Posted on 05/13/2007 4:30:35 AM PDT by paltz
WASHINGTON – In a move that has already angered some of his most ardent supporters, President Bush has asked the Democratic leadership in the U.S. Senate to revive a proposal for ratification of the United Nation's Law of the Sea Treaty, an international agreement defeated two years ago by Republican leadership in the upper house.
Critics say ratification would compromise U.S. sovereignty and place 70 percent of the Earth's surface under the control of the U.N. – even providing for a "tax" that would be paid directly to the international body by companies mining in the world's oceans.
The battle over the Law of the Sea Treaty first began 25 years ago, eventually being vetoed by President Reagan. It resurfaced in 2004 under the sponsorship of Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and was successfully defeated by then Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.
President Bush announced his intention to seek reintroduction of LOST for ratification to a small group of trusted Republican grass-roots organizers last week – an announcement that was met with horror and scorn.
Eagle Forum leader Phyllis Schlafly, Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney, Leadership Institute President Morton Blackwell, Free Congress Foundation founder Paul Weyrich and leaders of the Heritage Foundation were quick to denounce the idea in forceful terms, calling on their members to begin lobbying the White House immediately.
LOST has long had the support of environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council.
It would establish rules governing the uses of the of the world's oceans – treating waters more than 200 nautical miles off coasts as the purview of a new international U.N. bureaucracy, the International Seabed Authority
The ISA would have the authority to set production controls for ocean mining, drilling and fishing, regulate ocean exploration, issue permits and settle disputes in its own new "court."
Companies seeking to mine or fish would be required to apply for a permit, paying a royalty fee
Critics also point out the new U.N. agency would have the right to compete directly with private companies in those profit-making activities.
The U.S. would have only one vote of 140 – and no veto power as it has on the U.N. Security Council.
The Bush administration claims the initiative for reintroduction of the treaty comes from the military, which likes the 12-mile territorial limits it places on national claims to waters. Yet, critics point out international law already protects non-aggressive passage, including non-wartime activities of military ships.
One of the main authors of LOST not only admired Karl Marx but was an ardent advocate of the Marxist-oriented New International Economic Order. Elisabeth Mann Borgese, a socialist who ran the World Federalists of Canada, played a critical role in crafting and promoting LOST, as WND reported in 2005.
Borgese was hailed by her U.N. supporters as the "Mother of the Oceans" or "First Lady of the Oceans." She died in 2002.
The youngest daughter of the German novelist Thomas Mann, Borgese openly favored world government, wrote for the left-wing The Nation magazine and was a member of a "Committee to Frame a World Constitution." She served as director of the International Center for Ocean Development and chairman of the International Oceans Institute at Dalhousie University in Canada.
The U.N. Environment Program, UNEP, has said that Borgese recognized the oceans as "a possible test-bed for ideas she had developed concerning a common global constitution."
Borgese received UNEP's "Environment Prize" in 1987 and was credited with organizing the conferences that "served to lay the foundation" for the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea, according to Dalhousie University, which houses her archives.
In a 1995 speech, pro-U.N. Democratic Sen. Claiborne Pell said Borgese's ideas were "embodied in the negotiated texts of the Law of the Sea Convention."
Her ideas included recognizing the oceans as the "common heritage of mankind" and creating an International Seabed Authority to charge U.S. and foreign companies for the right to mine the ocean floor.
In a January 1999 speech, Borgese declared, "The world ocean has been, and is, so to speak, our great laboratory for the making of a new world order."
In an article titled, "The New International Economic Order and the Law of the Sea," she argued that the pact could "reinforce" the goals of the NIEO by giving Third World countries a role in managing access to the oceans.
In a 1997 interview, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation broadcaster Philip Coulter asked Borgese about the collapse of Soviet-style communism and the triumph of the "elites."
Borgese replied "there is a strong counter-trend. It's not called socialism, but it's called sustainable development, which calls ... for the eradication of poverty. There is that trend and that is the trend that I am working on."
The concept of "sustainable development," considered a euphemism for socialism or communism, has been embraced in various pronouncements by the U.N. and even the U.S. government.
In her book, "The Oceanic Circle: Governing the Seas as a Global Resource," she approvingly cites Karl Marx, the father of communism, as someone with "amazing foresight" about the problems faced by urban and rural societies. The book is available from the liberal Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.
In an article co-authored with an international lawyer, Borgese noted how LOST stipulates that the oceans "shall be reserved for peaceful purposes" and that "any threat or use of force, inconsistent with the United Nations Charter, is prohibited."
She argued LOST prohibits the ability of nuclear submarines from the U.S. and other nations to rove freely through the world's oceans.
And how does this lessen our sovereignty?
Regards
-bflr-
Anything controlled by the UN unelected bureaucracy lessens sovereignty. Would you want the UN deciding whether or not you can own a rifle or pistol? If the UN decided you can’t own a weapon, how do you vote the bureaucrats out of office?
Unelected bureaucrats writing law is one of the primary traits of a dictatorship, Russia’s soviet socialists and fascist Germany’s functionaries are two examples.
With the continued spread of the federal bureaucracy, writing law, enforcing that law and judging law, the United Srtates is on the way toward a fascist totalitarian state. Why Bush is doing this I don’t know. It’s like his stupid father, George “One World Order” Bush Sr., is back in office.
Along with Baker and Gates.
The UN is evil, corrupt and a tool of third world commies and islamic terrorists. Euro’s enjoy profits earned by American blood being spilled. chicoms and rooskies use it as a club with which to bash America. chavez proved that most members hate us.
NEWSFLASH... I hate them more!
LLS
Thanks, I figured it couldn’t be good for the American people if our President was behind it.
Regards.
We have 19 long months left with this coconut head moron.
The next one could be worse, but I’ll take my chances.
He has never put the interest of our country first.
Your comment is one of the stupidest ever at FR.
I’m afraid we are in a race to the bottom with the spineless RNC/GWB and the Commie DNC/Soros neck and neck.
Also, The Pres can Repeal the UN Outer Space Treaty any day, but even though the Treaty precludes private ownership of celestial resources and therefore eliminates the possibility of private investment in private development of space mineral resources there is no sign that this will be done. The recent court decision also indicates that the Treaty will be respected.
And how does this lessen our sovereignty?
Militarily it would be a disaster as our subs and military ships would no longer be sailing in international waters but would be sailing in U.N. controlled waters, a huge difference if you’ve followed the U.N. in your lifetime.
Do you think the country can survive until this globalist leaves office? Every day he commits a new affront to our liberty, and they are getting more and more dangerous.
LOST at Sea
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
Back in the 1970s the United Nations launched its plan for a global program of taxation without representation, called the “New International Economic Order.” The goal of this new economic order was not so new at all, however. It sought the involuntary transfer of wealth and technology from the developed world to the third world under the direction of the United Nations. A cornerstone of this dangerous attempt to loot the prosperous nations was the “Law of the Sea Treaty” (LOST).
Under the Law of the Sea Treaty, an “International Seabed Authority” would control the minerals and other resources of the oceans’ seabed. After taking its own cut, this UN body would transfer whatever is left to select third-world governments and non-governmental organizations.
The Law of the Sea Treaty also would give the UN power to tax American citizens and businesses, which has been a long-time dream of the anti-sovereignty globalists. LOST also would establish an international court system to enforce its provisions and rulings. Imagine not being able to do business internationally without the approval of the United Nations!
It all sounds like something out of a science-fiction novel, but it is real.
Fortunately, when the treaty came before President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, he ignored those warning of impending international chaos and refused to sign the treaty. It was the right thing to do. It appeared that the push toward global governance was – at least temporarily – halted.
But that was not the end of LOST. Determined proponents of the treaty worked to “fix” its most objectionable parts in hopes the United States would become a party. The UN and its supporters know that without the participation of the United States, their schemes are doomed to failure.
Satisfied with their efforts to alter the treaty in the 1990s, LOST supporters sent it to President Bill Clinton, who wasted no time signing the treaty and sending it to the Senate for ratification. Fortunately the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, then headed by Senator Jesse Helms, concluded that despite cosmetic changes the treaty remained hopelessly flawed. He sent it back to the president in 2000 with no action.
It seemed as though this treaty would finally die. But it did not. Undeterred, LOST supporters in the State Department sent the treaty back to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2003. This time the Committee voted unanimously, just this February, to send it to the full Senate for ratification! LOST currently sits before the Senate, available at any time for a full Senate vote on ratification. Despite President Reagan’s rejection and Senator Jesse Helms’ rejection, LOST therefore is still very much alive.
Together with 13 of my colleagues in the House of Representatives, I sent a letter last week to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist urging him to reject this dangerous and foolish treaty. Should the United Nations succeed in its dream of taxing American citizens when they do business abroad, how much longer will it be until they begin taxing us at home? Just last month, in fact, UN bureaucrats gathered in New York to look for ways to revive their dream of imposing UN control and a global tax on the internet. Imagine a global policy on internet content dictated by nations such as Saudi Arabia and China – and paid for by Americans! Let us hope that the Senate does the sensible thing and rejects LOST and any further UN encroachments on our sovereignty.
April 7, 2004
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
Nah, the DNC letter to FR is far stupider.
Ref posts #10 and #15.
It is totally frightening.
I am particularly sadden for those who fought for our country in WWII and who lost family and friends to save us and our country. We are now seeing their ultimate sacrifice go down hill 60 plus years later.
Everybody, and I mean everybody, had family and/or friends who died during that war. For what?
Somehow, we have spawned a class of unAmericans since that awful war, and Bush is one of them.
I wish I could take you to task for that statement.Sadly, I can't.
So you agree President Bush has never put the interests of our country first?
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.