Global nightmare: Saving the LOST

World Net Daily ^ | March 4, 2004 | Jane Chastain

[hedgetrimmer]

When I first heard of the LOST (Law Of the Sea Treaty), it sounded like a bad plot for a science-fiction movie.

In the '60s and '70s, when the United Nations organized and led a series of conferences on the Law of the Sea, most considered the idea too weird to be taken seriously.

However, this maritime nightmare is about to become a reality.

The LOST was hatched by a group of internationalists who want to give the United Nations control of seven-tenths of the earth's surface area. It creates an International Seabed Authority to regulate the vast oceans and everything that happens beneath these waters, as well as everything that travels above or below their surfaces.

In addition, it would – for the very first time – create a revenue stream for the United Nations and give this onerous international bureaucracy true independence from its member nations.

Under the LOST, the United Nations would have the power to tax any and every type of sea-going vessel, as well as any type of ocean research and exploration. In fact, it would give the United Nations absolute control of these activities.

How would the United Nations exercise this control? It could persuade member nations to provide "seakeepers" to do its bidding. However, if that should fail, with its own revenue stream, the United Nations would be free to recruit and maintain its own standing army of paid international enforcers. Many believe that if you can control the great seas and oceans of the world, you control the world!

President Ronald Reagan was not about to give away the ability we now have to conduct activities in international waters. When Reagan refused to support the LOST, it slipped quietly beneath the waves until 1994, when President Bill Clinton dredged it up and signed it.

However, when the LOST went over to the Senate for ratification, Foreign Relations Chairman Jesse Helms told Clinton to get lost. Clinton was followed by George W. Bush, a president cut from the mold of Ronald Reagan, who was willing to work with the United Nations, but unwilling to be controlled by it. The LOST was gone forever, or so it seemed.

It has recently come to light that some members of the Bush administration have been working behind the scenes with a group of international businessmen who want to resurrect this many-tentacled ocean monster. It likely has something to do with the black gold hidden under the sea

It now appears that its ratification is being pushed by Vice President Dick Cheney, the man who ran Halliburton before being pressed back into public service by President Bush.

Mr. Cheney, say it isn't so!

Many of Cheney's buddies in the oil industry see the LOST as a way to recoup the millions they have been denied by our capitulation to the radical environmentalists, who keep us from drilling in our territorial waters. Understandably, they would like to see some protection for the millions they would like to sink into undersea oil exploration in international waters. They mistakenly see the United Nations as that protection.

Since when has the United Nations – largely is controlled by a pack of socialists or outright dictators and thugs – protected our interests?

Even more troubling, the U.S. Navy is quietly pushing for LOST ratification. The Center for Security Policy correctly states that the treaty effectively prohibits two functions vital to American security: intelligence collection in – and submerged transit of – territorial waters.

Why would the Navy sink under pressure for the LOST?

In the 1990s, following the Tailhook incident, the Navy allowed itself to be bullied by a bunch of finger-wagging, radical feminists. Should we be surprised that the Navy now has allowed itself to be torpedoed by a bunch of over-the-hill guys in business suits?

Unfortunately, the threat from the LOST is real and immediate!

Dick Lugar, the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, dutifully carried the water for the administration on the LOST, only allowing proponents to testify at a brief hearing. He is hoping to bring it to the floor for a surprise vote before any opposition can be organized.

Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club sued Mr. Cheney to get the records of what went on behind the closed doors of his Energy Task Force. It must be pretty embarrassing, because Mr. Cheney refused to comply with two lower-court rulings and appealed all the way to the Supreme Court in order to keep those records away from the American people.

Perhaps, just perhaps, it was this battle plan for the LOST.

[hedgetrimmer]

LOST is indeed alive and well.

We need to find bill numbers and start a letter campaign ASAP.

[hedgetrimmer]

LOST PING

[Bikers4Bush]

It doesn't matter who we put in office. They are all UN loving, globalist, socialist scumbags.

[hedgetrimmer]

Then we need to get decent patriotic Americans to run.. and stop supporting the internationalists.

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

[Bikers4Bush]

I could not agree more.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP - LOST

[Ribeye]

You speak the truth.

Both parties are globalist, elitest pukes with an agenda that does NOT include the absolute sovereignty of the U.S. or the protection of the rights and welfare of it's citizens.

They don't even try to hide it.

[TigersEye]

Good find. Thanks for the ping.

Previous thread here.

[hedgetrimmer]

FYI

Parties to the Law of the Sea treaty yesterday adopted the 2004 budget for the convention's tribunal and discussed the changing role of the 21-year-old pact.

Meeting participants agreed to allocate $8 million for the tribunal next year, less than the $8.6 million originally proposed at the meeting's opening session. The reduction was made possible by eliminating some communication and equipment spending and by modifying some budget procedures.

Delegates also discussed whether the meeting should expand its role to address issues other than budgetary and administrative matters. Chile, supported by several other nations, proposed that the meeting should consider questions relating to the implementation of the law of the sea, while Norway, Japan and the United Kingdom, as well as the United States as an observer, argued that there was no legal basis for expanding the meeting's agenda.

Sierra Leone said the convention should be expanded to address problems of safety and human rights of international seafarers and illegal smuggling, even if other international bodies also address them (U.N. release, June 12).

http://www.unwire.org/UNWire/20030613/449_5022.asp

[TigersEye]

The Center for Security Policy correctly states that the treaty effectively prohibits two functions vital to American security: intelligence collection in – and submerged transit of – territorial waters.

[hedgetrimmer]

FYI: Here is a 1998 bulletin on LOST from the American Geological Association:

The American Geophysical Union has sent out the following message to its membership in an effort to encourage Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms (R-NC) to allow the Law of the Sea treaty to complete the ratification process. Ratification has virtually universal support from all interested parties, including environmental groups, the American Petroleum Institute, the oceanographic research community, and the U.S. Navy. Ratification must take place by November 15th or the US loses its place on key governing bodies for treaty implementation. The treaty affects a great number of geoscientists, especially those involved in offshore petroleum exploration, marine minerals development, and marine research. A number of prominent geoscientists were involved in the treaty's development over many years, foremost among them the late Hollis Hedberg, many of whose ideas were incorporated into the final pact, signed in 1982.

http://216.109.117.135/search/cache?p=%22law+of+the+sea+treaty%22+2004&u=www.agiweb.org/legis105/seaalert.html&w=%22law+of+the+sea+treaty%22+2004&d=968F0BC03C&c=482&yc=22103&icp=1

[RightWhale]

This is important, mainly because it is related to the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty. While the sea, the continental shelf, the deep sea are interesting because of oil/gas, outer space is interesting because of unlimited potential. Outer space law is developing along the same lines as the law of the sea, mainly because the thoughts and ideas of our governors are limited to a handful of pragmatic possibilities. When it comes to deep sea development and outer space development, a monarchy with a strong navy is the way to go. The touchy-feely modern constitutional republics around the world will never achieve a pace of astounding development and insane profit from either the sea or outer space.

[Constantine XIII]

I'm sorry, but this seems a little kooky. Jane says all of these people and organizations (the US Navy?!) secretly support this goofy treaty, but she provides no evidince.

Take a gander at this particular little jem. It confirms, IMHO, that this article is a bunch of silly hyperventilating:

"It has recently come to light that some members of the Bush administration have been working behind the scenes with a group of international businessmen who want to resurrect this many-tentacled ocean monster. It likely has something to do with the black gold hidden under the sea

It now appears that its ratification is being pushed by Vice President Dick Cheney, the man who ran Halliburton before being pressed back into public service by President Bush."

It APPEARS that international businessmen conspiring against "us" and Cheney SEEMS to be selling his soul for oil. Where have we heard this before? Pu-leeze!

Moreover, does the fact that Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club sued the VP for info that may or may not exist really mean anything? Since when have they ever known their elbows from their, uh, ears?

I could be wrong, but this is seriously setting of my baloney meter.

[farmfriend]

I found this on Thomas.

Treaty Doc. 103-39
October 7, 1994 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, With Annexes, Done at Montego Bay, December 10, 1982 (the "Convention"), and the Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982, with Annex, Adopted at New York, July 28, 1994 (the "Agreement"), and signed by the United States, Subject to Ratification, on July 29, 1994. August 11, 1994 -- Public hearing. (S. Hrg. 103-737.) October 14 and 21, 2003 B Public hearings.

[hedgetrimmer]

Research for you. Here is testimony on the LOST treaty from last year. As far as I can tell from a quick glance, nobody opposing the treaty was allowed to testify.

Read these and you will understand how this treaty is going to get railroaded through Congress.
The UN Convention
on the
Law of the Sea (T. Doc.103-39)

---

HEARING
before the

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION

---

Tuesday, October 21, 2003

---

Time: 9:30 AM
Place: 216 Hart Senate Office Building
Presiding: Senator Lugar

Witnesses:
Panel 1
Rear Admiral John E. Crowley
Chief Counsel & Judge Advocate General
United States Coast Guard
Washington, DC
Admiral Michael G. Mullen
Vice Chief of Naval Operations
United States Navy
Washington, DC
The Honorable William H. Taft, IV
The Legal Adviser
Department of State
Washington, DC
The Honorable John F. Turner
Assistant Secretary
Bureau of Oceans and International
Environmental and Scientific Affairs
Department of State
Washington, DC
Mr. Mark T. Esper
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Negotiations Policy
Department of Defense
The Pentagon
Washington, DC
Panel 2
Mr. David G. Burney
Executive Director
U.S. Tuna Foundation
San Diego, CA
Ms. Randi Thomas
National Representative
U.S. Tuna Foundation
Washington, DC
Mr. Joseph J. Cox
President
Chamber of Shipping of America
Washington, DC
Mr. Paul L. Kelly
Senior Vice President
Rowan Companies, Inc.
Houston, TX
Vice Admiral Roger T. Rufe, Jr., USCG (Ret.)
President
The Ocean Conservancy
Washington, DC
Additional Witnesses May Be Added...



http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2003/hrg031021a.html

[farmfriend]

An article CATO's web site.

Faulty Repairs: The Law of the Sea Treaty is Still Unacceptable

[Bikers4Bush]

What makes me sick is how many people don't see what's happening in both parties.

[hedgetrimmer]

There is a draft of the treaty.

http://ioc.unesco.org/oceansciences/unclos/ABE-LOS%20I%20-engl/ABE-LOSI-11%20Roach%20.doc

Here is a document on the Senate's role on treaties.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/congress/treaties_senate_role.htm