Posted on 07/07/2011 2:04:59 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
It’s the year before a presidential election, so it must be time to debate the Law of the Sea Treaty (“LOST”) again. As recently as last Thursday the Chief of Naval Operations pleaded for the U.S. to join the treaty. The Obama Administration has supported Senate action on LOST since at least May 2009 when it released its Treaty Priority List.
The last time LOST came up was in 2007 when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, then chaired by Sen. Joe Biden, held hearings. But the treaty was never brought to the floor for a vote. 2011 is beginning to feel a lot like 2007.
Sen. John McCain recently spoke at the Center for Strategic Studies regarding U.S. interests in the South China Sea. He called on the Senate to “decide whether it is finally time to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty.” McCain accused China of “working within the Convention to advance fringe views that aim to deny access to international waters.” The United States, he lamented, lacks “a seat at the table” since it has not acceded to LOST.
This charge is overblown, to say the least. When it comes to LOST, there is neither a table nor chairs to sit on.
LOST is much more than the navigational provisions that McCain supports. The freedom-of-navigation provisions—relating to the high seas, territorial waters, international straits and archipelagic waters—represent the proverbial “baby in the bathwater.” LOST cannot be judged solely on the positive navigational provisions without regard to the negative “bathwater” provisions.
One of LOST’s “bathwater” provisions, Article 82, would cause the United States to lose a significant amount of revenue. If the U.S. ratifies LOST, it would be required under Article 82 to forfeit royalties generated from oil and gas exploration on the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles, an area the U.S. calls the “extended continental shelf” (ECS).
Under current law, oil companies are required to pay royalties to the U.S. Treasury (generally at a rate of 12½% to 18¾%) for oil and gas exploration in the Gulf of Mexico and off the Northern coast of Alaska. The Treasury retains a portion of those royalties, while the rest goes to Gulf states and the National Historic Preservation Fund.
But if the U.S. was a member of LOST, it would be required to transfer a portion of that royalty revenue—now considered “international royalties”—to the International Seabed Authority, a UN-style organization created by the treaty and based in Kingston, Jamaica.
How much are we talking about here? It’s difficult to estimate the volume of the oil and gas on the ECS, but the U.S. Extended Continental Shelf Task Force, an interagency project currently mapping the extent of the ECS, estimates that the ECS resources “may be worth many billions, if not trillions of dollars.”
If the U.S. joined LOST, it would be required to pay “international royalties” beginning in the sixth year of production at each exploration site on the ECS. Starting in year six, it would pay 1% of the total production to the authority. Thereafter, the royalty rate increases in increments of 1 percentage point per year until year 12, when it reaches 7%. The royalty rate remains at 7% until production ceases. In sum, starting in the 12th year of production, about ½ of the revenue that would otherwise go to the U.S. Treasury would instead be sent to the authority.
So who would benefit from this American largesse? The final say regarding distribution of Article 82 royalties is the “assembly,” a body made up of more than 160 countries. The United States would be powerless in the assembly, where it has only a single vote, to prevent the transfer of royalties to repugnant regimes. The assembly may vote to distribute royalties to undemocratic, despotic or brutal governments in Belarus, Burma, China or Zimbabwe—all members of LOST.
Perhaps the funds will go to regimes that are merely corrupt. Thirteen of the world’s 20 most corrupt nations according to Transparency International are parties to LOST. Even Cuba and Sudan, both considered state sponsors of terrorism, could receive these “international royalties.”
Those who favor U.S. accession to LOST must ask themselves why the United States should siphon off wealth from its own continental shelf for the benefit of foreign countries that cannot or will not spend the necessary resources to develop their own continental shelves. Instead of diverting U.S. revenues to such dubious purposes, the Treasury should retain any wealth derived from the U.S. ECS for the benefit of the American people.
As much as McCain and others would like to keep just the “baby” navigational provisions of LOST, it is impossible to do so without swallowing the treaty’s “bathwater” provisions, including Article 82.
This is insane
But 0dumbo will push for it I am sure
Personally, the financial and political empowerment of foreign tyrants and unelected, unaccountable global UN bureaucrats disturbs me more than the loss of revenue to the United States, as bad as that is.
The US ALREADY abides by the treaty.
The US could/can elect to have all disputes involving the US heard in the us arbitration panels
Since the US is not part of the treaty the russians are claiming the new arctic sea lanes and resources.
this is not the rejected first treaty, this is the treaty rewritten AFTER ronald regan rejected the first one.
PS the author is idiotically refering to the wrong treaty!
So, you think we should get LOST, eh?
you do realize the revised treaty, not the one this author is mistakenly referencing, provides that the USA can require all disputes involving the usa are arbitrated in the USA with non UN arbitrators.
Amazing - - - they’re at this again!!
“Personally, the financial and political empowerment of foreign tyrants and unelected, unaccountable global UN bureaucrats disturbs me more than the loss of revenue to the United States, as bad as that is.”
This is an aspect I didn’t consider but once you pointed it out I can see this is more dangerous.
actually there is no “LOST” treaty. It is just a detractor pr name. I think before people assume something based on an article refering to the wrong treaty. (seriously who writes an article with that type of mistake?)
here is the actual treaty which also covers the air and space.
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf
Our Navy can guarantee freedom of navigation. As for the rest of it, if McCain is for it(the dirty, traitorous, RINO swine)I’m against it.
Twenty-five years, when we had a real President, the Law of the Seas Treaty was rejected, and correctly so. Nothing is different between then and now and once again, it should be rejected.
There also exist the issues of deep sea mining and international fisheries. In a world bereft of bureacrats and ruled by Socraatic intellects the LOS would be just fine. As the world now is, only a fool would support its passage. John McCain has found as the world now exists, the Chinese won’t play ball. If the US has a seat at the table, nothing will change, it will still be just another inept UN bureaucracy who have little control over events.
One the sections Reagan fixed.
Keep in mind, much in the treaty already is practice.
Some does not apply to the USA as we are not land locked.
PART VI
CONTINENTAL SHELF
Article 76
Definition of the continental shelf
1. The continental shelf of a coastal State comprises the seabed and
subsoil of the submarine areas that extend beyond its territorial sea
throughout the natural prolongation of its land territory to the outer edge of
the continental margin, or to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the
baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured where the
outer edge of the continental margin does not extend up to that distance.
2. The continental shelf of a coastal State shall not extend beyond the
limits provided for in paragraphs 4 to 6.
3. The continental margin comprises the submerged prolongation of the
land mass of the coastal State, and consists of the seabed and subsoil of the
shelf, the slope and the rise. It does not include the deep ocean floor with its
oceanic ridges or the subsoil thereof.
Is somebody taking AGW seriously?
Regan rejected the FIRST treaty, and right so. This is a different version:
for example this was added:
Article 77
Rights of the coastal State over the continental shelf
1. The coastal State exercises over the continental shelf sovereign
rights for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its natural resources.
2. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 are exclusive in the sense that
if the coastal State does not explore the continental shelf or exploit its natural
resources, no one may undertake these activities without the express consent
of the coastal State.
You might want to check your link. It’s still the Law of the Sea Treaty, or UNCLOS, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
And tweaks don’t make it one bit more palatable.
This treaty gives unelected global bureaucrats taxing authority for the first time, and control over 7/10s of the earths surface, and the resources that go with that.
Reagan was able to rein in the UN because he could withhold the U.S. funds that kept it afloat.
Making them financially self-sustaining seems to me to be one of the absolute worst ideas I’ve ever heard of.
I completely agree.
That’s exactly why we have a Navy, you betcha.
not man made. These are just normal ice variations over time. There are actual sea lanes that have opened up. The russians are attempting to claim the natural resources as theirs. Even to the extent of sending a sub which planted a russian flag.
again NOT man made, just regular over time ice shifting.
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.