Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: upchuck

Another fine example of Bush the globalist.

Ding dong, ding dong ......


41 posted on 05/13/2007 10:32:25 AM PDT by Reagan Man (FUHGETTABOUTIT Rudy....... Conservatives don't vote for liberals!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Reagan Man
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...

50 posted on 05/13/2007 10:43:51 AM PDT by EternalVigilance ("Romney seems to be Giuliani-lite, only slicker. No thanks." - Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson