President Bush tells base to "get LOST"

Center for Security Policy ^ | May 10, 2007 | CSP Decision Brief

[upchuck]

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.  

The Bush Administration's strong enthusiasm for subjecting this country to such an accord compounds concerns about its penchant for other Transie initiatives, including the North American Union/Security and Prosperity Partnership (NAU/SPP) now being stealthily negotiated between U.S., Canadian and Mexican officials and interest groups.

A Bill of Particulars

Among the problems inherent with the Law of the Sea Treaty are the following:

• U.S. ratification of LOST would give real substance to the supranational organization it established, the International Seabed Authority, an entity charged with governing activity on 2/3 of the earth's surface. The Authority (as it is ominously known) has powers unprecedented in the history of multilateral institutions – for example, the power to levy what amount to international taxes, with the intention of transferring wealth from developed nations, like the United States, to the developing ones.
  
  
• LOST has its own court – called the Law of the Sea Tribunal – that will be able to dictate to this country on a host of matters bearing on our security, our sovereignty and our economic well-being.  The United States may not even be represented on this politicized, multinational court, let alone be able to prevent its adverse rulings.   For similar reasons, the Bush Administration has wisely worked to keep its interests and officials out of the clutches of another such panel, the International Criminal Court.
  
  
• The Law of the Sea Tribunal determines its own jurisdiction.  It is reasonable to expect that it will feel free to assert authority over U.S. naval activities that: allegedly affect whales; involve intelligence and submerged operations in territorial waters; and attempt to prevent terrorist attacks and proliferation by stopping and searching ships on the high seas.  The Tribunal has already claimed jurisdiction over a nuclear power plant ashore in Great Britain!
  
  
• LOST would oblige the United States to transfer possibly militarily significant technology and information to the UN's International Seabed Authority and its member states, including possibly America's adversaries.   This could result in the compromise of technologies that could be used, for example, in anti-submarine warfare and will afford them data (detailed imagery of underwater access routes, off-shore hiding places, etc.) that could be used to facilitate attacks on this country.  It is not consistent with either American principles or interests to provide enemies with tools to use against us.
  
  

• LOST is emboldening Communist China to become ever more aggressive , threatening regional and global security and economic interests.  China has used its own interpretation of LOST to assert control over much of the South China Sea in its quest for access to vast quantities of natural resources, potentially sparking conflict with its neighbors.  In addition, China has expressed its willingness to use LOST as a legal mechanism to prohibit other countries from coming to Taiwan's defense in the event that the mainland decides to attack the island.
  
  
• LOST sets a dangerous precedent that could be used to deny the U.S. "freedom of space."  Just as American naval power has assured and safeguarded "freedom of the seas" for many decades, this country's ability to have assured access to and use of space is vital for both our own national security and commercial interests and those of the Free World.  Adversaries recognize this reality, and as with the Law of the Sea Treaty and our planet's oceans, they are attempting to inhibit our dominant position in and control of space through the imposition of international laws and regulations.   LOST will be a model for a new multilateral regime to govern the last so-called "global commons": outer space.

The Bottom Line

One would think that the last thing President Bush needs at the moment is to alienate those who have stood beside him – through thick and thin – as he has striven to do the hard things needed to protect the security and (to a lesser extent) the sovereignty of the United States.  He is unlikely to get much credit from the transnational progressives, who detest him, for this concession to their agenda.  His embrace of that agenda, however, puts at grave risk the support the Administration could otherwise expect, and will certainly need, from those who have admired him and oppose what the transies have in mind for America.

[Reagan Man]

Another fine example of Bush the globalist.

Ding dong, ding dong ......

[EternalVigilance]

You got it. LOST is the giving away of the game to the U.N.

[William Terrell]

Could this mean that the two SC appointees are globalists, too?

[Tzimisce]

hm.........

[Tzimisce]

hm.........

[B4Ranch]

LOST is what will put the UN Charter at the top of the heap above the US Constitution!

Bush is a traitor and there is no way around it.

[DakotaGator]

LOST establishes a new nation; the Ocean-sea. LOST confirms the UN as the sovereign power over the Ocean-sea.

It’s that simple. It’s that terrible!

[Hostage]

Keep in mind as you both get up to speed on LOST that it applies to continents too.

The way it is intended to be used on Continents is by controlling the entire atmosphere and the environment of that atmosphere. If there are emissions emanating from the USA to Europe over the ocean, the LOST governing body can impose penalties on the USA.

LOST really is the UN’s agenda law for imposing its will on America.

[gitmo]

I haven’t written my congress critters in years. Just fired off three letters opposing LOST.

I don’t think they’ll oppose the President, though. Myrick & Dole seem to be firmly behind him on every topic.

[EternalVigilance]

Jeane Kirkpatrick 2004 Senate testimony:

"The LOS Treaty establishes a sweeping claim of jurisdiction over the seabed and all its mineral wealth. It creates an International Seabed Authority in which it vests control of two thirds of the Earth’s surface.

Under the LOS Treaty the power of the Seabed Authority would be vested in an Assembly made up of all participating states and an Executive Council of 36 members elected by the Assembly to represent investors, consumers, exporters of affected minerals, developing states, and all the geographical areas of the world.

The formula for representation guaranteed that the industrialized “producer” countries would be a permanent minority. And they would have a majority of obligations. Most importantly, votes of the Assembly would be on the basis of one vote/one country, with a two-thirds majority binding on all parties.

A company desiring to get a contract for seabed exploration would be required to identify two promising sites, one of which would be claimed by the Authority to mine itself or to otherwise dispose of, the other of which may be given to the company. The company would be required to provide its technology to the Authority, which would also be provided to members with the capital necessary for mining.

Special taxes would be imposed and special care would be taken to protect existing producers of minerals against competition from minerals available in sea. Worst of all, there was no guarantee that qualified applicants ready to meet these requirements would be granted permission for mining.

From the Reagan Administration’s point of view, the most disturbing aspect of the LOS Treaty was the structure of decision making. We felt the U.S. role in decisions should reflect our political and economic interests in the Treaty and our contributions to UN operations. The G-77 was determined to treat all nations alike, and the U.S. as one nation among 180. We were not guaranteed a seat on the 36 member executive council.

The notion that the oceans or space are the “common heritage of mankind” was—and is—a dramatic departure from traditional Western conceptions of private property. ....

The Reagan Administration also saw serious constitutional questions. How could the constitutional requirement that treaties be ratified by the Senate be met if the contents of the agreement could be altered by a two-thirds vote of the members? This provision for easy amendment by an Assembly majority made the Treaty an open ended commitment. Henceforth, the United States would be bound by what two-thirds of the Assembly said we should be bound by...

[upchuck]

No offense taken. I’m certainly not an elitist, globalist tool. I can barely spell that. LOL!

[Swordfished]

Looks more and more like we’ll need the 2nd amendment to defend our liberties against the UN too.

[upchuck]

Is that some kind of secret code? This post rates just one star? Out of how many?

:)

[AuntB]

CONDI IS LOST AT SEA

http://www.conservativeusa.org/bushwatch.htm

“During her confirmation hearings, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was asked a question that got lost in the Barbara Boxer brouhaha: Did the administration favor the ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST?

“Rice said the administration ‘would certainly like to see it pass as soon as possible.’ Assuming she was authorized to say that by President Bush … the question is why?”

REAGAN SAID NO TO UNLOST, BUT GWB IS PUSHING IT

“LOST was a bad idea when President Reagan refused to sign it in 1982 and actually fired the State Department staff members who helped negotiate it. It was drafted at the behest of Soviet bloc and Third World dictators interested in a scheme to weaken U.S. power while transferring wealth to the developing world.”

TREATY WOULD TURN OVER THE OCEANS TO KOFI ANNAN AND U.N. JUDGES

“The Convention on the Law of the Sea would do to our maritime activities – military and economic – what the ICC would have done to our system of criminal justice: place it under the thumb of a supranational body, in this case the discredited and corrupt U.N.

“… LOST would have created an agency to regulate 70% of the Earth’s surface, placing seabed mining, fishing rights and deep-sea oil exploration under the control of a global bureaucracy. Reagan didn’t think the U.S. should be a part of this global resource grab and redistribution of wealth. …”

[upchuck]

The worst thing about the LOST is that it grants the International Seabed Authority the power to tax.

LOST is just another of many globalist power and money transfer schemes.

[Grizzled Bear]

Long term Sea security is in the interest of the entire free world.

I don’t want it to be our Coast Guard that enforces that, do you?

---

Right. Our friends in the UN will “take care of us.” You have seen how they enforce peace in the Balkan and the Middle East. Do you want to give them control over our coasts and large inland lakes (read the treaty)?

I will give my life to resist losing our sovereignty. I hope the chains rest gently on your shoulders.

[Cicero]

Oh, hell. This one slipped right under the radar screen. I thought it was buried for good.

Now that he has the Democrats to help him push it through, Bush raises it from the dead yet again. I agree, this is just about the LAST STRAW with this idiot. He’s a nice guy, but it looks as if by the time he leaves office he will screwed up more than he has fixed.

We just got that idiot Sandra O’Connor off of SCOTUS, and how we have Bush imposing international law on us. And this from the guy who refused to submit to the International Court of Justice in earlier days.

[Lakeshark]

This stuff has been posted for years, it’s never happened and never will. It’s ignorant ranting at best.

[upchuck]

Is this a reliable source of information?

Here are the bios of the folks running the Center for Security Policy. Seem pretty secure to me.

I haven’t seen anything else to indicate this intention of the president.

See the link right after the article and before reply #1.

[stylin19a]

off shore drilling becomes absolutley dead in the water...