UN - Law of the Sea Treaty

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...nter_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.

Originally Posted by ghuinness

"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]

Originally Posted by Martin

Somebody has been reading Heinlein...





PS. Moon Is a Harsh Mistress DS.

"Starship Troopers".

Terry

Originally Posted by CPTAUSRET

"Starship Troopers".

Terry

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

Martin

[CPTAUSRET]

Originally Posted by Martin

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]

Originally Posted by Razor

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

Originally Posted by Martin

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

"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......

[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.

[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!

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

You forget about Alaska.