Posted on 09/16/2007 11:40:42 AM PDT by processing please hold
A move by the Bush administration in May of this year which fell under the radar is soon to come to the Senate. On September 27th the Senate will debate and vote on the full ratification of the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Seas or in short The Law of the Seas Treaty. The treaty in essence gives the United Nation legal jurisdiction over the planets ocean and sets up a tribunal to govern all legal claims to territorial waters, mineral rights and mining and other uses of the worlds oceans, including navigation.
The treaty which has been in existence since the first Conference dating from 1973 - 1982 has never been ratified by The United States. When first presented in 1983 President Ronald Reagan categorically refused to even sign the treaty because he felt that it impugned on United States sovereignty.
Certain portions of the treaty have been beneficial and the United States abides by these terms as a matter of international law. For instance the treaty sets basic territorial waters and prevents nations who wish to push these territorial limits from over extending the recognized waters around their shore line borders. In other words in accordance to treaty limitations a nation cannot stretch its sovereign waters to a limit of say 250 miles and expect all other nations to abide by those unreasonable limits. Yet even with the treaty some countries have over extended their territorial waters without consequence. China and North Korea are among those.
The main contention that The United States has had to the treaty is Part XI which gives the UN full legal control in all mineral rights on every seabed found on the earths oceans. Without treaty ratification if a nation finds, for instance an mineral deposit in international waters and wishes to mine it then they are free to do so. Also ratification of the treaty would place United States fishing interest under the jurisdiction of the UN. U.S. fisheries would have fishing limits set by UN control and if those limits were exceeded they would be required to turn surplus catch over to distribution by the UN.
The Treaty would also require the United States to plead any case which questions the treaty before a non - elected United Nations Tribunal which then would decide in favor or against the United States. In light of the way every UN vote is conducted in recent years and the way that the United States is treated by that vote, this tribunal would be a disaster for U.S. interests. The UN after all loves U.S. money but hates U.S. interests.
In May the Bush Administration at the behest of career diplomats in the State Department urged the United States Senate to ratify all provision of the Treaty and the vote for this ratification begins on September 27th. In the past either a Republican President like Reagan or a Republican Majority in the Senate has blocked any ratification of the treaty. Now with a Democrat Majority who favors all UN control provides a distinct possibility of fully ratifying this treaty.
The dangers for the U.S. in this ratification are as follows:
1. The U.S. would be answerable to a UN unelected tribunal for all matters which involve the Seas and ocean borders of our nation.
2. Other countries environmental regulations could be forced on the United States through the UN and our surrounding waters by international law and mandate. The harvest of our fishing waters would also fall under UN mandate which will set limits and require fishing only in certain areas and relinquishing the surplus harvest to UN distribution. The requirement would also mandate over fishing in these particular areas.
3. The treaty would mandate recognized navigation rights. This provision is not only not necessary but not wanted by US interests because these UN mandated navigational lanes are not threatened by any international law and there is not a nation who has the capability of dictating to the US where we may travel, including the Navy in the world oceans.
4. The treaty gives a blank check to the UN on the spending of money supplied by the U.S. without ANY U.S. oversight.
5. The treaty gives eminent domain rights to the UN over intellectual property. In other words the UN would have the power to seize technology.
This treaty, if ratified, would allow the United Nations a free hand over all of the worlds oceans and any mineral actions taken in the oceans would not only come under UN jurisdiction, but would be taxable to the UN without ANY outside oversight on the spending of the monies acquired. All navigational lanes would be set by UN mandate and any country traveling outside of those mandated navigational lanes, including Navy's would be subject to action by the unelected UN tribunal.
This treaty, if ratified, would transfer wealth and technology by UN mandate from industrialized nations to third world countries. In other words a world wide socialized redistribution of wealth forcing the financial equality of all nations. This treaty would create a huge United Nations bureaucracy with legal jurisdiction over the worlds oceans. The UN has failed in the past in every instance where they have been allowed to run, oversee or control any program. Remember the Iraq Oil For Food Program. Now the US Senate is poised to ratify a treaty that dwarfs the Oil for Food Program both in scope and jurisdiction.
Since the treaty was written the opposition by the U.S. has caused many nations to not sign on to the treaty. The first Bush administration and the the Clinton administration proposed provisions that supposedly corrected the flaws and the Clinton signed the treaty in 1994 which caused some Nations to follow suit and others to ratify. The GOP controlled Senate stopped ratification and many nations who had signed the treaty have not ratified in accordance to the U.S. lead.
Now the present Bush administration is backing full ratification and a Democrat Senate who back the UN and adhere to socialist policies could very likely ratify the treaty. There are 34 no votes needed to prevent ratification. Call, write or e-mail you Senator and urge them to vote against ratification. Time is short. September 27th is just around the corner. This treaty will place vital United States interests under UN control and threatens our sovereignty as a nation which cannot be allowed.
We stopped the Senate Amnesty Bill and with a similar concentrated effort by the people we can prevent the ratification of the Law of the Seas Treaty and save American sovereignty and interests.
Excellent post, thank you for the info.
That is not what page 9 of the PDF says. It says signed, August 21, 1996, with a footnote to take affect December 2001.
The International Tribunal, established by the Convention, is one of the dispute-settlement forums to which parties might submit their disputes. It has exclusive jurisdiction in disputes concerning deep seabed mineral resources,
provides advisory opinions when called upon to do so, and may be called upon to prescribe injunctive relief or provisional measures before a case or dispute was to be decided on the merits. Most often, the Tribunal’s injunctive and provisional measures have been directed at cases involving the detention of vessels and their crew. The Tribunal holds its meetings and hears cases at its seat in Hamburg, Germany. It is composed of 21 members (judges) elected to nine-year terms.
We, the US, will have but one vote in any dispute created by unclos. One vote.
Taking the un's past records in supporting us, how do you think they'll vote when a dispute arises?
I'm sorry for the delay. God I miss my bookmarks. Give me a minute.
I don’t know. And Clinton should be jailed for doing this to us.
If you have trouble opening that PDF, let me know and I’ll take a screen capture and post it.
I’m going to cube some buffalo meat now, be back later.
(tidbit, buffalo makes the best sauces!)
“Is Bush the Anti-Christ or was the left always right about him being dumber than a box of rocks??”
Yes.
No commercial deposits of any mineral can be found. Obviously plenty of minerals of some types, but none economic to mine.
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/status.htm
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was open for signature on 10 December 1982 and entered into force on 16 November 1994. Out of 159 original UNCLOS signatories, 29 have yet to ratify. From among 38 States that did not sign UNCLOS or were not independent States at the time of its opening for signature, 17 have acceded or succeeded to it. Certain coastal States have not yet expressed their consent to be bound by the Convention. These were, as at 30 September 2005: five in the African region (Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and Morocco); 10 in Asia (Cambodia, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Israel, Niue, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Turkey and United Arab Emirates), one in North America (United States of America) and six in Latin America and the Caribbean
I'm looking for their list of countries.
We have not ratified it - yet.
There are a couple of treaties that have not been ratified yet to complete the NAU.
I had them at hand at one time; but I lost those (they may be with your bookmarks).
I think I can find them though. Will take a few searches and I can’t do that until later.
But, that post (link) is more proof showing the NAU is not a conspiracy theory!
Makes me wonder why they want to go there. No country spends the money it would require to go there without there being some sort of payoff.
A country would do it because it demonstrates national competency in hi-tech and the capability is parallel to military competence. It’s all for show and national image. They might talk about tech spin-off, but it’s kind of a lame argument.
Can offensive weaponry be set up there? Or is that too far for lasers?
There is a time limit set for unclos - 2009.
I think I can find them though. Will take a few searches and I can’t do that until later.
If you find them, please ping me to them.
I have to start my NAU folder all over again.
Speaking of the NAU. Have you seen the courses offered at Arizona state?
http://www.asu.edu/clas/nacts/bna/
Teaching Modules: Backgrounders and Cases
Building North America Into Your Course
North American Economic Integration: General Overview
Analyzing North American Integration
Managing North America
North American Structures and ¨Sites¨of Integration
Continental Strategies of Selected North American Companies
Complete List of All Modules
So they love to blow tax dollars to show how smart they are? Makes sense, ain’t their money.
I defer to RW on the topic of the Space Treaty.
No one could have said it better than you did. American citizens need to forcibly relocate the United Nations to more appropriate surroundings. A great place would be Darfur, Africa. My next question is who is going to be the enforcing arm of this treaty of the sea?
If they need somebody with experience on the water perhaps they could appoint Ted Kennedy as a rear admiral.
“Face it. We have repeatedly elected a whole lot of traitors to power in this country in both parties and they have sold us out and are on the verge of doing us in for their own benefit.”
Oorah, pen.
Boots.
“Did someone know we were going to be hit the fall 2001 and want to restrict a response?”
GMTA
1st WTC hit 1993.
Operational meetings starting thereafter.
Funding approved by OBL in 1999? 2000?
Who ELSE knew? John Doe #87040-A?
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.