborn because a massive lobbying effort has been waged by those who seek UN global governance. Environmental groups stand to gain incredible power to block oil drilling and mining. International corporations think it will be easier to deal with one central power than with multiple foreign countries. Several oil and mineral companies think they can use the treaty to gain their own form of power and cut their competition. They play to get theirs at the expense of everyone else. It’s an old game played on Capitol Hill. All of them will find in the end that they’ve played a costly hand indeed.

The fight over the Law of the Sea Treaty is really an ancient one between those who believe in the concepts of private property and free markets and those who can’t conceive of anything not being controlled by government.

The seas have been free for the entire history of mankind, except when controlled by a dictator. We’ve fought pirates and Hitler to keep them open. Why would we now surrender that freedom to mindless, faceless bureaucrats who covet power and care nothing for our rights?

The actions of Senator Lugar and his cohorts defy comprehension by reasonable Americans. Yet so far, Americans have remained silent while the Law of the Sea Treaty is being slipped through to stealth ratification. Our senators are sending the message that they don’t need you in the process. They don’t feel the need to hear from you. Instead, they want to cater to the wants of a powerful lobby.

Will we let them get away with it? Will we see this massive piece of our liberty drown in the seas while we do nothing – again? A massive outcry of NO now will stop it. It just requires one phone call to your United States Senator. Here’s the number: 202-224-3121. Call it and stop the Law of the Sea Treaty and keep the seas of the world open and free – as they’ve always been.

Reprinted by permission by Tom DeWeese

Tom DeWeese is Founder and President of the American Policy Center, a grassroots activist think tank and one of the nation's leading advocates of individual liberty, free enterprise, and property rights. For over thirty years he has fought against government intrusion in these areas, and today is passionately involved in the fight for the preservation of American private property rights and against intrusive environmental regulations. Former editor of two Ohio newspapers Tom is the publisher/editor of The DeWeese Report, makes regular appearances on radio and television talk shows and is a published writer in several national publications. You can contact him at (540)341-8911. www.americanpolicy.org.

When fully implemented, LOST would consummate the largest act of territorial conquest in history, turning seven-tenths of the Earth's surface over to the jurisdiction of the United Nations

And in the process giving the UN an independent source of income that would enable it to field it's own military forces

Which is a long-running goal of the UN

What is our President's position on this?

BTTT!

Maybe you would consider the following as our poster girl for this effort!

What is our President's position on this?

He's been rather coy, but his State Dept. has continued pushing it via both Colin Powell and Condileeza Rice. He has done nothing overtly to discourage it, and a raft of his officers have claimed he supports it. E.g., as reported by Phyllis Schlafly up above:

When Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) asked Condoleezza Rice during her confirmation hearings about the Law of the Sea Treaty, she replied that President Bush "certainly would like to see it passed as soon as possible." Assuming she was authorized to deliver that shocking news, George W. Bush can no longer claim the mantle of the Ronald Reagan legacy.

The fact that RINO Sen Lugar is endorsing the LOST treaty makes it even less appealing.

Agreed. Spotted this interesting "debate" where Lugar's points were made at a Brookings affair...with no rebuttal...the author remedied that strange omission by the policy wonks therein.

If these two had actually squared off ...I believe Lugar would have had his hat handed to him by the Lady...

Law Of The Sea Treaty - Debating Both Sides
By Gabrielle Reilly

Law of the Sea Treaty: The Law of Sea Treaty, like any Treaty, obviously has both those who are for it and those against it. I would like to counter the arguments of those who are for it and let you consider this critical decision.

Here is a rebuttal to abbreviated remarks that Senator Lugar made at the Brookings Institution conference on Law of the Sea Treaty:

Senator Lugar: Consequences of Not Joining the Convention
1. The United States would not have a seat at the table to protect against proposed amendments that would roll back Convention rights we fought hard to achieve.

Gabrielle Reilly: The seats are rotating so there is no guarantee of having a seat at the table.

Senator Lugar:
2. Some nations may press for restrictions on the movement of naval or commercial vessels near their coastline. Others may pursue the right to exclude nuclear-powered vessels from their territorial waters. (Under the Convention, a ship's propulsion system cannot be used as an argument to restrict its movements.) As a party, we will be in a very strong position to prevent harmful amendments. <

Gabrielle Reilly: Incorrect we will not be in a strong position. It is one vote, one nation. China and Pakistan together have more say than we do. Iran is also on this list of countries with accession to ratify. Want Iran someday to be voting on decisions that impact the US? We would have a 1 in 145 say. Currently we have the option of not abiding, which keeps our power. The Treaty gives our power away to countries who oppose us. In the event a nation does press to restrict movement we can deal with it then, but more to the point, not being part of the Treaty does not exclude us from negotiating directly with a country ourselves.

Senator Lugar:
3. In addition, the Convention's Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf will soon begin making decisions on claims to continental shelf areas that could impact the United States' own claims to the area and resources of our broad continental margin. Russia is already making excessive claims in the Arctic. Unless we are party to the Convention, we will not be able to protect our national interest in these discussions.

Gabrielle Reilly:There are other options to protecting our national interests and special interest groups should not determine the well being of our country. National security, and not being tied into a legal binding contract with a corrupt organization still trumps this point. At any rate, with the recent Yukos scandal and a move back toward government ownership again, Russia may find it hard pressed to find the capitol in requires to drill at sea when they have so many resources still undeveloped on the main land without such great risk, for the immediate future anyhow... and even if they do, we still have no guarantee we could stop them.

Senator Lugar:
4. Opponents seem to think that if the U.S. declines to ratify the Law of the Sea, it will evaporate into the ocean mists. Unlike some treaties, such as the Kyoto Agreement and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, where U.S. non-participation renders the treaty irrelevant or inoperable, the Law of the Sea will continue to form the basis of maritime law regardless of whether the U.S. is a party.

Gabrielle Reilly:We have been operating successfully for the past few decades without signing the Treaty. I still have not seen any information to justify the risk of changing that. In fact, in light of the extent of the UN corruption and anti-American sentiment that is all coming to light now, it would be completely foolish to sign at this point.

I don't completely exclude the possibility in the future... maybe 100 years when global shrinkage has allowed all the different tribes around the world to integrate a little more. But our forefathers came in boats fighting to get away from corrupt governments that rip food from peoples mouths. Now we plan to do a full circle and give authority to an international government that is riddled with corruption and people who do not have our best interest at heart? That makes no sense. The timing is very wrong.

Senator Lugar:
5. International decisions related to national claims on continental shelves beyond 200 miles from our shore, resource exploitation in the open ocean, navigation rights, and other matters will be made in the context of the treaty whether we join or not.

Gabrielle Reilly: Remember it is one nation, one vote. When you look at our land mass and population, then assess how many smaller countries who hate us, make up the Middle East alone, it puts us at a tremendous disadvantage. The Middle East would have far more political power of US interests than the US would. That is undoubtedly a recipe for disaster and would increase the pressure between nations that could lead us to war again.

Senator Lugar: Nonetheless, did the U.S. act in accordance with the provisions of the Convention?
Yes, with the exception of those related to deep seabed mining (i.e. offshore oil)

Gabrielle Reilly: Yes so why change it?

Senator Lugar: Many of the arguments they have made are patently untrue. Others are obsolete in that they attack the Convention as it existed in 1982-as if the re-negotiation of the Convention had never occurred.
For example, critics have contended that the Law of the Sea will give the United Nations control over oceans when the Convention provides no decision-making role for the U.N.

Gabrielle Reilly: This is just a play with words... the Convention is a UN agency. The Iraq Oil-For-Food Program was also supposedly separate from the UN and we are just seeing information that over $20 billion was embezzled from that program. Senator Lugar does not even address the track record of corruption which is paramount in accessing the feasibility of entering any contract, particularly such an extraordinary contract as the Law of the Sea Treaty.

Besides, here is just one of the ways they can get around that loop hole: "Under the dispute settlement mechanism of Special Arbitration (used for disagreements involving issues of navigation, fisheries, the environment and scientific research), both parties to the dispute choose two arbiters. The 5th – or, the swing arbiter – is chosen by the Secretary General of the UN! It can be expected (as we know) that he/she will make sure to appoint someone unsympathetic to U.S. interests. You’d see a lot of 3-2 decisions in favor of America’s adversaries." Center For Security Policy

Senator Lugar: Did the U.S. participate in a negotiated agreement?
Yes. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush initiated further negotiations to resolve U.S. objections to the deep seabed mining regime. These talks culminated in a 1994 agreement that comprehensively revised the regime and resolved each of the problems President Reagan identified in 1982.

Gabrielle Reilly: There is definitely a disagreement on that fact among many, including Frank Gaffney, "To be sure, President Clinton reached an accord called “The Agreement” in 1994 that purports to address some of President Reagan’s concerns. Since the Agreement does not actually replace or modify the relevant sections of LOST, however, the Treaty is still fatally flawed and objectionable on national security, sovereignty and legal grounds." Frank Gaffney Article

Senator Lugar: What is the current debate about?
Concerns have been expressed primarily by those who oppose multi-lateral agreements.

Gabrielle Reilly: Good ole partisan, political smokescreen... more rhetoric and a gross generalization. We make multi-lateral agreements all the time. We just try to be wise enough to make agreements that bind us with our allies and reserve serious judgment of signing agreements that give away any of our rights to our enemies. That is common sense.

I personally am actually not anti-UN. I think they have their role in rebuilding countries, but with the very firmly imposed guidelines that they cannot be in control of the money, nor our soldiers. The UN is filled with people who have some very good skill sets, and it is a way the world can share in the expense and co-ordinate the helping of poor, war torn, countries and in natural disasters, etc. Like in the case of the tsunami effort, all funds were outsourced from the UN for the first time to a reputable, independent accounting firm. Provided that long term measures are taken, like the financial auditors have to turn over every three years to prevent any long term partners in corruption developing, this could be a good fix to begin with.

Senator Lugar:In fact, most of the articles and statements opposing the Convention have avoided mentioning the military's longstanding and vocal support for Law of the Sea. This is because to oppose the Convention on national security grounds requires one to say that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Chief of Naval Operations, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and, indeed, the President of the United States are wrong about the security benefits of the Treaty.

Gabrielle Reilly: Incorrect, it is because we are dedicated to putting our view across. We recognize their support and disagree with the very fundamental aspects of the Treaty. That's what we do in politics... debate policy.

Senator Lugar: General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has written: "The Convention remains a top national security priority. It supports efforts in the War on Terrorism by providing much-needed stability and operational maneuver space, codifying essential navigational and overflight freedoms."

Gabrielle Reilly: With all due respect to General Richard Myers, the very premise that the UN offers "stability" after the Iraq sanctions were never enforced due to the extensive corruption and conflict of interest, lead us into a pre-emptive war. It would assume we are dealing with a legitimate organization. That is a very flawed and outdated foundation for supporting this Treaty. The very premise of why someone would support with this Treaty just 2 years ago has changed tremendously in light of the new information of the UN network of global corruption that is being peeled back layer by layer as we speak.

Those who adapt to changing circumstances rapidly, are the ones who survive. UN corruption is the new issue we have to adapt to after 9/11. How many people died on 9/11? How many people died in Iraq because the UN didn't enforce the sanction because it now clearly appears they were being paid off by Saddam?

Senator Lugar:Vern Clark, the Chief of Naval Operations, has stated that "the Convention supports U.S. efforts in the war on terrorism while leaving unaffected intelligence collection activities. Future threats will likely emerge in places and ways that are not yet known. For these and other as yet unknown operational challenges, we must be able to take maximum advantage of the established navigational rights codified in the Law of the Sea Convention to get us to the fight rapidly."

Gabrielle Reilly:Yes, "in ways not yet known." We didn't know the UN officials were in bed with Saddam on 9/11. Look how long it took to get into Iraq after the UN bureaucracy slowed us down most likely to avoid exposure of the corruption. That gave us no speed, and in fact hindered our ability to get WMD's before they could have been shifted out of the country. "Speed" is not what the UN has to offer. It would be wise to not give more legal control to an organization that sleeps with our enemies and is filled with officials are so philosophically opposed to us.

Senator Lugar: Admiral Clark also delivered impassioned testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee underscoring that U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea would reduce the need for dangerous operations in which the Navy threatens the use of force as a means of asserting navigational freedoms.

Gabrielle Reilly:I passionately don't want to have to seek the Convention's approval before dealing with an Al Qaeda or a North Korean ship on the high seas. I know the Al Qaeda and North Korea sure won't be abiding with the Treaty... in fact that is one of the problems also. We will be one of the few countries who will actually comply. Lets not have our hands tied behind our back in the event we have to go into the boxing ring. After all the UN's anti-US rhetoric I would lay odds they won't be covering our back, but inflaming our enemies to punch even harder.

Senator Lugar:Opponents are similarly reluctant to mention the unanimous support of affected U.S. industries. To oppose the treaty on economic grounds requires opponents to say that the oil, natural gas, shipping, fishing, boat manufacturing, exporting, and telecommunications industries do not understand their own bottom lines. It requires opponents to say that this diverse set of industries is spending money and time lobbying on behalf of an outcome that will be disadvantageous to their own interests.

The vast majority of conservative Republicans would support, in prospect, a generic measure that expands the ability of American oil and natural gas companies to drill for resources in new areas, solidifies the Navy's rights to traverse the oceans, enshrines U.S. economic sovereignty over our Exclusive Economic Zone extending 200 miles off our shore, helps our ocean industries create jobs, and reduces the prospects that Russia will be successful in claiming excessive portions of the Arctic. All of these conservative-backed outcomes would result from U.S. ratification of the Law of the Sea Convention.

Gabrielle Reilly: We already have rights to develop up to 200 miles off our shore. We are one of eight States that fought for that right decades ago. Most of the remaining countries had only 12 miles off their coast line they can call theirs, so it is an advantage to them, not us and... signing the Treaty would not guarantee we would prevent Russia from staking claims in the Arctic at any rate.

Senator Lugar:Yet the treaty is being blocked because of ephemeral conservative concerns that boil down to a discomfort with multi-lateralism.

Gabrielle Reilly: More political rhetoric. Senator Lugar could not convince me that putting a billion dollars of our defense money in a bank in Europe that is known for embezzling billions, no matter what the return, was a good idea either. Our opposition stems primarily from market confidence to put it in economic terms.

Senator Lugar: Multi-lateral solutions do not always work. Some multi-lateral agreements that have been brought before the Congress during the last decade were poorly conceived or impossible to verify. But our negotiators won in talks on Law of the Sea. We are hurting no one but ourselves by failing to exploit this hard-earned diplomatic victory.

Gabrielle Reilly: That's debatable, but they may not win on any issue once we sign and are legally bound to it.

Senator Lugar: With respect to the Law of the Sea, the discomfort with multi-literalism also fails to recognize the obvious: there is no unilateral option with regard to ocean policy. The high seas are not governed by the national sovereignty of the United States or any other country. If we are to establish order, predictability, and responsibility over the oceans-an outcome that is very much in the interest of the United States-we have to engage with other countries.

Gabrielle Reilly: It is covered under the Geneva Convention and has been working fine. One of the few things I would like to see is the international licensing of all ships to assist with our vulnerability, but the Sea Treaty does not cover that.

Senator Lugar:Consequently, the United States cannot insulate itself from the Convention merely by declining to ratify. There are 145 parties to the Convention, including every major industrialized country.

Gabrielle Reilly: It cannot insulate itself by joining either with one vote, one nation.

Senator Lugar: The Convention is the accepted standard in international maritime law.

Gabrielle Reilly:I will use President Reagan's reaction for that " "Well, Mr. Reagan shrugged, he was not going along with something "really stupid" just because 150 nations had done so for a decade."

Senator Lugar: At some point, a foreign nation will seek rule changes to the treaty that restrict passage by U.S. Navy vessels.

Gabrielle Reilly: Maybe, but that does not mean we cannot negotiate with the country ourselves directly and in fact, have more power by doing so with economic incentives etc than having to depend, and wait on, an international tribunal. Look at what we went through to go to Iraq. Timing is everything on the fight against terrorist groups getting their hands on WMD's. We cannot be held back from addressing problems in a timely manner by a huge international bureaucracy.

Senator Lugar: At some point, our oil and mining industries will want to prospect beyond the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone. They won't do that without the international legal certainty provided by the Law of the Sea that their claims and investments will be respected by other nations.

Gabrielle Reilly: With the way the Oil-For-Food program was run I doubt any corporation at this point would seriously consider doing business under such corrupt and unstable circumstances. Like Russia with the whole Yukos oil affair.

Senator Lugar: At some point, Russia or some other country will succeed in having excessive ocean claims recognized because we are not there to stop them.

Gabrielle Reilly:With one vote there is no guarantee we would be able to stop them anyway. We are at a great disadvantage with the amount of countries that make up Europe as an example. We are basically comparable in land mass to Europe who would get a vote for every European country, landlocked or not, to our basically 50 states (that could be compared to countries) within one country giving us only one vote. This is a very powerful political tool that could be used to severely disadvantage us.

Senator Lugar:Sen. Lugar addresses the issue of a "tax", in his http://lugar.senate.gov/sfrc/questions.html as follows:
The ISA has no authority to levy taxes. The Convention does contemplate the elaboration of rules for payments of royalties to the ISA from revenues generated from deep seabed mining. Under the Convention's rules, such royalty payments would be used to cover the ISA's expenses. (Section 7 of the Annex to the 1994 Agreement Implementing the Convention's deep seabed mining provisions).

Gabrielle Reilly:Another play with words... "royalties," "taxes," it is still money going to them. Didn't they use the same justification for the Oil-For-Food Program? Surely their track record needs to be paramount in this debate, but is not even being addressed.

Many ask a far more important question... was the UN corruption just about greed, or was it also potentially being used as a political tool by those who hate us and want to destroy America? Until that critical question is answered by all the investigations, we cannot sign this Treaty. The supporters of this Treaty were most likely supporting this prior to the knowledge we have now of the extent of the UN corruption. That information should be critical to them continuing to support the Law of the Sea Treaty now. Most of the people who oppose it were not even aware that is was back on the table so only one side of the story was told at any rate. It was an expertly orchestrated political maneurve. Don't let this Treaty proceed.

It is the stroke of every brush that creates a magnificent piece of art.
It is the quality of every ingredient that makes a fine gourmet meal.
And it is the effort of every citizen that creates an outstanding community.

Do one small thing and call your Representative to tell them to not support the Law of the Sea Treaty. Your voice counts. Take action and call:

____________________

You tell 'em Thats an Aussie girl for you !

The 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty was written with the same pen on the same paper by the same people.

What would induce a single American --- no matter how leftist --- to support this handing over of power to the same group who brought us the Oil For Food program and the genocide in Rawanda?

Uh, didn't you read? Its to fight terrorism.

Do you know?

someone resurrected this thread.

What is our President's position on this?

Uh, I'll get back to you.

***

Q Scott[McClellan], the Treaty of the Law of the Sea is something that's talked about almost never at any of the briefings here, and recently, Senator Inhofe held hearings over at the Natural Resources Committee in the Senate which indicated that if the treaty were ever ratified, it would lead to U.S. citizens paying international taxes and U.S. troops under some kind of world control. In other words, it very deeply could affect sovereignty. Is the President opposed to ratification of the Treaty of the Law of the Sea?

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me get you some more information on that and I'll come back to it. I'll be glad to talk to you about it.

Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
The James S. Brady Briefing Room

May 24, 2004

***

Q On at least one occasion last year, you stated the administration's support for ratification of the Treaty of the Law of the Sea. Dr. Rice, in her confirmation hearings, underscored support for ratification. When it was in the White House, the Reagan administration killed the treaty, and several officials, alumni of that administration, still speak out against it. What has caused this administration to change the attitude that the Reagan administration had, and support ratification of the treaty?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think we put out some information on that when the President announced, I believe, a committee to look at these matters and work to address these issues. I really don't have any further updates for it right now. I'll be glad to take a look at it, though, John, and we can get back to you.

Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
The James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

January 31, 2005

***

Q Since we're going to be briefed later today on the prison situation, I'd like to just turn to another subject right now. Last month, when I asked about the treaty -- the Law of the Sea, you were kind enough to have your office get back to me and indicate the President's positive reaction to the treaty, although questions about the security provisions of it. Given the fact that the late President Reagan and his administration were very opposed to it and helped put it off when it came up previously, why is this President different in his approach to the treaty? And also, will the administration watch the hearings Chairman Hyde is about to have on it?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I mean, the administration always follows issues before Congress, and this would be one of them. So we have, certainly, people that follow these issues. 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. I don't really have anything more to add to it right now. But I'll be glad to get you some more information.

Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
The James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

June 22, 2004

LOST Ping.

lmao, because I don't know what else to do (except maybe scream).

Great post. When I think of something else to say, I'll get back to you.

BTW, who was the questioner? It's amazing that he/she was invited back.

The LOST would essentially make travel outside a country's EEZ UN-regulated. The deep seabed would never be utilized; it's a pipe dream to imagine any company would manage to get through their morass of regulation, or any reason why one would try.

When fully implemented, LOST would consummate the largest act of territorial conquest in history, turning seven-tenths of the Earth's surface over to the jurisdiction of the United Nations.

I have just one thing to say:

"In you f-ing dreams Kofi!"

De-fund, Deport, Denounce, Disarm, Disband!

The press briefings don't show the questioner's names, so I'll have to get back to you on that.

Vice President Cheney is an advocate of LOST. He doesn't have to listen to American voters because he will never again run for office.

I don't have to listen to American voters either. I'm never running for anything. But that doesn't mean I will speak kindly of a treaty that will subject our nation to tyranny.

Forget about Cheney running for office or not running for office.

What would motivate him to support this UN boot on the back of our necks?

What would motivate him to support this UN boot on the back of our necks?

Serious and long-term connections to mining interests.