Posted on 06/24/2004 11:47:16 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
The very controversial Law of the Sea Treaty, LOST, which is still in committee, is a done deal, according to a senior White House official. Of the 145 countries that have ratified this United Nations treaty, the U.S. is the only major power not to have ratified it. Various groups of countries that have signed it include all of the G8 countries with the exception of the U.S., almost two-thirds of the countries in our hemisphere that are members of the Free Trade Areas of the Americas, as well as both NAFTA partners.
The Law of the Sea was placed into effect on Dec. 10, 1982. It consists of 17 parts, nine annexes and over 435 articles. The structure is like a "United Nations for the Oceans" with a council, assembly and secretariat. In addition, it has a commercial profit-making arm called the "Enterprise" through which the U.N. will sell rights to mine the ocean beds.
Tommy Koh, who was the president of the Third U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea, called it "a comprehensive constitution for the oceans which will stand the test of time." At the time he cited U.S. support for the "progressive development of international law" as being key.
Mr. Koh stated, "We have strengthened the U.N. by providing that political will. Nations can use the organization as a center to harmonize their actions. We celebrate human solidarity and the reality of interdependence which is symbolized by the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea."
At the recent Group of Eight meeting, a number of high-level officials from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, were there to discuss the advances made in ocean science. They were joined by James L. Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. They celebrated "World Oceans Day" by presenting the finds that science has been responsible for over the past 19 years, including locating the RMS Titanic. It was Dr. Robert Ballard, aboard NOAA's research vessel the Ronald H. Brown located above the Titanic and one of the ship's discoverers, who guided us on an underwater tour of the sunken ocean liner.
By satellite, he explained that as a result of new technology, they have been able to discover many other vessels such as the Bismarck, the Yorktown, other maritime ships from World War I and World War II as well as Roman, Venetian, Carthaginian and Greek ships. Dr. Ballard said they have begun to realize "the deep sea is a museum and contains more history than all of the museums combined in the world, and yet there is no law covering the vast majority, [putting] a great deal at risk. We need international cooperation to preserve the cultural history of our cultures throughout time."
In a follow-up interview with Mr. Connaughton, I asked him about the commercial side of the treaty that establishes for the first time a commercial venture called the "Enterprise" that will charge $250,000 for the right to mine the ocean sea beds. Since this is a U.N. Treaty, proceeds will go to the U.N. He replied:
"The Law of the Sea-LOST is an important component in the frameworks that are now set out there – key components as we reach further and further beyond our coastal lines. The U.S. government is actually implementing nearly every chapter of the Law of the Sea Treaty since it was first adopted, and we are now looking for Senate ratification. We had to make some improvements regarding the various economic enterprises we talked about – especially deep-sea mining. That is the initial framework. "As an international community we are still working our way through issues, and it begins with common international excitement and interest in deep-sea archeological treasures such as the Titanic and calls for this kind of international coordination and common cause and agreement. With Senate ratification of LOST we have found a way to deliver security benefits to the nations, economic benefits as well as important enhancements of our ability to do ocean conservation. We have a treaty going on where you can have Titanic."
I asked him if Congress needed to cover their actions since it has already been implemented. He told me that there were pieces that needed to be fixed with regard to the deep-sea mining provisions. He went on to explain:
"There is no deep-sea mining beyond sovereign areas right now. These have been addressed in the treaty, which has gone back in [legislative] cycle. Since 9-11, there is a heightened interest in assuring that these international instruments are taking into account security concerns. So just as the Bush administration took time to make sure we had the implement components appropriate for our national security, that same dialogue is going on in the Senate."
Furthermore, Mr. Connaughton told me he was not aware that mining interests would go to the U.N. as a funding mechanism or that the Law of the Sea was a U.N. treaty. When I asked him about the Law of the Sea constituting a "Constitution for the Sea," he said:
"It is actually the next step in oceans governance beyond sovereign waters. I would like to leave it at that. As you heard today [in the various presentations] there are many things we are learning and doing and many international arrangements that have yet to be worked out, and the Law of the Sea is an important foundational tool, but it is not the only tool. This treaty on the Titanic for example is occurring outside the Law of the Sea."
When I asked about if the purpose of the Law of the Sea was to protect history, he said, "It is one very successful component of implementation because whenever someone discovered a missing ship from history, they had total rights to it."
He elaborated, "Now we are understanding the need to get proper science done and if property rights are to be associated, they can be done in arrangement with science. So we are still working it out."
Obviously, Mr. Connaughton and those on the panel knew about the international agreement that was just signed by Britain, the United States, Canada and France, all members of the G8, on June 18 to protect the Titanic from thievery and damage caused by salvages and undersea tourists. This agreement, which has been under negotiation since 1997, is an outgrowth of the Titanic Maritime Memorial Act of 1986 signed by President Reagan. Congress will have to approve this international agreement.
I venture that since the Law of the Sea is a done deal that this new agreement will be made part of the Law of the Sea legislation – or perhaps it will be the other way around. Since "we the people" have become nothing more than serfs with government collecting our tax dollars and using them without representation, it is our freedoms, using the treaty's acronym, that have been LOST!
bump
Just what the UN needed...more open doors for corruption.
Thanks for bumping, friend.
Translation--"we can't have those nasty capitalists getting their hands on the gold and other goodies from sunken Spanish ships".
Cannot wait to see the day when our navy, passing through the strait of Gibraltar japan comes across a toll booth.
"Hey, anyone have a quarter?"
Just what we don't need is for the UN to get its own independent source of income -- which it can use to hire, train, and equip its own military "peace enforcement" troops
Doesn't this treaty have some serious military implications? Something about making it illegal for submarines to travel while submerged under certain circumstances. Also aren't there restrictions on the activities of naval vessels like needing U.N. permission to be in international waters? I thought parts of this treated were designed to keep the U.S. navy from going outside U.S. waters or some such nonsense. Anyone have info on this?
I'm glad to see that there is at least one other person out there who sees this for what it is.
We also don't need the U.N. (through the various and numerous "treaties") to destroy our sovreignty, either.
Now they are planning to remedy that little loophole.
Geez, I'm out of touch for 3 days and look what happens!
So the most corrupt organization in the world that has pulled of the most expensive rip off of taxpayer and public money(oil for food) is in charge of the oceans. Which means they are in charge of commerce, oil, natural resources (mining) and fishing.
Just great.
I ask you to please personally contact your senators and get in writing how they voted for it. We need to keep track of these people and vote the internationalists out of office.
By property rights they mean resource development rights. This is probably how outer space property rights will go as well.
That's next.
There should be a way to get the record of the Senate vote from Thomas.
sad ping.
OK, so they have a treaty.
It's still a big ocean out there. Let them try to enforce it. (snicker)
Ok, let me explain what this treaty is really about.
The land use control gained by this global bureaucracy will gain via LOST will be justified to "protect" the marine environment. It isn't hard to see. Many oceanic species breed in estuaries within the United States. Estuarine health isn't doing very well for a number of reasons (many of which politicized science will conveniently miss). The estuaries are fed by rivers. The rivers are lined with cities.
Marine sanctuaries and global biospheres are model for what is planned for LOST. If all we accomplish is to alter the treaty to gain protection for our military, we will have missed the point.
LOST is a straitjacket fully capable of crippling this nation economically (which certainly affects its ability to defend itself). That the White House says it knows nothing about it belies the fact that, according to the email I get from ALRA, the White House and Chuck Hagel are the instigators in pushing this treaty through in the dark of night after the Reagan Administration had rejected it out of hand.
Still feeling so non-chalant?
writing up the treaty is one thing, putting manpower on site to watch every inch of it is another. That's my point.
Controlling land use pursuant to that treaty is done with US officials: judges, zoning laws, and permits. Best you read up a little on how treaties are the foundation of US environmental laws that empower bureaucratic takings.
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.