Battle for oil rests not on flags but on obscure UN panel (L.O.S.T.)

Financial Times Deutschland ^ | von Michael Peel and Daniel Dombey (London)

[processing please hold]

I haven't forgotten about the un space treaty.

I live on Terra Firma. This monstrosity comes before the senate THIS MONTH to ratify it. We already signed it.

[processing please hold]

From Bush' own lips on the WH site:

President's Statement on Advancing U.S. Interests in the World's Oceans

RSS Feed White House News

I am acting to advance U.S. interests in the world’s oceans in two important ways.

First, I urge the Senate to act favorably on U.S. accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea during this session of Congress. Joining will serve the national security interests of the United States, including the maritime mobility of our armed forces worldwide. It will secure U.S. sovereign rights over extensive marine areas, including the valuable natural resources they contain. Accession will promote U.S. interests in the environmental health of the oceans. And it will give the United States a seat at the table when the rights that are vital to our interests are debated and interpreted.

[RightWhale]

Sounds like a good thing. The planet is about done with sovereignty claims. Now the rest of the solar system is sitting undeveloped as the planet was 200 years ago. The 1967 Treaty needs to be replaced by a legal regime.

[processing please hold]

I don't know why we didn't just say saddam violated the '67 space treaty.

Space policy

A new National Space Policy signed by President George Bush in October last year asserts that the United States has the right to conduct whatever research, development and "other activities" in space that it deems necessary for its own national interests. The new policy further warns that the US will take those actions necessary to protect its space capabilities "and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile" to those interests. The document adds: "Space activities have improved life in the United States and around the world, enhancing security, protecting lives and the environment, speeding information flow serving as an engine for economic growth and revolutionising the way people view their world and the cosmos." "Freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power", the policy assets in the introduction.

In those portions of the new policy document that have been made public- the first full revision of overall US space policy in 10 years-there is no specific mention of the weaponisation of space. It says the US' priorities are to "strengthen the nation's space leadership" and to enable "unhindered US operations in and through space to defend our interests there". But the policy also claims that national security is "critically" dependent upon space capabilities. As a result it calls on the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and the Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, to "develop and deploy space capabilities that sustain US advantage and support defence and intelligence transformations".

The deployment of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction are prohibited by the 1967 United Nations Outer Space Treaty.(bold mine) In October 2005 the US voted against a UN resolution calling for the banning of weapons in space and has repeatedly resisted efforts to hold negotiations on the issue at the Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament. Theresa Hitchens, director of the Center for Defense Information in Washington, said that the new policy "kicks the door a little more open to a space-war fighting strategy" and has a "very unilateral tone to it."

The Missile Defense Agency is expected to start space-based interceptor test bed experiments in 2008. The test bed experiments would investigate "distributing sensing and command and control," an area that is important because of the technical challenges involved in building a space-based defence. Funding for this is included in the agency's future years defence plan, beginning in FY 08.

Former UN weapons chief and chair of the Sweden-based Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, Hans Blix, has advocated a 40th anniversary review of the Outer Space Treaty, which entered into force in 1967 (see International Herald Tribune, (9 May), http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/05/09/ europe/EU-GEN-Austria-Space-Treaty.php. He argues that a review conference is needed to strengthen the treaty and extend its scope. Further reading:

[RightWhale]

The 1967 Treaty was 99% because of the threat of orbiting nuke weapons. But, the major effect was to thwart space development. The Treaty needs to go and be replaced by an appropriate legal regime for claiming and developing space resources by private individuals. The Law of the Sea already exists for the most part. The Law of Space is mostly non-existent.

[processing please hold]

The Treaty needs to go

I agree 100%.

But, the major effect was to thwart space development.

I know and thank you for saying it, others may not know. If you have any links to the 1967 Space Treaty, please feel free to post them. I'm sure many lurkers have never heard of it.

The Law of Space is your baby.(figuratively speaking)

The Law of Sea is mine.

Clinton signed it in '94 but it hasn't been ratified yet. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is working on doing just that this month.

[RightWhale]

• any links to the 1967 Space Treaty

  Perhaps I should. Don't want to go overboard, but there are a few. A little project for a retiree.

  Have read the LOST in its entirety, and the 1967 Space Treaty and its history is much shorter.

[processing please hold]

Perhaps I should. Don't want to go overboard, but there are a few. A little project for a retiree.

I for one would like to see what you have on it and I'm sure many more would as well.

Have read the LOST in its entirety,

Yes. Here's one. If drones on and on and on and on.

united nations Convention on the Law of Sea

Yes. I've read the Space Treaty as well.

1967 Space Treaty

[Retain Mike]

At this point voices in opposition to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea are few. The companion letter to mine in the U.S. Naval institute Proceedings by a retired Australian admiral characterizes opponents as bigoted, parochial holdouts denying the accepted way for accomplishing world business. I would like to send a link to the article I responded to, as well as the treaty and Frank J. Gaffney’s prior Proceedings article, but it is not available online. Notice the treaty seems frightfully similar to the unending provisions of the “comprehensive immigration reform” act.

As an example of the variety of issues covered, here is one involving economics. Articles 156-161 discuss the governing and managing structure. Beginning at Article 170, the treaty discusses the Enterprise, which is the U.N. own revenue generating entity. I think one pernicious aspect of its existence is found in Annexes to the Law of the Sea Convention 1982-Part 1, Annex III, Article 5, 5 discussing acquiring technology on “fair and reasonable” commercial terms and conditions. Notice the Enterprise initiates complaints about what is “fair and reasonable” and the parties creating the Enterprise render judgment. Yet a private company, which may have developed and patented the technology, lacks an advocate. The process looks to me like an eminent domain hearing turned into a show trial. I would maintain there is a multitude of similar issues. In general these provisions favor large state owned industries and large private corporations, thereby excluding free enterprise by raising the barriers to entry for small individually owned companies serving as the lynch pin of free societies where government dependence and control are minimized.

I would call this the Totalitarian Ruling Elite Preservation and Pension Act. When over 130 independent countries were created after WW II, most suffered, and suffer, from statesmanship found in our juvenile gangs and organized crime families. The U.N. Universal Declaration Human Rights served as the foundation late last year of our President’s coldly received U.N. speech. Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad found an appreciative audience as representatives of progressive totalitarianism.

Links:

Treaty: http://www.globelaw.com/LawSea/lsconts.htm

Frank J. Gaffney Jr.: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1863651/posts

Published Letter (without edits):

There are several valid reasons to be skeptical of this treaty, but I will just mention two.

Treaties provide illusions of protection from unreasonable maritime challenges; illusions quickly dispelled by lack of forthright action. Concerning the showdown between U.S. (UNCLOS signed) and P.R.C. (UNCLOS ratified) over the Navy EP-3E, China saw no problem in provoking the incident, notwithstanding UNCLOS and prior treaties defining freedom of the seas. Further antidotal evidence emerges from taking of British (UNCLOS ratified) hostages by Iran (UNCLOS signed). In this day of instantaneous communication, the fact the British captain did not fight his command means senior commanders and politicians, including some masquerading in military uniforms, failed miserably when exerting the authority they had confiscated to protect freedom of the seas. Since Iran is a terrorist state, the first evolutions practiced by Coalition task force units should have been the continuum of actions opposing Iranian provocations in the Persian Gulf and Straits of Hormuz. Iranian boats would not materialize alongside Coalition forces like Klingon Birds of Prey, and one should have expected vigorous resistance to boarding of Iranian vessels in Iraqi waters. The various Iranian intrigues should have elicited timely, consistent, practiced responses not requiring phone calls to politicians half a world away.

The world-changing tragedies of September 2001 make imperative that this treaty be re-evaluated. One of the many problems for interpretation against us could be Articles 19 and 20 defining innocent passage, while within territorial seas. Acts prejudicial to peace of a coastal state include launching and landing aircraft, and using undersea craft for mine detection. Also a self-interested reading of the articles, says using any electronic device other than navigational radar could be considered an act of propaganda or act aimed at collecting information. State Department may assure friendly government relations (remember the U.S.S. Cole), but how many nations can and/or would provide practical sea, air and undersea supremacy guarantees allowing our warships to forgo defensive measures provided by aircraft, boats, sonar, radars and comm... nets?

Supposedly, the “military activities exemption” would allow us to maintain adequate defenses in territorial waters. However, I do not see the “military activities exemption” as one of the articles. A hostile Council should have no problem defining this term to place our ships at risk of terrorism. Dr. Scott C. Truver contends the Convention does not permit an international tribunal to frustrate Navy operations, but without reference to the treaty, he assures us some undefined protocol can (not will) exclude military activities from treaty resolution provisions.

Before ratification is the time to force meaningful treaty changes, rather than later going hat in hand to persuade for modifications in our interest. In reading this treaty, I believe you will find latitude in article language allowing a hostile U.N. Council to write an enormous body of implementing regulations directed against our ships and planes. The present provisions also codify flaccid senior military/political responses by allowing shelter within prospective rulings from an international tribunal, and avoiding authorization for immediate, direct action to confront challenges. These articles and regulations will bind our Sailors as they go into a “harms way” largely undefined in this era of violent peace. When something goes wrong, operators on 285 commissioned ships will pay the price, while 290 plus flag officers, Pentagon lawyers, and politicians in Washington D.C. express profound sorrow and outrage, as all bullet proof their resumes.

[processing please hold]

I'm only stopping in for a minute, I'll be back later this afternoon. There are several things I would like to comment on in your post.

Frank J. Gaffney’s prior Proceedings article,

Are you talking about his coming before the 108th congress, second session hearings in March of '04? If so, I have that. Is this it?

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_senate_hearings&docid=f:94598.wais

If not it, give me a little more info and I'll see if I have it.

[Tailgunner Joe]

"Many papers, including the New York Times, have said we must ratify UNCLOS to get in on the Arctic action. Never mind that the Times even opposes limited drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But how exactly does passing UNCLOS cut us in on the action anyway? It would effectively undercut our historic claims to the region and turn the matter over to the U.N. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). This body, created by UNCLOS, has 21 members from various countries. It's true the CLCS rejected some Russian claims to the Arctic region in 2002. It did so with information provided by the United States, proving we didn't need to be a treaty member to play a role. But if the Senate ratifies this treaty in September and a decision subsequently goes against our interests, there will be enormous pressure for the U.S. government to comply. Indeed, the United States would be accused of violating international law if we rejected an UNCLOS finding." - LINK