UN - Law of the Sea Treaty

[ghuinness]

I don't understand why the Bush administration is so bullish on this. I don't see how this benefits National security.
Heard they are trying to push this through again...
Thoughts?

Refer website for additional links:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/printer_201.shtml

Bush Continues to Support UN "Law of The Sea" Treaty
by William Norman Grigg
January 19, 2005

The Bush administration continues to support Senate ratification of the UN's Convention on the Law of the Sea, which would turn the oceans and their incomprehensible riches over to the world body.

During confirmation hearings before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, Secretary of State nominee Condoleezza Rice reaffirmed the Bush administration’s plans to seek ratification of the UN’s Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOST).

During an exchange with Rice, Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), a noted Republican internationalist, quizzed the nominee about earlier statements she had made in support of ratifying LOST. "In your answers to questions for the record … I particularly appreciate your response on the Law of the Sea Convention," commented Lugar.

In her earlier remarks about the treaty, Rice declared: "Joining the convention will advance the interests of the United States military. The United States, as the country with the largest coastline and the largest exclusive economic zone, will gain economic and resource benefits from the convention. The convention will not inhibit the United States nor its partners from successfully pursuing the Proliferation Security Initiative. And the United Nations has no decision-making role under the convention in regulating uses of the oceans by any state party to the convention."

"That’s clearing up an issue sometimes raised by opponents of the convention," asserted Senator Lugar, referring to widespread criticism of the pact as an infringement on U.S. sovereignty. He also quoted Rice as saying that LOST "does not provide for or authorize taxation of individuals or corporations" and concluded: "I cannot think of a stronger administration statement in support of the Law of the Sea Convention."

For her part, Rice maintained that the Bush administration "would certainly like to see it pass as soon as possible…. And we very much want to see it go into force."

The bland assurances offered by Rice and Lugar should be considered about as reliable as the administration’s pre-Iraq war rhetoric predicting that the conflict would be a "cakewalk." As William F. Jasper, Senior Editor for The New American, has pointed out, LOST "is not just a bad idea; it is a very dangerous, concrete thing, a revolutionary legal document that heralds a major step into world government and grants vast powers to the United Nations."

The LOST pact would "create new jurisdictions and governing structures with real powers that threaten our national sovereignty," continues Jasper. "Among other things, LOST establishes an International Seabed Authority (referred to as ISA, or 'the Authority’), a new UN agency to control the minerals and other wealth of the sea floor. This also means granting the ISA control over two thirds of the Earth’s surface — no trifling matter. LOST designates this vast, watery commons as `the Area.’"

Article 136 of the treaty declares: "The Area and its resources are the common heritage of mankind" – "common heritage" being a formulation long favored by international collectivists and other tax-fattened parasites eager to redistribute wealth. And Article 137 dictates: "All rights in the resources of the Area are vested in mankind as a whole, on whose behalf the Authority shall act."

This means that the same UN that created the Iraq Oil-for-Food corruption scandal – described by some as the biggest swindle in history – would claim the right to control the unfathomable resources of the oceans and ocean floors, and apportion them as the world body sees fit.

And the Bush administration, wrongly regarded in "conservative" circles as anti-UN, enthusiastically supports the UN’s grab for the oceans.

Concerned Americans must demand that the Senate refuse to ratify LOST. We must also get the U.S. out of the UN, and evict the squalid socialist organization from our shores. To learn what you can do to help, please visit www.getusout.org.

[Martin]

"Among other things, LOST establishes an International Seabed Authority (referred to as ISA, or 'the Authority’), a new UN agency to control the minerals and other wealth of the sea floor.

Somebody has been reading Heinlein...





PS. Moon Is a Harsh Mistress DS.

[CPTAUSRET]

Somebody has been reading Heinlein...





PS. Moon Is a Harsh Mistress DS.


"Starship Troopers".

Terry

[Martin]

"Starship Troopers".

Terry

Perhaps that too, my name memory is lousy. There is definitely one in "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress".

Martin

[CPTAUSRET]

Perhaps that too, my name memory is lousy. There is definitely one in "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress".

Martin

Martin:

I will defer to your memory, I didn't see your PS.

Terry

[Huey14]

Largest coastline, eh Ms. Rice? You may like to look at a map once in awhile.

The UN shouldn't control the oceans- no one ever will. It's a living breathing beast who only lets those it wants to take things from it.

[Razor]

Ok Huey, I've done some looking around...what country do you think has the longest coastline?

[Huey14]

Canada.

243,792 km or 151,485 miles.

[The Reaper]

Ok Huey, I've done some looking around...what country do you think has the longest coastline?

I would have guessed Russia.

TR

[Kyobanim]

I was guessing Australia

Just found this:

Which country has the longest coastline?
Canada's coastline is the world's longest at 243,792 km or 151,485 miles (including the coastline of the country's 52,455 islands.)

All those islands add up

[ghuinness]

Somebody has been reading Heinlein...





PS. Moon Is a Harsh Mistress DS.

For some reason I was curious about which came first....

History of the treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea#Hi storical_background)

"The (First) United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS I)

In 1956, the United Nations held its first Conference on the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS I”) at Geneva, Switzerland. UNCLOS I resulted in four treaties concluded in 1958:

* The Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone
* The Convention on the Continental Shelf
* The Convention on the High Seas
* The Convention on Fishing and Conservation of Living Resources of the High Seas

Although UNCLOS I was considered a success, it left open the important issue of breadth of territorial waters.

The Second United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS II)

The United Nations followed this in 1960 with its second Convention on the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS II”). UNCLOS II did not result in any international agreements.

The Third United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III)

The issue of varying claims of territorial waters was raised in the UN in 1967 by Arvid Pardo and in 1973 the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea was convened in New York to write a new treaty covering the oceans. The convention lasted until 1982 a..."

Heinlein's book "Moon is a Harsh Mistress" was printed in 1967...... :munchin

[Razor]

Yeah, my first search brought up Canada, too, but including over 52K islands doesn't really count in my book. I'd be curious what their coastline minus the islands turns out to be. I think counting just mainland coastlines, TR is correct. I'm sure AL will be around shortly to set us all straight. :D

[Huey14]

So by your reckoning, the US coastline shouldn't include Hawaii or Alaska then?

I'm waiting for AL to swoop in, too. He's wasted being a lawyer: He should be writing Encyclopia Brittanica!

[ghuinness]

I don't have access to the Treaty at work, but I ran some calculations last night,

I haven't covinced myself yet that Condi's statement is inaccurate.

Her comment was made in reference to the Treaty which has specific articles defining inlets, bays, waterways etc and UN jurisdiction. I can't tell at what point for example, the St Lawrence and intra-coastals are considered inland waterways. When you weigh in the economic factor I think she is correct.

Does anyone have an opinion on my question? Why is the Law of the Sea a benefit to National Security?

[BearFlag]

Largest coastline, eh Ms. Rice? You may like to look at a map once in awhile.

The UN shouldn't control the oceans- no one ever will. It's a living breathing beast who only lets those it wants to take things from it.

You forget about Alaska.

[Huey14]

You forget about Alaska.

Say what?

The US hasn't got the largest coastline, regardless of what she says about it.

[Roguish Lawyer]

I haven't read the treaty, but I am generally opposed to the concept. Sounds like the sort of thing that could lead to international organizations telling us that we can't use dolphins to clear mines or use certain types of sub commo. Screw that.

[ghuinness]

I haven't read the treaty, but I am generally opposed to the concept. Sounds like the sort of thing that could lead to international organizations telling us that we can't use dolphins to clear mines or use certain types of sub commo. Screw that.

Thanks.

Just for grins, here are a few links.
I like Condi, generally I agree with her but I am at a total loss to understand where she is coming from on this Treaty.

Here is the text of the Treaty.

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convent...os/closindx.htm

This was refused by Reagan and then again by congress under Clinton.
Last year there was an attempt to push this quietly through by Senator Lugar,
but luckily blocked. The treaty covers both the sea and the AIR space above.
There is also stuff in here about sharing technology,

I found the senate hearings from last year. Picked two:

Senate Hearing For (http://www.globalsecurity.org/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/webinator/search/redir.html?query=%22Law+of+the+Sea%22&pr=default&order=r&u=http%3A//www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/2004_hr/040408-clark.pdf%23xml%3Dhttp%3A//www.globalsecurity.org/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/webinator/search/xml.txt%3Fquery%3D%2522Law%2Bof%2Bthe%2BSea%2522%2 6pr%3Ddefault%26order%3Dr%26id%3D41f0b915c)

Senate Hearing Against (http://www.globalsecurity.org/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/webinator/search/redir.html?query=%22Law+of+the+Sea%22&pr=default&order=r&u=http%3A//www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/2004_hr/040408-middendorf.pdf%23xml%3Dhttp%3A//www.globalsecurity.org/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/webinator/search/xml.txt%3Fquery%3D%2522Law%2Bof%2Bthe%2BSea%2522%2 6pr%3Ddefault%26order%3Dr%26id%3D41f0b916b)

The argument from the PRO's is that the Reagan issues have been removed.
I don't see significant changes between 1982 and now to justify that claim. In 2003, before they tried to push this through for the 3rd or 4th time, Bush
was at the G8 summit negotiating the PSI - see below. I really don't see the National Security benefit to this Treaty, there must be something else behind this. I just can't figure out what.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/psi.htm

On May 31, 2003 at a speech given just prior to the G8 summit President Bush announced the establishment of the Proliferation Security Initiative which would result in the creation of international agreements and partnerships that would allow the US and its allies to search planes and ships carrying suspect cargo and seize illegal weapons or missile technologies.

Under Part VII of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, ships owned or operated by a State and used only on government non-commercial service shall, on the high seas, have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State....



__________________

[ghuinness]

Appears to be coming up for debate....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20050402-111012-7230r.htm


April 03, 2005

Trojan Horse sea law


By Oliver North

About 3,200 years ago the defenders of Troy, a maritime power of the day, found a large wooden horse outside their city's walls where their foes had been encamped.
Taking this "peace offering" to be a tribute to Poseidon, the god of the seas, they dragged the horse into the city that had, until then, withstood everything their adversaries could throw against it. That night, as the people of Troy celebrated "peace," Greek warriors poured forth from the belly of the beast, opened the city gates to admit more of the enemy, slaughtered the helpless occupants and burned the metropolis to the ground. It's a lesson appropriate to our times.
Today, the U.S. Senate is weighing whether to endorse an equally insidious Trojan Horse — the so-called United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty — known by its appropriate acronym: LOST. This pact, conceived by anti-American "globalists" in the 1970s, was backed by the Carter administration, rejected outright by President Ronald Reagan and ultimately signed by Bill Clinton. Now, the Bush administration is inexplicably urging the Senate to ratify the treaty, which would put 70 percent of the Earth's surface under the despot-doting, corrupt and unaccountable "governance" of the United Nations. Ratification advocates claim Reagan-era deficiencies have been corrected. Not so. LOST is no "gift from the sea." It's a Trojan horse.
For several months, State Department officials have quietly told Senate Foreign Relations Committee members that ratification of LOST will prove to skeptics we are receptive to a "multilateral approach" to "solve international problems." Yet, it is this treaty's very "multilateral" aspect — in its definitions, provisions and mandatory dispute resolution — that poses the greatest risk to the United States. A few LOST examples:
c Articles 19 & 20: Proscribe use of territorial waters to collect intelligence, conduct "operational missions," and requires submarines to travel on the surface and "show their flag" in territorial waters. This would make impossible certain types of covert intelligence-gathering and special operations.
• Article 88: Reserves the high seas for "peaceful" purposes. Treaty proponents claim "military activities" are exempted, but Article 298 fails to define such operations. Disagreement would be resolved by an unprecedented requirement that the U.S. submit to mandatory dispute resolution by a U.N. "tribunal" or to "binding arbitration."
• Article 110: Specifies that ships can be intercepted at sea for suspected piracy, slavery, narcotics trafficking and "unauthorized broadcasting," but doesn't provide for interdicting vessels suspected of engaging in terrorism or shipping weapons of mass destruction. Communist China has already claimed this stipulation of LOST renders President Bush's Proliferation Security Initiative impermissible.
c Article 301: Requires that states refrain from "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." This noble-sounding language — a nautical Kellogg-Briand Pact updated for the 21st century — could "legally" prevent the United States from ever again launching an operation like Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, the liberation of Iraq or a future defense of Taiwan or the Republic of Korea.
Those are just the treaty's national security implications. Other economic, commercial and financial obligations of LOST are equally egregious. The treaty is evidence of the U.N.'s longstanding commitment to redistributing wealth and technology from developed to "less-developed" countries and entities that "have not yet attained full independence or other self-governing status." For example: Article 144 would obligate private U.S. companies to transfer seabed mining and "other" technologies to a multinational U.N. bureaucracy called the "International Seabed Authority." The wire diagram of this Orwellian entity looks like a rough draft of Enron's financial arrangements — and is likely to produce enough opportunity for corruption and financial wrongdoing to give Paul Volcker's U.N. Whitewash Team work for the rest of their lives.
This so-called "Seabed Authority," through its mining "enterprise," has the final say on which company from which nation has rights to mine seabed mineral deposits. Under LOST, this global entity is empowered to levy "fees" and "other taxes" on private companies to which mining contracts are awarded and can compel industrialized nations to share technologies with others "unable to obtain" sophisticated seabed mining equipment. The billions of dollars this would put under the control of U.N. bureaucracy makes the Oil-for-Food program look like pocket change. To an "entrepreneur" in Nepal, Central African Republic, Paraguay, the Palestine Liberation Organization, or any other land-locked entity, LOST is better than a globalized Small Business Administration.
Taken in its totality, LOST is a loser. The few articles of the treaty that actually benefit freedom of navigation and commerce are already contained in international laws that can be individually amended as needed.
To surrender to a manifestly corrupt U.N. bureaucracy the muscle and money envisioned by this treaty is an invitation to an assault on our sovereignty and security. Ratifying LOST is tantamount to requiring we pay to build the Trojan Horse — and insisting we drag this "gift from the sea" inside the gates.

[Huey14]

Perhaps if Mr North would actually read The Illiad and then the Odyssesy he might realise the lesson that befell Odysseus for his sneakyness.

I got halfway through that and gave up. What a load of bollocks.

[ghuinness]

If anyone is interested, I found my answer.

I contacted my Senator for his opinion and searched some more.
Senator Nelson said:

"Thank you for contacting me regarding the U.N. Convention on the Law
of the Sea. I joined the other members of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee in unanimously supporting this treaty during the 108th Congress,
but it was not acted upon by the full Senate. The treaty will be subject
to consideration by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee again during the
109th Congress.

The Bush Administration, Office of the Secretary of Defense, the
Coast Guard, and the U.S. Navy support the ratification of the Convention
on the Law of the Sea. The treaty is critical to supporting the national
security of the United States and ensuring our access to critical waterways
around the world. The treaty also supports our work in preventing the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction through the Proliferation
Security Initiative.

International cooperation is a necessity when addressing issues
relating to the sea. Many countries have an interest, and we must work
together through an international forum to reach common agreement. If the
U.S. is not a party to the treaty, it will not be able to participate in
negotiations regarding changes in the treaty and risks an erosion of our
current rights to access of the sea.".

I was still puzzled by the bolded section. Why do we lose access?

After more archive searching, I found more details specific to China (after searching on EEZ because of current disputes with Japan....just need the right keyword.. China vs Japan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4442537.stm) )

http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/BG1470.cfm

http://www-igcc.ucsd.edu/publications/policy_papers/pp19.txt