United Nations Jurisdiction Of The Seas ? - The Law Of The Seas Treaty ( Updated)

By Ken Taylor Posted in Comments (30) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

UPDATE - Newsmax news service also picked up on this story and headlined it Sunday evening after this posting. Following is the link to the story: http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/law_of_the_dea_treaty/2007/09/16/33102....
The recent moves by Russia making claim to the North Pole and other arctic areas is a direct result to the news of the Bush Administration backing the treaty and the Senate seeking to ratify it.

Original posting below:

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.

Ken Taylor http://theliberalslies.blogspot.com

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

in the early 1800s as we refused to pay tribute to them to enter the Mediterranean Sea. Europe refused to join us. That we fought and won that war was huge. This treaty would wipe out the victory.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Not ratifying the treaty makes it more likely that we'll have to use military force to transit the sea lanes. After all, if another nation that hasn't signed the treaty declares certain waters off limits (say, Venezuela), we've no recourse other than armed force. This is one reason that our military favors ratification, along with having a legal justification for operations and exercises which other countries can otherwise frustrate through their objections. This treaty increases our national security and supports our military's ability to function.

Right now, for example, if the Russians claim the North Pole as Russian territory, as they seem intent on doing, we've no recourse to dissaude them other than going to war. Were we to ratify the treaty, we'd gain a legal venue for disputing their actions, plus a guarantee (per the treaty revisions) of a seat on the seabad panel which would arbitrate their claims. I don't want war with Russia, but neither do I want them claiming the North Pole. This treaty is our best way out of such a conflict, since Russia is a signatory. If you oppose ratification, you might as well plant a big Russian flag on the ice pack at 90 degrees north.

Keep in mind as well that ratifying the treaty makes international law our jurisdiction over an area of the earth as large as the ConUS. All signatory nations would then formally recognize our control over this territory.

The President supports it. The Pentagon supports it. The Joint Chiefs and Dick Lugar have written editorials endorsing ratification, and Lugar has been particularly eloquent in his advocacy. Heck, even Ted Stevens has said he'd support it if the UN didn't get his extra pollack catch. I think we gain far, far more than we concede by ratification.

Do you really think any UN committee will give the US a fair shake? Seriously?

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

You're wrong on one count: Not ratifying this treaty does not bar traditional diplomacy as a solution to any international dispute at sea. So military action does not suddenly become our only recourse. Come on; if that were so we'd be at war with Canada over fishing.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

...if we're not on it. And sure, we can still talk to others countries, but we're shooting ourselves in the foot if we cut ourselves off from the premier diplomatic forum for resolving these issues.

Don't we LOSE the diplomatic option if we agree to abide by UN bureaucratic dictates?

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

...the premier diplomatic forum for resolving these issues.???????

Are you talking about the UN? Resolving WHAT issues? The UN can't agree on LUNCH!

The UN told Saddam Hussein he was in big trouble for 10 years! Now the UN is telling Iran THEY are in big trouble for another ???? years!

Resolving issues? The UN? BHHaahahhahahahahahah!

The UN General Assembly is pretty much united on one issue: Death to the Jews Zionists!

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report

the UN does effectively is rape women and children in the name of "peace keeping", spend huge amounts of our money on overpriced meals and high end hookers.

Cutting ourselves off from this forum is the best thing we could possibly do. Move them the hell out of NYC, use the office space for something productive, and let them relocate to Central Africa. If they had to walk to work every day, maybe they could figure out a way to stop the slaughter in Darfur.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

taking dictation from Franz.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Tribunals are a joke. UN power is a joke, and will remain a joke unless they have a serious military, which is a terrifying proposition.

You see, we have guns on boats. Better than UN words.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

There always seems to be something about US gunboats blocking your harbors and Marines effecting regime change, that stops Pirate nations from messing with our commerce.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

...but we need treaties, too, and we shouldn't casually risk the lives of those serving on those boats.

As Captain Patrick Neher, Navy Deputy Ass't JAG, wrote in a response in the Washington Times to treaty critic Frank Gaffney (my emphasis added):

No one contends that international law is a substitute for sea power. The Navy will continue to challenge excessive maritime claims and keep critical sea lines of communication open. The navigation and overflight rights and high-seas freedoms that are essential to the global mobility of our armed forces and the sustainment of our combat troops overseas rights and freedoms our sailors and Marines go into harm's way to preserve are codified in the very convention Mr. Gaffney opposes.

Only we lack a critical capability in the competition for energy security: As a nonparty to the convention, we cannot maximize international recognition and legal certainty concerning the extended shelf off Alaska (and elsewhere). We also are precluded from nominating an expert to the technical body whose recommendations will lend certainty and stability to the establishment of sovereignty over an extended shelf by the other four Arctic nations.

It is the judgment of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and every living former chief of naval operations that joining the convention advances our national security.

So...I'm very interested to hear why exactly folks here are somehow better informed of our naval security needs than these gentlemen.

Here is an official statement by Admiral Thad Allen, Commandant of the Coast Guard, emphatically expressing the Coast Guard's support for joining the treaty.

...is here that responds to some of the objections treaty opponents have raised.

...perhaps we should listen to the Navy when they say that ratifying this treaty is a good idea and will help their mission.

They're good at being unchallenged on the seas. Nobody said they're good at legislation and diplomacy.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

They assert that this treaty will help that mission. I think we should heed their expert counsel.

The current framework is working very well. Why should we give up some of our sovereignty for something of dubious merit ?

Keep in mind our trade has been moving unmolested for the better part of our history. Just what is this new treaty going to do for us ?

Also seeing as the UN has no means to enforce its decisions won't we be giving defacto control of our navy to the UN ?

So once again where is the upside ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

SPP (NAU?) etc does not give me great confidence in his dedication to our soverignity' And a UN "legal venue for disputing" the Russians plus $5 gets us a cuppa joe.

Anuthing that establishes a UN agency with actual authority over territory, and a way to raise revenue independent of member states, is bad on its face. An equal voice on a panel with Iran, the Sudan, Cuba, etc. (like the "Human Rights" commission) seems poor consolation.

I don't want the UN, or any other international body for that matter, to have control over anything. Giving up sovereignty is never a good thing.

I don't really give a hoot what the Navy, CG, or anyone else says about LOST.

After all, virtually any treaty that we enter into with other nations compromises our sovereignty.

Here's a list of the treaties in which the United States in involved in some fashion.

Am I to assume that you reject the list in its entirety, including, as examples, NATO, GATT, and the Alaska Purchase? Personally, I really don't want to give back Alaska.

And we ignore at our peril the counsel of those who devote their lives to defending us.

let's get on to the point. Most of those treaties dealt with war, not international relations, so are irrelevant. Of the ones that do deal with international relations, a number of them have us working directly with other countries. While I don't like some of those treaties, my real problem is when an international organization takes control of issues out of the individual countries' hands - the UN, WHO, etc.

No, I really don't care for GATT, which puts me at odds with a lot here on Redstate. Free trade just isn't a priority of mine.

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service