And this is different from the current state of affairs how???
;)
"[they] will be able to tell companies how much they are allowed to mine – the very next gasoline shortage can and may be caused by a group of rogue Third World nations literally cutting off our oil supply.""
The worst part about this treaty is that it funds the UN with a source of money that is independent of member dues. After the Oil for Food scandal, I do not see how anyone can think that is a good idea. We would have no control over the spending of the money and there would be the typical UN accountability--none.
1. It requires the US not to pollute the sea and subjects us to vague international standards that are enforceable against us by an international arbitration tribunal. So if LA wants to build a desalinazition plant, and greens think it will have some or the other bad effect, they have an additional tribunal to tie things up that is not answerable to US voters. Proof of this is found in a Brookings Institute article, which states that the treaty "has strong support from environmental groups, including the National Environmental Trust, the Ocean Conservancy, and the World Wildlife Fund."
2. If we ratify the treaty, we accept that the resources of the sea 'are the common heritage of all mankind.' This is mischievious language that is completely inconsistent with any notion of free market principles.
3. The supposed benefit of the treaty--recognition of commercial and military right of free transit on the seas--is illusory. The only guarantee of such a right is the US Navy and our willingness to enforce existing international usage. Suppose North Korea tries to restrict our right under the treaty to sail near their shore. Are we required to sue them? Who enforces it? The UN? The US Navy is still the ultimate enforcer.
4. The tax levied on deep sea mineral exploitation is administered by an international agency, the ISA. Tax monies are to be shared with member nations and with non-state organizations (eg the PLO). This could provide billions of unaccountable dollars of funding for mischief for international agencies to do harm.
5. Even the good things in the treaty (eg military transit rights, 200 mile sovereignty over resources etc) are explicitly made 'subject to this convention and international law.' That language gives leftist judges a hook to start combing thru international law to implement their constituent's agendas having to do with our military and commercial interests as well as our management of our ocean resources offshore.
6. The treaty can be amended by a 2/3 vote. There is already talk about amending it to prohibit impartant transit rights to nuclear powered ships due to supposed environmental concerns. If we sign the treaty and cannot muster 1/3 of the membership to vote with us, we have disabled our Navy from going to key parts of the globe.