Posted on 05/13/2007 9:29:27 PM PDT by PghBaldy
The U.S. Senate will soon exercise one of the fundamental responsibilities granted to it by the U.S. Constitution and vote whether to ratify the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Bush administration supports ratification and is joined in that position by a leading member of the U.S. Senate.
The Foreign Relations Committee, which I chair, voted 19-0 to recommend to the Senate that the United States join 145 other parties to enter the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). That Senate decision is pending as this publication goes to press.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee took up the treaty after President George W. Bush placed it in the “urgent” category of his treaty priorities. This agreement sets forth a comprehensive framework governing uses of the oceans that strongly upholds U.S. national security, economic, and environmental interests and is supported by affected industries, associations, and environmental groups.
It should be noted that the United States has already made a considerable investment in this agreement, and though not a party, has adhered to most of its precepts in our policies on navigation, commerce, and the environment. The United States played a prominent role in the negotiating sessions that culminated in the 1982 convention, which entered into force in 1994 when it was ratified by 60 nations.
As the world’s largest maritime power and a nation with one of the longest coastlines in the world, the United States has enormous interests in the oceans and their uses. The convention advances U.S. interests in a number of ways.
Our armed forces rely on the ability to navigate freely on, over, and under the world’s oceans to protect U.S. security interests worldwide. The convention reinforces U.S. national security by preserving the rights of navigation and overflight across the world's oceans. Both of these rights are critical to the protection of U.S. interests around the world.
UNCLOS advances U.S. economic interests by enshrining the right of the United States to explore and develop the living and nonliving resources of the oceans.
It advances U.S. interests in the protection of the environment by addressing marine pollution from a variety of sources and providing a framework for the conclusion of further agreements to protect and conserve these natural resources.
Joining the convention is also important to the ability of the United States to exercise leadership and influence over oceans issues globally.
In its all-encompassing treatment of these issues, the Law of the Sea convention provides a comprehensive legal framework to maximize use of the oceans’ resources, while ensuring their health and productivity for generations to come. Achieving a widely accepted treaty that enshrines and provides legal protections for key rights of navigation and overflight has been a principal objective of U.S. oceans policy for decades. UNCLOS fully achieves that objective.
The convention carefully balances the interests of individual member states and the interests of the world community at large. It allows nations to control activities off their own coasts at the same time it protects the freedom of all states to use ocean spaces without undue interference.
UNCLOS provisions allow countries to claim a territorial sea of a maximum breadth of 12 nautical miles, within which the coastal state may generally exercise plenary authority as a function of its sovereignty. The convention also establishes a contiguous zone of up to 24 nautical miles from coastal baselines, in which the coastal nation may exercise limited control necessary to prevent or punish infringements of its customs, fiscal, immigration, and sanitary laws and regulations that occur within its territory or territorial sea.
The agreement also gives the coastal nation sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing natural resources, whether living (e.g., fisheries) or nonliving (e.g., oil and gas), in an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) that may extend to 200 nautical miles from the coast. In addition, the convention accords the coastal nation sovereign rights over the continental shelf both within and beyond the EEZ, where the geological margin so extends.
These provisions are important to the United States because our coastal waters and EEZ generate vital economic activities such as fisheries, offshore mineral development, ports and transportation facilities, and, increasingly, recreation and tourism. The majority of Americans live in coastal areas, so their health and well-being are intimately linked to the quality of the coastal marine environment.
The convention also establishes a legal framework for the protection and preservation of the marine environment. In this area as well, UNCLOS achieves an effective and appropriate balance between the interests of nations in protecting natural resources with their interests in freedom of navigation and communication. The agreement addresses sources of marine pollution, such as pollution from vessels, seabed activities, ocean dumping, and land-based sources. The provisions obligate member nations to prevent and control pollution of the oceans’ waters and to cooperate in the management and conservation of living resources. Existing U.S. laws for the protection of rare and fragile ecosystems and the habitat of depleted, threatened, or endangered species are already consistent with UNCLOS.
As noted, a coastal nation has sovereign rights over living marine resources in its exclusive economic zone, that is, out to 200 nautical miles from shore. The convention’s provisions on fisheries are entirely consistent with U.S. domestic fisheries laws as well as forward-looking international fisheries agreements and understandings made in the last decade. Effective implementation of these agreements can bring about an end to rampant overfishing in the years to come.
The United States was an active participant in the talks that led to the convention in 1982, but declined to ratify because of objections to provisions on deep seabed mining. With the Oceans Policy Statement in 1983, President Ronald Reagan declared U.S. commitment to the principles of UNCLOS with the exception of the mining provisions. Subsequent amendments to the agreement by signatory nations have now satisfied U.S. concerns about deep seabed mining. It is time for the United States to become a fully participating member in this landmark convention to protect more than 70 percent of our planet’s surface. I look forward to leading the Senate toward a vote for ratification.
Senator Richard Lugar has served in the U.S. Senate since 1977, representing the state of Indiana.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. government.
Another power grab by the globalists
eroding our sovereignty and giving the world court more power over the USA and it’s citizens
as well as eroding advantages we have had for decades.
Law of the Sea = bad.
Ah, the U.S. giving up more of our sovereign rights. It stinks.
This is one of those things that has made it so hard for me to respect Bush and Cheney, who both support this abandonment of American sovereignty and wealth.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1832878/posts
That’s a great thread and a must read. The treaty, aptly named LOST, is another power grab by the tranzies (trans nationals) which includes granting the International Seabed Authority the power to tax.
It is interesting to compare Sen Lugars comments regarding Reagan with post #13 on the thread above:
“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.”
We have those rights now. Signing a treaty implies that without the treaty, we wouldn't have those rights. We have them with or without a treaty.
This is just a move by the Liliputians to tie us down, creating a layer of law where no layer of law is needed, and an authority where none is needed.
I am more in favor of the United Nations Convention on Moving the U.N. Headquarters Out To Sea.
Boats are available, and as Charles Lichtenstein said oh-so-well in 1983, “The members of the U.S. mission to the United Nations will be down at the dockside waving you a fond farewell as you sail off into the sunset.”
Flawed Sea Treaty Rises from the Deep February 25, 2004
President Ronald Reagan refused to sign it 22 years ago, and the Senate refused to ratify after President Bill Clinton signed it 12 years later. But it's back, says national security expert Frank Gaffney Jr.: the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is on the agenda of Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-Ind.).
Looks like it's rising again.
Pirates of the High Seas: Robbing with the Law of the Sea Treaty
Study urges Senate to reject the treaty as not in the American interest
A new study by the Cato Institute argues forcefully against the US Senate ratifying an international measure that would allow the United Nations (UN) to subject navigation and seabed to questionable international control.
According to the study, the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), which the UN has been urging the US to pass since the 1980s, would discourage resource and mineral development and wouldn't help the US and allies to intercept shipments of weapons of mass destruction.
Sink the Law of the Sea Treaty! March 7, 2005
Conservative Americans who consider George W. Bush a champion of national sovereignty have been shocked to learn that the president seeks Senate ratification of the UN's Convention on the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). Despite the Senate's refusal thus far to ratify the treaty, it went into effect in 1995, and elements of the vast regulatory apparatus it outlines are already in operation. 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. It would create a mammoth bureaucracy to regulate exploration of the ocean depths and commercial development of the seabed's riches. The UN would also be empowered to collect royalties on seabed mining, thereby providing the world body with a potentially enormous independent source of revenue to fund its agenda for "global governance."
!NUTS (!snoitaN detinU ehT wercS)
The US has extensively mapped the shelf over the last 25 years. Consider the amount of shelf the US will not be able to claim without signing the treaty and who will claim that shelf if the US doesn't.
We don’t need no steeenking sovereignty...
The earth is pretty much all claimed. However, the greater universe is not, except the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty extends sovereignty to the Hubbble limit if not beyond and effectively precludes development of the practically unlimited off-earth resources .
BTTT
New World Order, here we COME....!!!
Think Globally, Act STUPID.
This is just a move by the Liliputians to tie us down, creating a layer of law where no layer of law is needed, and an authority where none is needed.
That's great.
I called both my KY Senators and politely told them that the treaty was bad twice.
1-Bad for the country
2-Bad for the Republican party. The party base has had it with giving away US sovereignty and security. Crap on anyone enough and eventually they will quit even bothering to vote against the Rats. Forget even voting for Republicans.
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.