Permission Slip for the Sea

The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea already has created a Byzantine array of international organizations to administer the provisions of LOST. Everything from compliance with global environmental agreements, to the collection of "user fees" from private companies, to disputes about military operations above, on or under international waters are subject to mandatory dispute resolution by one or more of these international bodies.

I admit to being late to the game on this.

I have been watching it percolate for the last year or two, but it hasn't risen to a level where I felt i needed to pay much attention to it. Lately, I have begun to look at it, and now feel the need to dive in and find out what it is all about. There are two things in particular I her that stuck out in this over the last year for me:

1.) The UN will have power to administer, legislate and set fees in the territory covered by LOST.

2.) The U.S. Navy is in favor of the treaty.

Now, being the son of a 30 year naval officer (who served as XO on one of the destroyers that spent the longest time on station in the Cuban Missile Crisis) and having spent a tour in the USN myself, this made me sit right up and wonder...WHY would the US Navy be in favor of this???? So I intend to find out.

In this piece by Oliver North (whom I greatly respect), this was the passage that caught my attention:

"...But Articles 19 and 20 of the treaty would proscribe the U.S. Navy from training with weapons, collecting intelligence or interfering with enemy communications in the territorial waters of other countries without their expressed permission. Military aircraft are prohibited specifically from taking off and landing in these waters, and severe limitations would be imposed on loading and unloading "any commodity, currency or person" including military equipment. Submarines are required to travel on the surface and "show their flag in territorial waters." Article 30 states that warships not complying with the laws of a coastal nation can be forced to leave. Disputes about these issues would be adjudicated by international lawyers...."

Huh?

In any case, I need to find out more. But there are several key pieces of information that are already causing me to prejudge it:

1.) Joe Biden and other US Liberals are FOR it.

2.) The UN will have power to collect fees and administer to it.

3.) Ronald Reagan and Phyllis Schlafly are AGAINST it.

On a final note here, this passage made me think: "Article 30 states that warships not complying with the laws of a coastal nation can be forced to leave. ...In the past, I would have said: "So...MAKE our warships leave." Under this treaty, the UN can impose legal strictures and fees directly on US business and interests and make them stick, because they would have the legal power to do so, which the treaty gives them.

Every time someone looks at the treaty some new troublesome aspect of it is revealed. For example, Oliver North says

Before casting a vote to ratify LOST, all 100 senators should read Article 314 of this onerous treaty and Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. The U.N.-crafted document specifies that amendments to the treaty can be adopted -- and therefore enforced -- without the consent of any signatory. Yet our Constitution requires that two-thirds of our Senate concur in any treaty. Do 67 members of this Senate now want to surrender that authority to foreign governments?

Another aspect of the treaty, that has gotten little attention, is the creation of a multinational corporation called the "Enterprise", wholly owned by the Seabed Authority (the treaty administrators), for the purpose of exploring and extracting from the seabed. This is the first time ever that the UN has tried to create such a business enterprise that would compete with businesses of its member states. Looks like a recipe for world-class corruption.

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.