Posted on 09/26/2007 6:14:03 AM PDT by kellynla
An international treaty under consideration by the Senate would seriously undermine the economic clout the U.S. currently wields at the United Nations.
Approval of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a 25-year-old international treaty regulating use of the world’s oceans, is steaming ahead in the Senate, where committee hearings have been scheduled to begin on Sept. 27.
Among other provisions, UNCLOS would levy a tax on members’ undersea operations, requiring nations to pay up to 7 percent of their sea-mining revenues.
There are some 400 million barrels of oil and large untapped reserves of natural gas and crystallized methane in underwater areas claimed by the U.S., and the taxes levied by the U.N.’s International Seabed Authority (ISA) would soar into the billions of dollars, according to Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.
That kind of cash flow would make the U.N. less dependent on member dues, and less vulnerable to countries that withhold payment to protest U.N. actions.
“This is just one more bad thing to come out of the U.N.,” Inhofe declared. “They are desperate for a way to collect global taxes so they don’t have to answer to us every time they do something that’s bad.”
The U.S. currently pays 22 percent of the U.N.’s budget, the largest portion paid by any country. America contributes more than $440 million in regular dues, plus $1.1 billion for U.N. peacekeeping efforts and $480 million to U.N.-affiliated agencies such as the World Health Organization and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Therefore the U.N. is extremely vulnerable to U.S. threats to withhold payments, as it has done in the past.
The U.S. protested loudly when the U.N. passed General Assembly Resolution 3379 in 1975, which equated Zionism with racism. Under the Reagan administration, the U.S. began to withhold its U.N. dues as a form of pressure on the world body.
In June 2005, the U.S. House passed a bill that would slash American payments to the U.N. in half if the organization did not meet certain criteria. A parallel bill in the Senate has not yet come to a vote.
About 155 nations have signed UNCLOS to date, and the U.S. is the lone holdout among the world’s major powers.
Some see the treaty as a way to redistribute money to developing nations. But Frank Gaffney, head of the Center for Security Policy in Washington, cautions: “The rate at which taxes are levied could easily be increased. That is particularly true given the tyranny of the majority of members who are would-be beneficiaries of any tax-fed redistribution of wealth.”
Gaffney also warned that U.S. taxpayers could end up footing the bill when the U.S. Treasury gets charged for overdue assessments owed to the ISA by private American corporations.
ping.
Wholeheartedly agree. And this tax needs to be exposed for the pickpocketing that it is and shut down.
I for one will not bow down to a global tax by ANY organization, be it a U.S. or Uganda organization, especially the U.N.!
It just doesn't matter anymore, these asshats will try anything to get their hands on more of our money and it's by God time to get rid of these bastards once and for all.
They are a no good for nothing corrupt bunch of thugs that need to be out of our country IMMEDIATELY.
Can you tell I hate them?
I still like the “League of Democracise” idea ... I wish folks would have picked up on it.
Does a traty require 60 votes in the Senate? Looks like the Senate will be the only place to stop it since the compassionate conservative says he’ll sign it.
2/3’s Senate.
At least 60 votes.2/3 infavor for passage. 67 votes.
First off, dump this POSW treaty. Secondly, how could the UN enforce the law? They have no standing army, no Navy, if we were to withold dues, what pray tell, could they do???
The UN must never be allowed to levy any tax.
NEVER! NEVER! NEVER!
The U.N. needs its own taxes, army, courts or how is it expected to become the one world dictatorship?
“Under the Law of the Sea Treaty, an “International Seabed Authority” would control the minerals and other resources of the oceans’ seabed. After taking its own cut, this UN body would transfer whatever is left to select third-world governments and non-governmental organizations.
The Law of the Sea Treaty also would give the UN power to tax American citizens and businesses, which has been a long-time dream of the anti-sovereignty globalists. LOST also would establish an international court system to enforce its provisions and rulings. Imagine not being able to do business internationally without the approval of the United Nations!”
Too many maybe’s and could be’s. Fact is the USA isn’t getting into resource development but foreign companies are, even within the territory of the USA. Shell is complaining the USA is placing 3 million acres of the USA off-limits to oil exploration. Why isn’t an American corporation complaining?
Actually, it was signed by Clinton and footnoted.
UN ratification documents and the U.S.A. ratified LOST August 1996
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/reference_files/status2007.pdf
This ratification has a footnote that stated not to be enacted until December 2001. See it at that PDF file.
The file clearly shows that the United States of America has not signed or ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The only thing that this PDF document does show is that the U.S. has signed and ratified the following about fish:
Agreement for the implementation of the provisions of the Convention relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks (in force as from 11 December 2001).
There are big blanks for the Treaty itself. You should not try to decieve people by inventing your own facts.
dvwjr
I don’t care about Clinton. Bush had better not further this surrender of our sovereignty.
Here is the snap shot with notation for you to follow.
Note, the treaties were signed in July and August 1996 and scheduled to NOT go in effect until 2001. The signature has a documentive footnote that is not labeled or referenced to be reviewed. If you know what the terms and conditions of that document is, I would love to see it.
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
The Bush Administration has a dispute or recapitulate opened about the LOST Treaty.
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/settlement_of_disputes/choice_procedure.htm
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Declaration:
“In accordance with article 30 (4) of the Agreement, the Government of the United States of America declares that it chooses a special arbitral tribunal to be constituted in accordance with Annex VIII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 for the settlement of disputes pursuant to Part VIII of the Agreement.”
From what I understand in reading the UN site, the Bush Administration is trying to get LOST revised, not revived. Because it was signed in 1996.
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.