Posted on 08/04/2008 12:41:05 PM PDT by average american student
“The Arctic may hold 90 billion barrels of oil, more than all the known reserves of Nigeria, Kazakhstan, and Mexico combined, and enough to supply U.S. demand for 12 years.” One would have thought Joe Carroll’s Bloomberg News report would have evoked some interest by the public and other media outlets. Instead, news of the U.S. Geological Survey was greeted mostly by a giant collective yawn.
“One third of the undiscovered oil is in Alaskan territory, the agency found…” Considering that the Democrat-controlled Congress adamantly refuses to let drilling occur for the oil known to exist in and off-shore Alaska, it is not surprising the public has concluded this vast treasure will remain untouched.
Apathy, however, is not a very good response to the prospect of this mother lode of potential new oil. Worse yet, we stand to lose any of the wealth it will generate if the same Congress signs the United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty, whose acronym, LOST, could not be more accurate. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have endorsed it, apparently oblivious to the fact that the mighty U.S. Navy can go anywhere it wants in the world. Even the Bush administration has marshaled no arguments against it.
This monstrosity of a treaty has been around since the days when the Reagan administration first rejected it.
Full disclosure of the contents of this treaty would have Americans in the streets of Washington, D.C. brandishing pitchforks.
(Excerpt) Read more at stiffrightjab.com ...
The UN is looking for an independent and endless source of funds to finance their agenda. It's eye is on Alaska's offshore deposits. This would be a jackpot acquisition. It should be for the U.S..
actually if anyone has actually read and knows about the UNCLOS they would know that the arctic borders being adopted are those which ALREADY EXIST UNDER PRESENT TREATY. (old USA and USSR now Russia rules are being followed regardles of this new treaty)
Thus even without the LOST the end result is the same.
As far as I can see,
the goals of the UN seem to coincide quite tightly with the goals of Islam.
IMPEACH PELOSI AND REID NOW!!!
Obama is at the forefront of that effort, being the apex of the domestic anti-American and marxist movement in this country. They go hand in hand with the UN because they are cut from the same cloth and have the same goals.
Does anyone know if McCain was for the LOST treaty? Does he agree with Bush on this?
Nevermind. He thinks we need one but.......
Wishy washy.
Well, I guess they discovered it, then.
There was the “Great Generation” and then there is us ...
No, it's absolutely maddening that the public has concluded this vast treasure will remain untouched. Stupid morons! Complaining all day long about the price of gas, but unwilling to do anything about it like vote these RATS out of office. Absolutely maddening.
Cites soveriegnty issues.
The 1991 treaty is still in dispute, beginning with the fact that The Soviet Union (the other party to the Treaty) never ratified it, a common prerequisite in treaty law, or any contractual relationship.
See: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70902
Just posted a few days ago.
Regardless, there is significant lack of legal knowledge about that treaty and what it means and how it works.
(for example it provides for the USA to select arbitration of disputes in the USA rather than any foreign tribunal thus answering the soveriegnty issues.)
I am just amazed how many people confuse the 1980 (non-starter) treaty with the later treaty that addressed these oil and resource issues.
I know we did not ratify the UNCLOS treaty. I am refering to bilateral treaties with the old USSR which Russia assumed. (much like how Russia assumed the USSR’s permanent seat on the security counsel)
Nice try, but obviously the author of this article is only familiar with posturing rather than substance of the treaty and its impact.
just so you know (no need to argue here)
This is article 81 of the UNCLOS (aka LOST)
-— - — —— -
Article 81
Drilling on the continental shelf
The coastal State shall have the exclusive right to authorize and regulate drilling on the continental shelf for all purposes.
http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part6.htm
rest of the treaty is here:
http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/UNCLOS-TOC.htm
It’s not untouched. It’s was already drilled in the 70’s and ordered shut down.
LOST grants every coastal Nation an EEZ(exclusive economic zone) of 200 nautical miles, whether or not the shelf extends out that far. Obviously, in certain places, two nation's EEZ can overlap, such as between Cuba and the US. In such cases a boundry line is negotiated, such as it was between Cuba and the US.
In the case of Alaska, the US's EEZ extends out 200 N. miles from Prudhoe Bay and ANWR. And it is thought that the shelf may extend out 600 miles there. OTOH, in the Bering Straits, the US and Russia have overlapping claims.
Additionally, if a nation has a shelf that extends out beyond the EEZ, and the technical data supports it, a nation can claim that also. In certain places, there can be overlapping claims on these submerged lands. Russia, Canada, and Denmark all have claims to the Lomonosiv Ridge in the Arctic Ocean. Though the US has no claims on the Lomonosov Ridge, it is in the US's interest for that to remain international waters, or under the supervision of the UN.
US firm lays claim to potentially vast Arctic oil resources
The article title says "lays claim", but the article says applied to the UN to develop those submerged lands. The seabed can be developed, but a royalty must be paid. A very reasonable royalty. Back then, when Reagan/US and other nations didn't sign the treaty, the royalty was much too high. After the royalty was lowered, all Nations(excluding the US) signed the treaty.
UNCLOS has not been ratified, we are just following it like other old treaties.
We have observer status, but we don't have membership on the technical committee.
But, we participate in negotiations.
I don’t think you’re catching on to the problem. What gives the United Nations the right to “grant” or “deny” us anything?
The United Nations supposedly was a dispute resolution organization, but in truth was a Soviet designed mechanism against the West, particularly the United States, that more and more is assuming lawmaking powers and as this ridiculous case illustrates, areas of sovereignty, e.g., all of the mass of ocean outside of a tiny two hundred mile radius.
Are they kidding?
And are we that stupid?
They are looking for “outside” sources of permanent income for their operations. Why? Because this permits them to move forward on every front without the consent of the sovereigns they supposedly serve.
Nowadays, even though we are dumb enough to provide 40 percent of their budget, plus extra assessments here and there for military operations for instance, or international “crisis,” that they sometimes moan about us not supporting or giving our lions share ... YET that money doesn’t come without the consent of Congress.
The U.N. has LONGED for the day to tax the air, the sea, the Internet, anything they can claim as theirs as if they were SOVEREIGN of the world (who elected them I wonder? ... NO ONE!) .. and can do as they please about anything.
This is no trivial matter.
LOST needs to get LOST ... and the sooner the better ... and the U.N. too.
Even if the U.N. stuck to its supposed purpose of a diplomacy forum, diplomacy on the stage has been a bad idea from the start.
Once on the stage such diplomacy becomes inflexible. Nations get backed into corners (rather than the face-saving quiet diplomacy that always existed). What’s worse, is that its so-called dispute resolution mechanisms turns into the world choosing up sides, rather than the two nations involved working it out.
It’s like the stupidity of a married couple who gets in an argument calling or going door to door to every neighbor, every relative, every work associate, and having them take sides in the dispute and then posting the results of that vote on CNN.
What do you have then? All kinds of new enemies all over the place. What should have been a dispute between A & B alone, is now a dispute between A through Z.
D & K, for instance, might have been perfect friends until K found out what side D took in the dispute between A & B. It makes every squabble a possible World War.
This is stupidity and entangling alliances in the extreme.
Worse yet, the U.N. has been dominated by a socialist culture, has a Charter that provides not for ONE ELECTED OFFICIAL. Not one. Further, the so-called voting game in the General Assembly is in fact, meaningless in that only the Security Council can authorize actions, with the absolute veto power in the hands of a few nations, including Russia, China, the U.S., England, and France. Three of those nations are not really all that friendly to our interests.
It’s bill of rights was lifted almost precisely as it stood in the old Soviet Constitution ... arrayed with a variety of socialist rights like the right to housing, or health care, or whatever (rather than freedom to work and earn for those things), and then regardless it has an overthrow of all the rights listed clause that states, something along the line of “any of these rights exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations are null and void.”
Same thing in the old Soviet Constitution, just insert the word Soviet Union instead.
Alger Hiss convicted Soviet Spy engineered this boondoggle (the U.N. Charter), and interestingly enough was at FDR’s side when we handed over to the Soviet Union everything we had fought and died for to stop NAZI Germany and Japan.
Reagan called the U.N. the home of “the greatest concentration of communist spies on the planet.” It is also a place that promotes the interest of terrorists and terrorist states.
Can you give me one good reason why we should permit this Trojan Horse to grant or deny us one single thing?
I can’t. I’d rather we shipped it to Beijing or Moscow where it belongs.
Just my opinion, mind you.
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.