Posted on 05/13/2007 5:15:39 AM PDT by driftdiver
WASHINGTON – In a move that has already angered some of his most ardent supporters, President Bush has asked the Democratic leadership in the U.S. Senate to revive a proposal for ratification of the United Nation's Law of the Sea Treaty, an international agreement defeated two years ago by Republican leadership in the upper house.
Critics say ratification would compromise U.S. sovereignty and place 70 percent of the Earth's surface under the control of the U.N. – even providing for a "tax" that would be paid directly to the international body by companies mining in the world's oceans.
The battle over the Law of the Sea Treaty first began 25 years ago, eventually being vetoed by President Reagan. It resurfaced in 2004 under the sponsorship of Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and was successfully defeated by then Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.
President Bush announced his intention to seek reintroduction of LOST for ratification to a small group of trusted Republican grass-roots organizers last week – an announcement that was met with horror and scorn.
Eagle Forum leader Phyllis Schlafly, Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney, Leadership Institute President Morton Blackwell, Free Congress Foundation founder Paul Weyrich and leaders of the Heritage Foundation were quick to denounce the idea in forceful terms, calling on their members to begin lobbying the White House immediately.
LOST has long had the support of environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council.
It would establish rules governing the uses of the of the world's oceans – treating waters more than 200 nautical miles off coasts as the purview of a new international U.N. bureaucracy, the International Seabed Authority
The ISA would have the authority to set production controls for ocean mining, drilling and fishing, regulate ocean exploration, issue permits and settle disputes in its own new "court."
Companies seeking to mine or fish would be required to apply for a permit, paying a royalty fee
Critics also point out the new U.N. agency would have the right to compete directly with private companies in those profit-making activities.
The U.S. would have only one vote of 140 – and no veto power as it has on the U.N. Security Council.
The Bush administration claims the initiative for reintroduction of the treaty comes from the military, which likes the 12-mile territorial limits it places on national claims to waters. Yet, critics point out international law already protects non-aggressive passage, including non-wartime activities of military ships.
One of the main authors of LOST not only admired Karl Marx but was an ardent advocate of the Marxist-oriented New International Economic Order. Elisabeth Mann Borgese, a socialist who ran the World Federalists of Canada, played a critical role in crafting and promoting LOST, as WND reported in 2005.
Borgese was hailed by her U.N. supporters as the "Mother of the Oceans" or "First Lady of the Oceans." She died in 2002.
The youngest daughter of the German novelist Thomas Mann, Borgese openly favored world government, wrote for the left-wing The Nation magazine and was a member of a "Committee to Frame a World Constitution." She served as director of the International Center for Ocean Development and chairman of the International Oceans Institute at Dalhousie University in Canada.
The U.N. Environment Program, UNEP, has said that Borgese recognized the oceans as "a possible test-bed for ideas she had developed concerning a common global constitution."
Borgese received UNEP's "Environment Prize" in 1987 and was credited with organizing the conferences that "served to lay the foundation" for the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea, according to Dalhousie University, which houses her archives.
In a 1995 speech, pro-U.N. Democratic Sen. Claiborne Pell said Borgese's ideas were "embodied in the negotiated texts of the Law of the Sea Convention."
Her ideas included recognizing the oceans as the "common heritage of mankind" and creating an International Seabed Authority to charge U.S. and foreign companies for the right to mine the ocean floor.
In a January 1999 speech, Borgese declared, "The world ocean has been, and is, so to speak, our great laboratory for the making of a new world order."
In an article titled, "The New International Economic Order and the Law of the Sea," she argued that the pact could "reinforce" the goals of the NIEO by giving Third World countries a role in managing access to the oceans.
In a 1997 interview, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation broadcaster Philip Coulter asked Borgese about the collapse of Soviet-style communism and the triumph of the "elites."
Borgese replied "there is a strong counter-trend. It's not called socialism, but it's called sustainable development, which calls ... for the eradication of poverty. There is that trend and that is the trend that I am working on."
The concept of "sustainable development," considered a euphemism for socialism or communism, has been embraced in various pronouncements by the U.N. and even the U.S. government.
In her book, "The Oceanic Circle: Governing the Seas as a Global Resource," she approvingly cites Karl Marx, the father of communism, as someone with "amazing foresight" about the problems faced by urban and rural societies. The book is available from the liberal Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.
In an article co-authored with an international lawyer, Borgese noted how LOST stipulates that the oceans "shall be reserved for peaceful purposes" and that "any threat or use of force, inconsistent with the United Nations Charter, is prohibited."
She argued LOST prohibits the ability of nuclear submarines from the U.S. and other nations to rove freely through the world's oceans.
But...but...he doesn’t like abortion, so it all evens out...
This is not a slam against pro-lifers, just those people who make it their single issue.
President George Bush’s ‘compassionate conservatism’ is mindless liberalism.
from:
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/
President Bush tells base to “get LOST”
CSP Decision Brief | May 10, 2007
The Law of the Sea Treaty will impede the U.S.’s ability to defend its interests in time of war.
President Bush is expected shortly to announce his determination to secure the early ratification of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, better known as the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). This treaty, which was rejected by President Ronald Reagan and bottled up by the Republican Senate in the last Congress, promises further to weaken the President’s already plummeting support among his political base, on and off of Capitol Hill.
LOST has long been the crown-jewel of a community known as the transnational progressives (”transies”) found in various quarters of this and foreign governments, international bureaucrats and non-governmental organizations. The transies seek to have supranational institutions govern world affairs, circumscribing the freedom of action and undermining the sovereignty of the American people and those of other freedom-loving nations. [snip]
“Well, we always have the Great Lakes to utilize our submarines to thwart any attempted attacks from Canada...”
If what I’ve read is correct the UN would also have authority over the Great Lakes. They don’t fall under the 200 mile limit but there is enough commerce there that the UN wants to get its hands on.
Reagan fired the State Dept weenies who invented this thing. That should be enough of a clue right there how bad it is.
This treaty is far more about land use control than it is about the oceans.
What would surprise me if this happened is, would enough people have the guts to send those bastards over at the U.N. packing?
I'm afraid our country is too feminized to even raise a fist.
From a second source then....
Weird. Completely pushing Hillary’s agenda - more effectively, actually, than she can.
If you have a moment, could you take a look at this thread and comment?
Unbelievable.
It's nothing but the cash flow and redistribution isn't it.
Always has been and always will be.
P.T. Barnum would love the mindset that the U.N. totes.
"If you got it, we want it".
They do have to reconsider their title.
United Nations?
How about United Banks(UB).
Then why is it still a thorn in the side of sovereignty?
Good Lord when it comes to defending and protecting our sovereignty overseas before it hits us stateside "again" liberals call it wrong and try to stifle it.
I does appear that there are those in government who are focused on our downfall and not our survival as a free nation. When the opportunity arises to bring our efforts to prevent another calamity home they are all over it by trying to toss foreign defense of our sovereignty to the dogs.
Now, giving credence to the idea of giving control of our commerce and defense over to many who are focused on our demise isn't just dumb thinking. It can't be just that.
I[t] does appear...
Just a reminder of what Mr. Gore thinks of this.
UN treaties are effective means for US to help Third World
Gore said that agencies of the United Nations “offer the US an effective means of doing our fair share to alleviate suffering in some of the most miserable corners of the globe.” On treaties not signed by the United States, Mr. Gore gave unequivocal support to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Law of the Sea Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
Source: Barbara Crossette, NY Times Aug 20, 2000
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Al_Gore_Foreign_Policy.htm
Our mere existence as a superpower and a sovereign country with a Constitution based upon personal freedom has done more for all of humanity just by our existence than any amount of monetary transferring that ALGORE could even contemplate in his petty mind.
Why is that so hard for some to see?
We are a good thing for humanity and to tote a mindset of change from that shows a sincere lack of understanding reality IMO.
Money doesn't guarantee freedom and happiness without conviction.
I do not believe a word from this article.
Why?
We sign on to this and we then lose control over and any legitimate claim to the sea; we sign on to Kyoto and the IPCC report and we lose control over and any legitimate claim to our atmosphere; we sign on to a mass amnesty for illegal immigrants and we lose control over and any legitimate claim to our share of the terra firma; where then, can any lines be drawn to define us as a nation?
What use would we have for presidents and the like as they would be but low-level diplomats?
Because WND have lied so many times before regarding all these issues about Bush “selling” the US to the UN or Mexico.
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.