Skip to comments.MARITIME ATTACK: Law of the Sea Treaty in US Senate for Approval
Posted on 05/16/2012 9:18:18 AM PDT by Nachum
Contributors: volunteer activists of the Sovereignty Campaign @SovCam
The U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs is once again diddling with the ultra-massive U.S. sovereignty and communitarian wealth giveaways known as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Treaty (UNCLOS or LOST). Whenever one sees communitarian, one may think global communist.
Neo-Marxist Saboteur Barack Obamas State and Defense Departments (including numerous compromised, NATO-head officers) are pressuring the Senate to adopt this travesty after years of resistance dating back to Ronald Reagans presidency. If the committee goes forward with it, they could choose either of two paths: 1. the honorable and traditional congressional method of holding hearings, or 2. fast-track it, in order to slip voting through with as little light of day or time for the People to react, as possible.
The Senate is still Harry Reids crypto-Marxist Senate, and this committees chairman is John Kerry, so LOST may pop up for a vote like a rapist plunging from behind the bushes in the dark, within the next few days.
Recent and upcoming reports may be found at Heritage.org: heritageaction.com/tag/law-of-the-sea-treaty. Gulag Bound will also continue to monitor: gulagbound.com/tag/un-convention-on-the-law-of-the-sea-unclos-or-lost.
(Excerpt) Read more at trevorloudon.com ...
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
Obama and Agenda 21
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.
They better fillibuster this to death. We need Patrick Henry (Not McConnell)
Democrats and FOL (Friends of Lugar) intend to cram it through for pure spite.
Here is a NRO-Corner update on the FOL angle:
What a joke supposedly the “Greatest Deliberative” is.
Anyone who would give up our national sovereignty is a traitor worthy of a hemp necktie.
This, and that abominable Arms treaty, are the end of US sovereignty. If we even have any left.
You put it better than I did, but we said the same thing.
Interesting. Did Trevor Loudon write this?
No. Trevor reposted it. I saw Gulag Bound, but he usually reposts as well. I would have to look.