Posted on 11/03/2007 8:38:35 AM PDT by rellimpank
Why America doesn't need the Law of the Sea.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 17-4 Wednesday to approve the Law of the Sea Treaty, meaning it's now up to 34 Senate Republicans to send this giant octopus of a document back where it belongs. To wit, the bottom of the ocean.
The U.S. last disposed of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea--LOST to its critics--when Ronald Reagan was President. This May, however, the Bush Administration reversed course and declared that the Gipper's objections had been fixed by a 1994 amendment. We've since had a debate on these pages over that point, with former Secretaries of State George Shultz and James Baker in favor, while Ed Meese and William Clark, Reagan's Attorney General and National Security Adviser, remain opposed.
The best arguments for the treaty come from the U.S. Navy, which likes how it creates a legal framework for navigational rights. The oil and gas industry approves of provisions that create an "exclusive economic zone" for the U.S. out to 200 miles. There's also the potential for development (with clear legal title) of resources in the deep seabed, which would be managed by the International Seabed Authority on which the U.S. would be guaranteed a seat. And, in fact, the 1994 amendment did get rid of some of LOST's most obnoxious provisions, such as mandatory technology transfers and other redistributionist nostrums.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Good news that the Wall Street Journal is opposed. That suggests that there are business and economic objections to LOST, as well as the loss of national sovereignty and relinquishment of our constitutional freedoms.
So, if the business establishment and the large corporations are against LOST, as well as conservative patriots, then why is Bush for it?
This abomination MUST BE DEFEATED.
Anybody know of which other Countries have signed onto this bag of crap being served up by the Corrupt U.N. and why oh Why is Bush in on this piece of Trash?
That is somewhat confusing since the WSJ usually sides with the globalists.
Because it is a great start on his daddie's New World Order, and his own North American Union / SPP. That's where the US gets to abolish our Dollars and go to some kind of North American "Euro" style currency.
Yes, I was surprised. The WSJ editorial page is generally conservative, but there are exceptions to that. They are not necessarily social conservatives, and seem to favor abortion, for instance. And we saw another exception when they supported illegal alien amnesty, because they thought it was good for Big Business.
I don’t know why they oppose LOST, but it makes me think that the corporate movers and shakers must not be happy with it. That’s a good sign, because we need all the help we can get to defeat this treaty.
Big corporations, as opposed to small ones, tend to favor NWO, but perhaps not in this case.
When in doubt about someone’s motivation, see my tagline.
Because it is a great start on his daddie's New World Order, and his own North American Union / SPP. That's where the US gets to abolish our Dollars and go to some kind of North American "Euro" style currency.The failure of the "best and the brightest" among the globalists to recognize that nationalism has ultimately trumped empire-building every time never ceases to amaze me. Has any of them ever been forced to answer where The Turkish, Austro-Hungarian, French, British and Soviet Empires are today and what lead to their demise, not to mention what force drove apart the former Yugoslavia? Bush and his think tanks can cobble together any monstrosity that they wish, but whatever their creation, it will only be a matter of time before ethnic loyalties prevail and the centripetal forces of nationalism rip it apart, either into new nation-states or into a neo-feudal society with contiguous ethnic diaspora.
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.