Skip to comments.Defeat Law of the Sea Treaty -- Again
Posted on 05/16/2012 6:28:36 AM PDT by Kaslin
The stunning repudiation of Sen. Richard Lugar's, R-Ind., bid for a seventh term has sent shock waves through Washington's internationalist lobby. A former Rhodes Scholar, Lugar has spent his career promoting a globalist agenda, since he succeeded the late Jesse Helms as the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
One day after Indiana Republicans handed Lugar his walking papers, an outfit called the Atlantic Council held a forum to promote the discredited Law of the Sea Treaty. As former Republican U.S. Sens. Chuck Hagel and John Warner beamed their approval, Obama's Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta declared that "the time has come" for the Senate to ratify the treaty.
Hagel, Warner and Lugar share an internationalist mindset. All three senators supported "comprehensive immigration reform" (aka amnesty) bills that failed to pass Congress in 2006 and 2007. In support of LOST, they are joined by former Republican Sen. Trent Lott, now a high-priced lobbyist who no longer answers to his former Mississippi constituents.
Americans today are in no mood for subordinating U.S. sovereignty, plus seven-tenths of the world's surface area, to another entangling global bureaucracy, so advocates are using Orwellian talking points to pretend that LOST would do the opposite. Panetta's statement is over the top: "Not since we acquired the lands of the American West and Alaska have we had such an opportunity to expand U.S. sovereignty."
The coalition for ratification includes three groups whose interests are rarely on the same side: the U.S. Navy, the big multinational oil companies led by Shell, and the radical environmentalist lawyers. That peculiar alliance should make you suspicious.
The Navy says we need LOST to preserve our freedom of transit in dangerous waters, such as the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has threatened to block and the South China Sea, where China wants to be the dominant naval power. Panetta said, "How can we argue that other nations must abide by international rules when we haven't officially accepted those rules?"
In fact, freedom of navigation is recognized by centuries of international law, effectively policed by the British Navy for 400 years and by our U.S. Navy since 1775. The United Nations has no navy of its own, so American sailors will still be expected to protect the world's sea lanes and punish piracy.
Big oil supports LOST because of its provision to extend jurisdiction over the continental shelf beyond the current 200-mile limit. But LOST would require a royalty of 1 to 7 percent on the value of oil and minerals produced from those waters to be paid to the International Seabed Authority based in Kingston, Jamaica.
There's no need for a 18-nation organization to regulate offshore and deep-sea production everywhere in the world, mostly financed by American capital, and then allow it to be taxed for the benefit of foreign freeloaders. The riches of the Arctic, for example, can be resolved by negotiation among the five nations that border the Arctic.
Environmentalists, the third leg of the unholy coalition to ratify LOST, are salivating over its legal system of dispute resolution, which culminates in a 21-member international tribunal based in Hamburg, Germany. The tribunal's judgments could be enforced against Americans and cannot be appealed to any U.S. court.
This tribunal, known as ITLOS, International Tribunal of LOST, has jurisdiction over "maritime disputes," which suggests it will merely deal with ships accidentally bumping each other in the night. But radical environmental lawyers have big plans to make that sleepy tribunal the engine of all disputes about global warming, with power to issue binding rules on climate change, in effect superseding the discredited Kyoto Protocol, which the U.S. properly declined to ratify.
A paper just published by Steven Groves of the Heritage Foundation lays out the roadmap for how the radical environmentalist lawyers can use LOST to file lawsuits against the U.S. to advance their climate-change agenda.
Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton warns us that the Law of the Sea Treaty is even more dangerous now than when President Ronald Reagan rejected it: "With China emerging as a major power, ratifying the treaty now would encourage Sino-American strife, constrain U.S. naval activities, and do nothing to resolve China's expansive maritime territorial claims." Bolton warns that LOST will give China the excuse to deny U.S. access to what China claims is its "Exclusive Economic Zone" extending 200 miles out into international waters.
The whole concept of putting the United States in the noose of another global organization, in which the U.S. has only the same one vote as Cuba, is offensive to Americans. LOST must be defeated.
She has been making sense and driving liberals crazy for more than six decades.
Sometimes I wonder if she is really a mortal or a guardian angel sent to help protect us.
LOST. A more fitting acronym there has never been.
Apparently they have forgotten what weapons are for.
Cecil Rhodes, for whom the scholarship is named, was a white supremacist globalist. He lauded the British Empire at its height and felt that the African nationals were destined to be ruled by the whites.
translation: Lugar and the RINOS are almost sure to try and rem it thru a lame duck session out of sheer spite.
Wasn't Rhodesia named after him?
This bit, on the face of it, is absolutely corrupt and dangerous
With 322 articles and annexes UNCLOS provides singularly disturbing points on military as well as economic fronts. The Chief of Naval Operations should address the military issues before claiming any future effective role for the Navy. The U.S. has signed and not ratified this treaty, but insists on abiding by it. Here are two worrisome points involving freedom of the seas.
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 China (UNCLOS ratified) over the Navy EP-3E, the latter 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) board and search personnel as 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 from on scene commanders.
Secondly, the world-changing tragedies of September 2001 make imperative that this treaty be re-evaluated. Among the many opportunities for interpretation against us are 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 by hostile or feral states, says using any electronic device other than navigational radar would be considered an act of propaganda or an act aimed at collecting information. The 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. Can our warships truly forgo defensive measures provided by aircraft, boats, sonar, and tactical radars and communication 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. For every Great Britain and Poland, which might hold one of 36 Council seats, I can name a Mozambique, Syria, Iran or Burma struggling through a new Dark Age where we are described as an economic predator and/or regime threat. 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.
We should not look to friends either when Donald Rumsfeld, Tommy Franks, and George Tenet are considered war criminals in Germany, Canada, and Belgium. The Security Council is cut out of the loop, so the veto we needed during the Cold War is not available for issues found within the treaty.
The present provisions codify flaccid senior military/political crisis response by allowing shelter within sternly worded filings demanding prospective rulings from an international tribunal. These leaders can avoid authorizing immediate, direct action to confront challenges, when such actions have always been condition precedent for maintaining freedom of the seas. 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 ultimate price, while 290 plus flag officers, plus Pentagon lawyers, and politicians in Washington D.C. express profound sorrow and outrage, all the while bullet-proofing their resumes.
I seem to remember Palin supporting this, proabbly thinking it would help Alaska. Has she backed off?
I have no idea, either way
No, this is a case of the admirals telling the Senate what Bozo tells them to say. Clinton did the same thing.
Dick Nixon did that, and Congressman F. Eddie Hebert of Louisiana, chairman of House Armed Services, called Admiral Zumwalt back and told him to get along with 30,000 fewer staff officers. That's what happened when Nixon messed with House Democrats in 1972.
(Not that LBJ hadn't done the same thing -- but Lynt'n meant well -- <snort!!>)
She’s pretty incredible. I saw her speak at Agnes Scott College about 10 years ago, and it was quite interesting. I learned a lot about the early conservative movement. I also learned that she’s not the least bit afraid of taking on Lefty college girls in Q&A.
Wow! Thanks for sharing. I saw her back in the 1970’s and the nearest I can describe her at that time was Margaret Thatcher on steroids.
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.