Skip to comments.United Nations Jurisdiction Of The Seas ? - The Law Of The Seas Treaty
Posted on 09/16/2007 11:40:42 AM PDT by processing please hold
A move by the Bush administration in May of this year which fell under the radar is soon to come to the Senate. On September 27th the Senate will debate and vote on the full ratification of the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Seas or in short The Law of the Seas Treaty. The treaty in essence gives the United Nation legal jurisdiction over the planets ocean and sets up a tribunal to govern all legal claims to territorial waters, mineral rights and mining and other uses of the worlds oceans, including navigation.
The treaty which has been in existence since the first Conference dating from 1973 - 1982 has never been ratified by The United States. When first presented in 1983 President Ronald Reagan categorically refused to even sign the treaty because he felt that it impugned on United States sovereignty.
Certain portions of the treaty have been beneficial and the United States abides by these terms as a matter of international law. For instance the treaty sets basic territorial waters and prevents nations who wish to push these territorial limits from over extending the recognized waters around their shore line borders. In other words in accordance to treaty limitations a nation cannot stretch its sovereign waters to a limit of say 250 miles and expect all other nations to abide by those unreasonable limits. Yet even with the treaty some countries have over extended their territorial waters without consequence. China and North Korea are among those.
The main contention that The United States has had to the treaty is Part XI which gives the UN full legal control in all mineral rights on every seabed found on the earths oceans. Without treaty ratification if a nation finds, for instance an mineral deposit in international waters and wishes to mine it then they are free to do so. Also ratification of the treaty would place United States fishing interest under the jurisdiction of the UN. U.S. fisheries would have fishing limits set by UN control and if those limits were exceeded they would be required to turn surplus catch over to distribution by the UN.
The Treaty would also require the United States to plead any case which questions the treaty before a non - elected United Nations Tribunal which then would decide in favor or against the United States. In light of the way every UN vote is conducted in recent years and the way that the United States is treated by that vote, this tribunal would be a disaster for U.S. interests. The UN after all loves U.S. money but hates U.S. interests.
In May the Bush Administration at the behest of career diplomats in the State Department urged the United States Senate to ratify all provision of the Treaty and the vote for this ratification begins on September 27th. In the past either a Republican President like Reagan or a Republican Majority in the Senate has blocked any ratification of the treaty. Now with a Democrat Majority who favors all UN control provides a distinct possibility of fully ratifying this treaty.
The dangers for the U.S. in this ratification are as follows:
1. The U.S. would be answerable to a UN unelected tribunal for all matters which involve the Seas and ocean borders of our nation.
2. Other countries environmental regulations could be forced on the United States through the UN and our surrounding waters by international law and mandate. The harvest of our fishing waters would also fall under UN mandate which will set limits and require fishing only in certain areas and relinquishing the surplus harvest to UN distribution. The requirement would also mandate over fishing in these particular areas.
3. The treaty would mandate recognized navigation rights. This provision is not only not necessary but not wanted by US interests because these UN mandated navigational lanes are not threatened by any international law and there is not a nation who has the capability of dictating to the US where we may travel, including the Navy in the world oceans.
4. The treaty gives a blank check to the UN on the spending of money supplied by the U.S. without ANY U.S. oversight.
5. The treaty gives eminent domain rights to the UN over intellectual property. In other words the UN would have the power to seize technology.
This treaty, if ratified, would allow the United Nations a free hand over all of the worlds oceans and any mineral actions taken in the oceans would not only come under UN jurisdiction, but would be taxable to the UN without ANY outside oversight on the spending of the monies acquired. All navigational lanes would be set by UN mandate and any country traveling outside of those mandated navigational lanes, including Navy's would be subject to action by the unelected UN tribunal.
This treaty, if ratified, would transfer wealth and technology by UN mandate from industrialized nations to third world countries. In other words a world wide socialized redistribution of wealth forcing the financial equality of all nations. This treaty would create a huge United Nations bureaucracy with legal jurisdiction over the worlds oceans. The UN has failed in the past in every instance where they have been allowed to run, oversee or control any program. Remember the Iraq Oil For Food Program. Now the US Senate is poised to ratify a treaty that dwarfs the Oil for Food Program both in scope and jurisdiction.
Since the treaty was written the opposition by the U.S. has caused many nations to not sign on to the treaty. The first Bush administration and the the Clinton administration proposed provisions that supposedly corrected the flaws and the Clinton signed the treaty in 1994 which caused some Nations to follow suit and others to ratify. The GOP controlled Senate stopped ratification and many nations who had signed the treaty have not ratified in accordance to the U.S. lead.
Now the present Bush administration is backing full ratification and a Democrat Senate who back the UN and adhere to socialist policies could very likely ratify the treaty. There are 34 no votes needed to prevent ratification. Call, write or e-mail you Senator and urge them to vote against ratification. Time is short. September 27th is just around the corner. This treaty will place vital United States interests under UN control and threatens our sovereignty as a nation which cannot be allowed.
We stopped the Senate Amnesty Bill and with a similar concentrated effort by the people we can prevent the ratification of the Law of the Seas Treaty and save American sovereignty and interests.
>>>Or what $$ Khalid Mahfouz funnelled to Clintoon/Gore?
This site indicates that BCCI may have been involved with the SAAR Foundation. SAAR was raided in Operation Greenquest. That raid had some damning financial connections but it looked like the courts dropped the ball on it.
As are you, nic.
1) a cached link to a joint letter sent in February 2005 to Lugar (dozens of signers, including Eagle Forum) concerning the SEA treaty; and
2) the link to a PDF version of same.
Ain't that the unvarnished truth - look at me. I just wish they didn't do it on our dime. lol
Lasers wouldn’t be much use as offensive weaponry until we get to the Death Star stage. They might be of some use as defensive weapons. The Treaty was intended to stop possible orbiting of nuclear weapons because that would reduce the warning time from 30 minutes for an ICBM broadsides flight to a couple minutes. For the same reason the Cuban missiles were a big problem. That’s all ancient tech now, but orbiting weapons would be themselves highly vulnerable and so nearly useless anymore as is the Treaty.
When I said ‘this site’ I forgot the link:
That I’ve seen. Thanks!
Now we have the ICC rearing it's head again. What in God's name is wrong with our politicians?
Sometimes I feel like I'm living in an alternate universe when I see what's going on in our country.
Thank you for the bump BQ. Bless you. :)
yw; let me know if you need some more searching. I cannot find anything specifically about this (so far) there.
You’re welcome FRiend.
Glad you’re on the right team, pph.
Beware of anything that gives the UN an independent source of income, from which they may raise their own armed forces independent of any member country
“an independent source of income, from which they may raise their own armed forces independent of any member “
Like for use on the impending superhighway straight up this country from an entry point in Baja
TY. So are you. ;)
Oh no. I’m fine. I was just clicking through those links at post 49 and the databases in there were, unnerving.