Posted on 08/10/2007 8:11:43 AM PDT by processing please hold
The Law of the Sea Treaty, a k a "LOST," the leviathan of all U.N. regulatory and environmental treaties, has again reared its ugly head, despite having been "deep-sixed" years ago by the Reagan administration.
A legacy-oriented White House is now shepherding it through a Congress whose majority enthusiastically embraces collectivist European-style environmental activism and multilateral treaty-making — at the expense of constitutionally-protected individualism and property rights.
Is the White House merely ill-informed, or has it intentionally chosen to ignore the lessons of history? Does it not recall the past decade of highly contentious trade disputes between the United States and an environmentally-obsessed and protectionist European Union, which operates on what is known as the "precautionary principle" — "I fear, therefore I shall ban."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Know where it is to be based? From what I can glean, Jamaica!
Headquartered in Jamaica, the International Seabed Authority has an assembly, a council, a bureaucracy and commissions, all drawing tax-free salaries. If the United States ratifies the treaty, Americans would have the same vote in the International Seabed Authority as Cuba, an unprecedented surrender of U.S. sovereignty, independence of action and wealth.
Also this.
The treaty also created the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, headquartered in Hamburg, Germany, with the power to decide all disputes and enforce its judgments. Of course, there is no guarantee that the United States would have even one judge on this 21-member international court, and it's reasonable to assume inherent bias against the United States by the anti-American countries whose representatives will make all decisions.
There can be no appeal from this tribunal's decisions, even though they would affect the sovereignty, security and economic interests of the United States. There is no restriction on the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
Administration lobbyists claim that the original problems with the treaty have been fixed. That is not believable because the text of the treaty can't be changed unilaterally.
Hey RW, read the last sentence. There goes your clause theory out the window.
Article 317
I had to read the whole thing up to that point to find it. Took six minutes. Not interested in reading in reading amateur commentary.
It cannot be changed unilaterally. I'm sure all our friends in the un will allow us to change what we're not comfortable with. After all, the un and its members are our closest friends and they support us in all we do.
What part of ‘unilateral’ do you not understand? Thank you.
The discussion was about repealing the Treaty. There is always an out clause just as there is in the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty. The Pres has authority to do this by himself and Congress has already given permission by adopting the Treaty and need not be consulted further.
We cannot unilaterally change the treaty. How do you not understand that? There is no clause. It's a smoke screen. And it's working on you.
It’s not my clause. It’s actually in the Treaty. There does appear to be a hermeneutical situation going on here, so we’ll have to give this up as a lost cause rather than a LOST CLAUSE.
LOL
It's a Marxist program with the un controlling the purse strings.
I can just imagine that 10 years from the time it passes there will be at least one UN inspector on every commercial boat and ship that’s underway. Probably some fool that the Captain has to receive permission from in order to avoid hitting another ship. Without the written permission he will lose his papers for unauthorized course changes.
Naturally the UN appointees on our military ships will either be Chinese or Russian.
LOST PING
>There is always an out clause just as there is in the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty.<
If it’s there, then bring it out for all to see. Get your research teams working on it or else shut up about it.
Have you read the Cato report on this beast.
See above and watch your language.
See above and watch your language.
Chinese and Russians already use SOLAS for boarding American vessels. They use it as a form of harassement.
The Testimony of Baker Spring
F.M Kirby Research Fellow in National Security Policy
The Heritage Foundation
On
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
Before
The House Committee on International Relations
May 12, 2004
Conclusion.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is a modest step toward the creation of an international sovereign authority unchecked by the governed. Nevertheless, it is a significant one. Given that modern states, including the one envisioned for a united Europe, are the product of a combination of just such steps, it is one the United States should not be taking. Further, the treaty contains a number of specific provisions in such areas as regulation, energy, the environment, national security, and constitutional law that are deeply troubling.
National leaders in Europe seem to aspire to relegating their nations to the status of provinces inside a supranational European authority. In this context, it is not surprising that some outside the United State see this move in the direction of broader authority for international entities, which Secretary Shultz has warned against, as desirable.
As for America’s leaders, they should firmly reject such aspirations for their nation now. Insofar as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea seeks to move the United States in this direction and serves as an indicator of steps yet to come, it poses a danger to the vision America’s fathers had for the nation they founded in 1776.
Mr. Chairman, I again thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy to answer any questions the Committee may have regarding the Convention.
Entire article HERE
I would hope that we at least return the favor. You know just to give them something to scratch.
This dead chick, the creator of LOST also had this to say:
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.
Agenda 21.
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.