Skip to comments.We Lose If LOST Wins (UN Law of the Sea Treaty)
Posted on 02/16/2005 5:21:47 PM PST by Coleus
We Lose If LOST Wins The Law of the Sea Treaty is not just a bad idea; it is a very dangerous legal document that heralds a major step into world government and grants vast powers to the UN.
by William F. Jasper
The Law of the Sea Treaty is not just a bad idea; it is a very dangerous legal document that heralds a major step into world government and grants vast powers to the UN.
Some bad ideas just keep coming back again and again, like a vampire that hasnt been properly disposed of with the wooden stake to the heart. The United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) is just such a creature. Pronounced dead several times over the past couple of decades, it was largely forgotten except by its internationalist sponsors. It has been resuscitated and now stands poised for action in the U.S. Senate.
The Law of the Sea Treaty is not just a bad idea; it is a very dangerous, concrete thing, a revolutionary legal document that heralds a major step into world government and grants vast powers to the United Nations. All of the blather, bombast and assurances of its supporters notwithstanding, theres no way to get around that fact. The treaty does create new jurisdictions and governing structures with real powers that threaten our national sovereignty. Among other things, LOST establishes an International Seabed Authority (referred to as ISA, or "the Authority"), a new UN agency to control the minerals and other wealth of the sea floor. This also means granting the ISA control over two thirds of the Earths surface no trifling matter. LOST designates this vast, watery commons as "the Area."
Article 136 of the treaty declares: "The Area and its resources are the common heritage of mankind." And Article 137 informs us: "All rights in the resources of the Area are vested in mankind as a whole, on whose behalf the Authority shall act." Thats certainly reassuring: The UN kleptocracy that has given us the massive Iraqi oil-for-food rip-off, and that has proven to be a bottomless sinkhole of corruption for nearly 60 years, is to administer the wealth of the oceans for the benefit of "mankind."
In case you didnt know, "the Authority" is already up and running; the ISA was launched in 1994, when the 60th nation ratified LOST. Like all UN-formulated entities, the ISA mimics the UN, with a sprawling bureaucracy and a confusing, Byzantine system of geopolitically weighted voting and representation. For the past decade, the ISA has been growing like The Blob. Headquartered in Kingston, Jamaica, it is comprised of a Secretariat, Assembly, Council, Legal and Technical Commission, Finance Committee, and the usual proliferation of committees, commissions, panels, task forces, etc. For dispute resolution there is an International Tribunal ("the Tribunal") in Hamburg, Germany. Or, if you prefer, you may opt for the International Court of Justice at The Hague, where Judge Shi Juiyong of Communist China sits as President. Some choice!
There are now 145 member nations, the only major holdout being the United States. As with the International Criminal Court, the Kyoto Protocol and other efforts by the UN and one-world elites to install what they euphemistically call "global governance," U.S. resistance to joining this new collective regime is being portrayed as contempt for "the world community" and disrespect for "the rule of law."
The Law of the Sea Treaty opened for signatures at the UN in 1982. At the UNs 20th anniversary celebration of that event in 2002, Koreas Tommy Koh, president of the 3rd UN Conference on the Law of the Sea, declared that LOST is nothing less than "a comprehensive constitution for the oceans" covering "every aspect of the uses and resources of the sea." Its difficult to get more comprehensive than that. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, at the same event, echoed President Koh, referring to the treaty as "a constitution for the oceans." Acting President of the UN General Assembly Clifford S. Mamba of Swaziland may have unintentionally let the cat out of the bag on that occasion, declaring that the treaty represented a major effort to achieve a "just and equitable international economic order."
Back in 1974, you may recall, a raucous UN General Assembly led by Fidel Castro and the Soviet-directed "Non-Aligned Movement" voted for a Marxist manifesto entitled "A New International Economic Order," or N.I.E.O. The Law of the Sea was a key element of the N.I.E.O. scheme for global socialist wealth distribution. It still is, though its advocates at the UN have learned that they make more progress toward their goal if they are less strident and more honeyed in their utterances.
Under LOST, the UN will finally have the tax and regulatory powers it has lusted after for so long, together with a commercial income stream, independent of the purse strings of national legislatures. Any entrepreneur wishing to explore or mine the ocean floor would have to pay the Authority and provide technical assistance to "the Enterprise," the ISAs own commercial ocean mining corporation. Articles 192 through 237 are loaded with environmental legalese that will provide UN globocrats and their NGO allies at Greenpeace and the Sierra Club with previously undreamt-of opportunities for regulating not only commercial, recreational and naval shipping, but also land sources of marine pollution, such as agriculture, manufacturing, mining, construction, logging and urban waste management.
If you havent already done so, now would be a good time to tell your senators to send this fanged fossil back to the grave permanently.
I really wish from day one our Founding Fathers instituted term limits. I'm sure it would have caused some problems but in the long run it would have solved many more.
Prominently behind LOST, Senator Lugar.
You can read more about LOST including the senate foreign relations committee report at Sen Dick Lugar (R. Indiana) site:
On February 25, 2004, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 19-0 to send the resolution of ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty to the full Senate for advice and consent. The Bush Administration said on February 7, 2002, that there is an urgent need for Senate approval of the Law of the Sea Treaty.
The basic tenets of the treaty have been U.S. policy since first enunciated by President Reagan in 1982. Over the next dozen years the U.S. won in negotiations on the questionable aspects of the treaty, and signed on in 1994. The details are in the President's Message transmitting the treaty to the Senate that may be viewed using Adobe Reader. In October 2003, Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Dick Lugar held two comprehensive hearings on the treaty. The full transcripts of those hearings are part of the 187-page committee report that may be viewed using Adobe Reader.
If Bill Frist wants to be President, he'd better pay attention.
They are empowered with more power than we want them to have. They are drunk with it.
And their quest for even more, knows no bounds.
The thirst and lust for power has Lugar.
The big issue with LOST isn't about the ocean; it's about land use control.
This global bureaucracy will justify control of land use 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 (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.
Good one, Seadog Bytes!
Makes me think some of my tinfoil hat wearing friends are correct about Bush when I see he will sign the treaty.
The nexus of it is the UN. It is so twisted and intertwined with roads leading in all directions so as to confuse anyone trying to disect it. But disect it people can...if they have the guts to follow it through to where it ends up.
Tell Condi that...in her confirmation she was asked if LOST would be ratified....CONDI SAID YES!!!
This includes the Statue of Liberty, Thomas Jefferson's home at Monticello, the Washington Monument, the Brooklyn Bridge, Yellowstone National Park, Yosemite, the Florida Everglades and the Grand Canyon - to name just a few.
It boils down to controlling us or most likely profiting from us. It's disgusting.
If Bush approves this, we would deserve Hitlery. If we have become so apathetic to allow conservatives to bow to tyranny, we need a wake-up call. Maybe Hill can jolt America more than 9-11. I pray we never have to find out.
How ass-backwards is that? Our symbols of freedom, are in the hands of the very people who are taking our freedoms.
It defies logic, rhyme and reason.
Our governments in this country at all levels are taking our freedoms. We are all fools for thinking we are free. Just try not paying your property tax for a year or two.
"Some elements of the world community are without a doubt worthy of contempt."
I would go further and state the majority are without a doubt worthy of contempt. Most would like nothing better than to end the sovereignty of the United States and begin the income redistribution to the UN.
Then we can tell them what we want. That's why we elected them in the first place, to do our bidding, something they have forgotten.
"None of us can figure out why they support it. At first Bush was against it, but not now."
If I had to venture a guess, it's the administrations way of trying to mend the "fences" broken due to the Iraq war and really, it doesn't matter what their reasons. This will be a very bad thing for us all if signed.