http://www.roa.org/site/PageServer?pagename=resolution_0805
Resolution 08-05 Non-ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty
WHEREAS, there are valuable provisions in the Law of the Sea Treaty, there are also many provisions that cause concern; it is not enough to highlight the benefits of the treaty without weighing the commitments that would be the price for full American participation in this system;
WHEREAS, the Law of the Sea Treaty is a broad agreement including articles that affect the economy and the environment with the treaty covering seabed mining, navigation, fishing, ocean pollution, marine research, economic zones and in turn national security; and
WHEREAS, a fundamental premise of the treaty is that all un-owned resources on the ocean's floor belong to the people of the world, and the treaty creates levels of paid bureaucracy and an International Seabed Authority (ISA) to control these resources; and
WHEREAS, the ISA will regulate deep seabed mining and redistribute income from the industrialized West to developing countries through arbitrary, excessive application fees, annual fees and royalties; costs of access to raw materials are likely to inhibit development, depress productivity, increase costs, and discourage innovation; and
WHEREAS, many activists view the treaty as a far reaching environmental accord; setting a global standard and providing enforcement mechanisms so that all countries are legally bound to protect the marine environment, protect fish stocks and prevent pollution; and
WHEREAS, ratification of the treaty may subject US Naval forces, and will subject U.S. martime and coastal industry to international tribunal or arbitration during disputes predicated on the treaty as geo-politics differs from law; and
WHEREAS, the treaty does not introduce any new protections for safe navigation on the high seas, but can introduce new risks that could impact the sovereignty over and the economy supported by the sea; and
WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United States provides in Article VI that “All treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land” ratification may lead to international jurisdiction over U.S. interests;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Reserve Officers Association of the United States, chartered by Congress, urges the United States Senate, to deny ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty.
Source: ROA Department of Texas Dec. 2007 Adopteded by the ROA National Council Feb. 13, 2008
Showing posts with label UN taxation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UN taxation. Show all posts
Monday, March 31, 2008
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Former Official Ignorant of UNCLOS’ Relationship to Evolving International Environmental Law
Unfortunately, Mr. Adelman’s recent commentary in the Washington Times (below) reflects either his lack of knowledge of OR his refusal to admit UNCLOS’ connection with the United Nations General Secretariat, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), and the UN’s ambitious plan for UNEP reform. Pursuant to such plan, the UN/UNEP would utilize the UNCLOS’ ‘common heritage of mankind’ and environment centric-‘sustainable development’ –based legal framework to impose and enforce strict Precautionary Principle-premised regulations and to levy toll charges (user fees & behavior modification taxes) on ALL economic activity that passes through the great oceans and adjacent atmosphere highways to finance UN environmental governance reforms. That kind of nightmare will make any concern about the imposition of access charges upon U.S. companies for the right to engage in deep-seabed mining in ‘the Area’ only a bad dream.
Sea law turbulence
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071212/COMMENTARY/112120011/1012
December 12, 2007
By Ken Adelman -
The tranquil-sounding Law of the Sea (LOS) treaty somehow prompts lots of waves. The first storm arose 25 years ago, when President Reagan had the U.S. virtually stand alone against it.
The issue is back. It's still controversial, as Senate Republican leaders oppose ratification. Conservative stalwarts Ed Meese and Bill Clark feel its approval would betray the Reagan legacy.
The LOS accord, just sent out of committee, stands before the Senate for a vote this month. The Senate should ratify it — partly on the merits, but also to reinforce Reagan's biggest legacy, that standing alone on principle can pay off. If you stand right on the merits, eventually others come around.
In 1982, Reagan turned the tide on the LOS effort, under way by some 150 countries over the previous 10 years. During a few National Security Council meetings — which I attended as deputy to U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Jeane Kirkpatrick's — Reagan called the deep-sea mining provisions global socialism. [IT STILL IS, MORE THAN 25 YEARS LATER]**
He subsequently appointed a presidential envoy for LOS, Don Rumsfeld, who asked me along on his global mission. It took us 33,000 miles into seven countries on what my wife dubbed "scuttle diplomacy."
Before taking off, we met in the Oval Office where the president's passion and points became clear. Don Rumsfeld did a superb job presenting them to German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, French President Francois Mitterrand, and leaders in the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy and Japan.
After Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher read her bureaucracy's recondite points favoring LOS, Mr. Rumsfeld lifted the discussion to Reaganesque heights: "Madam Prime Minister, do you really want to support international socialism? To build up the international bureaucracy? To have it run a cartel? To enforce a mandatory transfer of technology? Do you really want all that in our future?"
It was quite a scene — Mr. Rumsfeld smartly presenting Reagan. This convinced the Iron Lady that, no, she did not. Hence, Britain and other key nations joined in opposing LOS.
During sundry meetings before our trip, Reagan related how he considered the deep-sea mining provisions a wedge into international socialism. He deemed the new LOS institution — with the quaint Orwellian name of The Authority, yet without any U.S. veto power — as a precursor to world federalism. Reagan despised its mandatory technology transfer and its autonomous funding of so-called liberation movements.
This litany became Mr. Rumsfeld's script to world leaders, since it was Reagan's script to us.
Don't just take my word for it. In his Jan. 29, 1982, document on LOS, Reagan listed these very issues in six bullets. He explicitly pledged that, if the LOS negotiators "find ways to fulfill these key objectives, my administration will support ratification."
Subsequent administrations have found ways. The first Bush administration began fixing Reagan's biggest bugaboo, the deep seabed mining provisions, which the Clinton team deftly completed. This Bush administration devised critical understandings to clarify and protect U.S. national interests.
[NO PROOF OF THIS HAS YET BEEN ADDUCED]**
The LOS convention has already been joined by 154 nations. Companies from members Canada, Australia and Germany have licenses for deep-sea mining while U.S. companies wait and support ratification here.
Reagan's "key objectives" have been met, as free market principles now apply to deep-sea mining. Private firms can mine the minerals, with the legal assurances they need for large-scale, long-term investments. American firms would have their claims protected. [NOT TRUE]**
Gone is any mandatory technology transfer. Gone is any bulk-up of multilateral institutions. Gone is key decisionmaking without U.S. participation. With ratification comes a permanent U.S. seat on the decisionmaking body, with veto power on all key issues.
[NOT TRUE]**
Again, don't just take my word for it. Because Reagan's fixes were made, both his secretaries of state — Alexander M. Haig Jr. and George P. Shultz — switched from opposing to backing LOS ratification. As has Reagan's Chief of Staff and President H.W. Bush's Secretary of State James Baker. Likewise for this President Bush's two secretaries of state, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice.
Over LOS' turbulent history, its deficiencies have drowned out its upsides. They are real, and fairly impressive.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff strongly supports LOS to assure us the greatest ocean and air navigation rights. LOS reinforces our Navy's legal right to steam through critical choke points around the globe.
U.S. mining firms strongly support LOS for assuring our legal rights to explore and exploit resources at least 200 nautical miles offshore. Off Alaska, where resources seem most abundant, it ensures our rights over the seabeds up to 600 miles. Our rights over this "extended continental shelf," estimated to hold more than $1 trillion in resources, are among the largest of any country. And environmental groups consider LOS beneficial to healthy oceans.
Even Reagan was sometimes accused of betraying Reaganism. At the 1988 Moscow summit, he was asked about his new coziness with Mikhail Gorbachev, leader of the "evil empire." Reagan said he hadn't changed — it had. Likewise his objections to the LOS treaty haven't changed — it has. The treaty has been fixed, right along the lines he sought.
[THIS IS NOT TRUE; WHILE THE TREATY HAS REMAINED STATIONARY IN TIME, THE NUMBER OF OTHER TREATIES THAT RELATE TO AND IMPACT THE INTERPRETATION OF THE UNCLOS, HAS RAPIDLY AND SUBSTANTIALLY GROWN]**
Ronald Reagan could take "yes" for an answer, smiling when he got to do so. We should be like him in that, too.
Ken Adelman is a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and arms control director under President Ronald Reagan. [TITLES ALONE ARE NOT CONVINCING]**
Sea law turbulence
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071212/COMMENTARY/112120011/1012
December 12, 2007
By Ken Adelman -
The tranquil-sounding Law of the Sea (LOS) treaty somehow prompts lots of waves. The first storm arose 25 years ago, when President Reagan had the U.S. virtually stand alone against it.
The issue is back. It's still controversial, as Senate Republican leaders oppose ratification. Conservative stalwarts Ed Meese and Bill Clark feel its approval would betray the Reagan legacy.
The LOS accord, just sent out of committee, stands before the Senate for a vote this month. The Senate should ratify it — partly on the merits, but also to reinforce Reagan's biggest legacy, that standing alone on principle can pay off. If you stand right on the merits, eventually others come around.
In 1982, Reagan turned the tide on the LOS effort, under way by some 150 countries over the previous 10 years. During a few National Security Council meetings — which I attended as deputy to U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Jeane Kirkpatrick's — Reagan called the deep-sea mining provisions global socialism. [IT STILL IS, MORE THAN 25 YEARS LATER]**
He subsequently appointed a presidential envoy for LOS, Don Rumsfeld, who asked me along on his global mission. It took us 33,000 miles into seven countries on what my wife dubbed "scuttle diplomacy."
Before taking off, we met in the Oval Office where the president's passion and points became clear. Don Rumsfeld did a superb job presenting them to German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, French President Francois Mitterrand, and leaders in the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy and Japan.
After Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher read her bureaucracy's recondite points favoring LOS, Mr. Rumsfeld lifted the discussion to Reaganesque heights: "Madam Prime Minister, do you really want to support international socialism? To build up the international bureaucracy? To have it run a cartel? To enforce a mandatory transfer of technology? Do you really want all that in our future?"
It was quite a scene — Mr. Rumsfeld smartly presenting Reagan. This convinced the Iron Lady that, no, she did not. Hence, Britain and other key nations joined in opposing LOS.
During sundry meetings before our trip, Reagan related how he considered the deep-sea mining provisions a wedge into international socialism. He deemed the new LOS institution — with the quaint Orwellian name of The Authority, yet without any U.S. veto power — as a precursor to world federalism. Reagan despised its mandatory technology transfer and its autonomous funding of so-called liberation movements.
This litany became Mr. Rumsfeld's script to world leaders, since it was Reagan's script to us.
Don't just take my word for it. In his Jan. 29, 1982, document on LOS, Reagan listed these very issues in six bullets. He explicitly pledged that, if the LOS negotiators "find ways to fulfill these key objectives, my administration will support ratification."
Subsequent administrations have found ways. The first Bush administration began fixing Reagan's biggest bugaboo, the deep seabed mining provisions, which the Clinton team deftly completed. This Bush administration devised critical understandings to clarify and protect U.S. national interests.
[NO PROOF OF THIS HAS YET BEEN ADDUCED]**
The LOS convention has already been joined by 154 nations. Companies from members Canada, Australia and Germany have licenses for deep-sea mining while U.S. companies wait and support ratification here.
Reagan's "key objectives" have been met, as free market principles now apply to deep-sea mining. Private firms can mine the minerals, with the legal assurances they need for large-scale, long-term investments. American firms would have their claims protected. [NOT TRUE]**
Gone is any mandatory technology transfer. Gone is any bulk-up of multilateral institutions. Gone is key decisionmaking without U.S. participation. With ratification comes a permanent U.S. seat on the decisionmaking body, with veto power on all key issues.
[NOT TRUE]**
Again, don't just take my word for it. Because Reagan's fixes were made, both his secretaries of state — Alexander M. Haig Jr. and George P. Shultz — switched from opposing to backing LOS ratification. As has Reagan's Chief of Staff and President H.W. Bush's Secretary of State James Baker. Likewise for this President Bush's two secretaries of state, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice.
Over LOS' turbulent history, its deficiencies have drowned out its upsides. They are real, and fairly impressive.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff strongly supports LOS to assure us the greatest ocean and air navigation rights. LOS reinforces our Navy's legal right to steam through critical choke points around the globe.
U.S. mining firms strongly support LOS for assuring our legal rights to explore and exploit resources at least 200 nautical miles offshore. Off Alaska, where resources seem most abundant, it ensures our rights over the seabeds up to 600 miles. Our rights over this "extended continental shelf," estimated to hold more than $1 trillion in resources, are among the largest of any country. And environmental groups consider LOS beneficial to healthy oceans.
Even Reagan was sometimes accused of betraying Reaganism. At the 1988 Moscow summit, he was asked about his new coziness with Mikhail Gorbachev, leader of the "evil empire." Reagan said he hadn't changed — it had. Likewise his objections to the LOS treaty haven't changed — it has. The treaty has been fixed, right along the lines he sought.
[THIS IS NOT TRUE; WHILE THE TREATY HAS REMAINED STATIONARY IN TIME, THE NUMBER OF OTHER TREATIES THAT RELATE TO AND IMPACT THE INTERPRETATION OF THE UNCLOS, HAS RAPIDLY AND SUBSTANTIALLY GROWN]**
Ronald Reagan could take "yes" for an answer, smiling when he got to do so. We should be like him in that, too.
Ken Adelman is a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and arms control director under President Ronald Reagan. [TITLES ALONE ARE NOT CONVINCING]**
Friday, January 18, 2008
Law Of The Sea Treaty Manages To Stay Afloat
http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20071115/OPINION01/711140349/-1/RSS01
Editorials
Article published Nov 15, 2007
The mythical Flying Dutchman, a ghost ship doomed to forever roam the seas, was an ill omen for sailors.
Like that ship, the Law of the Sea Treaty continues to haunt policymakers, explains Doug Bandow of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
"Bad treaties never die," Bandow says. "Such is the lesson of the Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST. Now being pushed by the Bush administration and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden (D-Del.), the treaty would turn over all of the world's unclaimed natural resources to a second United Nations."
The treaty has been around for three decades.
"President Ronald Reagan refused to sign the LOST in 1982, after which no major nation, even the Soviet Union, bound itself to the treaty," Bandow says. "The agreement sank beneath the waves, leaving no trace."
But Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton tried to revive the treaty.
"(Clinton's) Secretary of State Madeleine Albright won a few small concessions and proclaimed victory," Bandow recounts. "The United States signed, setting off an international stampede. Although opposition in the Republican Senate prevented ratification, more than enough other countries assented, bringing LOST into effect. Now the LOST is before the Senate."
And it has the support of President George W. Bush.
"In broad sweep, LOST covers three subjects," Bandow explains. "The first area includes exclusive economic zones, fishing, marine research, ocean pollution, and oil exploration. These provisions, though generally non-controversial, are not without adverse effect. For instance, energy companies will owe the International Seabed Authority royalties up to 12 percent on any oil produced from the Outer Continental Shelf beyond 200 miles. This may be the first global tax imposed on Americans without congressional approval."
And activists here and in other countries could misuse portions of the treaty, Bandow warns.
"William C.G. Burns of the Monterey Institute of International Studies calls LOST 'a promising instrument through which such [legal] action might be taken, given its broad definition of pollution to the marine environment and the dispute resolution mechanisms contained within its provision.' A flood of international lawsuits under LOST could undermine U.S. prosperity and sovereignty," Bandow says.
Some argue that the United States must be a party to the treaty if it hopes to dispute Russia's recent claim to the North Pole.
"However, the agreement respects the rights of nonmembers, while other interested parties, most notably Canada and Denmark, can resist Russia's claims within LOST," Bandow says.
And LOST's affirmation of navigational freedom is a poor substitute for the current system, based on customary international law.
"Paper guarantees would provide little aid in any crisis," Bandow says. "Agreements with countries that control critical waterways, backed by a strong navy, offer the best protection of U.S. rights."
But the most contentious part of the treaty is seabed mining.
"Maybe ocean mining will never be viable, so turning vast resources over to yet another inefficient, politicized, and corrupt international organization won't matter," Bandow says. "But such a byzantine regulatory structure is likely to discourage entrepreneurship in related fields, especially the development of technology, software, and other products with multiple ocean uses. Further, applying such a principle to other unowned resources, such as outer space, would discourage private innovation in that field."
Simply put, the treaty is bad policy, both now and in the future.
"The LOST is not without benefits, but most can be enjoyed without ratifying the treaty," Bandow says. "Unfortunately, the costs of joining are too high. Surely we should have learned by now that (collectivist) economics will always fail. Enshrining collectivism as international law through creation of a mini-me United Nations would be as foolish as it would be costly."
Editorials
Article published Nov 15, 2007
The mythical Flying Dutchman, a ghost ship doomed to forever roam the seas, was an ill omen for sailors.
Like that ship, the Law of the Sea Treaty continues to haunt policymakers, explains Doug Bandow of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
"Bad treaties never die," Bandow says. "Such is the lesson of the Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST. Now being pushed by the Bush administration and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden (D-Del.), the treaty would turn over all of the world's unclaimed natural resources to a second United Nations."
The treaty has been around for three decades.
"President Ronald Reagan refused to sign the LOST in 1982, after which no major nation, even the Soviet Union, bound itself to the treaty," Bandow says. "The agreement sank beneath the waves, leaving no trace."
But Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton tried to revive the treaty.
"(Clinton's) Secretary of State Madeleine Albright won a few small concessions and proclaimed victory," Bandow recounts. "The United States signed, setting off an international stampede. Although opposition in the Republican Senate prevented ratification, more than enough other countries assented, bringing LOST into effect. Now the LOST is before the Senate."
And it has the support of President George W. Bush.
"In broad sweep, LOST covers three subjects," Bandow explains. "The first area includes exclusive economic zones, fishing, marine research, ocean pollution, and oil exploration. These provisions, though generally non-controversial, are not without adverse effect. For instance, energy companies will owe the International Seabed Authority royalties up to 12 percent on any oil produced from the Outer Continental Shelf beyond 200 miles. This may be the first global tax imposed on Americans without congressional approval."
And activists here and in other countries could misuse portions of the treaty, Bandow warns.
"William C.G. Burns of the Monterey Institute of International Studies calls LOST 'a promising instrument through which such [legal] action might be taken, given its broad definition of pollution to the marine environment and the dispute resolution mechanisms contained within its provision.' A flood of international lawsuits under LOST could undermine U.S. prosperity and sovereignty," Bandow says.
Some argue that the United States must be a party to the treaty if it hopes to dispute Russia's recent claim to the North Pole.
"However, the agreement respects the rights of nonmembers, while other interested parties, most notably Canada and Denmark, can resist Russia's claims within LOST," Bandow says.
And LOST's affirmation of navigational freedom is a poor substitute for the current system, based on customary international law.
"Paper guarantees would provide little aid in any crisis," Bandow says. "Agreements with countries that control critical waterways, backed by a strong navy, offer the best protection of U.S. rights."
But the most contentious part of the treaty is seabed mining.
"Maybe ocean mining will never be viable, so turning vast resources over to yet another inefficient, politicized, and corrupt international organization won't matter," Bandow says. "But such a byzantine regulatory structure is likely to discourage entrepreneurship in related fields, especially the development of technology, software, and other products with multiple ocean uses. Further, applying such a principle to other unowned resources, such as outer space, would discourage private innovation in that field."
Simply put, the treaty is bad policy, both now and in the future.
"The LOST is not without benefits, but most can be enjoyed without ratifying the treaty," Bandow says. "Unfortunately, the costs of joining are too high. Surely we should have learned by now that (collectivist) economics will always fail. Enshrining collectivism as international law through creation of a mini-me United Nations would be as foolish as it would be costly."
Sea Treaty Threatens States’ and Nation’s Sovereignty
http://www.alec.org/news.html
ALEC News
American Legislative Exchange Council
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
WASHINGTON, D.C.—Last Wednesday, October 31, The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 17-4 to send the U.N.’s Law of the Sea treaty (L.O.S.T.) to the full Senate for consideration. This treaty, which has been waiting 37 years for ratification, requires a two-thirds majority of the Senate.
The treaty, which was originally rejected by President Ronald Reagan in 1982, has been revived with the support of the Bush Administration. The treaty threatens our nation’s sovereignty by allowing the United Nations (UN) to regulate sea and land pollution and enact global taxes.
Environmental protection provisions in L.O.S.T. will impact all states. Unbelievably, the treaty allows the UN to regulate pollution from “land-based sources.” This will have a direct impact on all states. According to Tennessee Rep. Susan Lynn, Chair of ALEC’s Commerce, Insurance, and Economic Development Task Force, “The people of my state expect lawmakers, not unelected bureaucrats at the UN to make environmental and tax policy.”
Aside from regulating our environmental polices, L.O.S.T. empowers the International Seabed Authority (ISA) to impose taxes on American companies. Natural gas and oil companies, which export minerals more than 200 miles off shore, will be forced to pay seven percent of their profits to the I.S.A. Lynn added that “This treaty is a terrible idea that would give the United Nations control over seven-tenths of the world’s surface. We must be cautious because he who rules the sea will rule the land."
Furthermore, the UN body that will administer L.O.S.T. only gives the U.S. one vote and no veto authority. This will, in effect, allow an international body to impose environmental regulations and tax policy on our citizens without even the support of our representative at the UN—let alone voters.
ALEC News
American Legislative Exchange Council
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
WASHINGTON, D.C.—Last Wednesday, October 31, The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 17-4 to send the U.N.’s Law of the Sea treaty (L.O.S.T.) to the full Senate for consideration. This treaty, which has been waiting 37 years for ratification, requires a two-thirds majority of the Senate.
The treaty, which was originally rejected by President Ronald Reagan in 1982, has been revived with the support of the Bush Administration. The treaty threatens our nation’s sovereignty by allowing the United Nations (UN) to regulate sea and land pollution and enact global taxes.
Environmental protection provisions in L.O.S.T. will impact all states. Unbelievably, the treaty allows the UN to regulate pollution from “land-based sources.” This will have a direct impact on all states. According to Tennessee Rep. Susan Lynn, Chair of ALEC’s Commerce, Insurance, and Economic Development Task Force, “The people of my state expect lawmakers, not unelected bureaucrats at the UN to make environmental and tax policy.”
Aside from regulating our environmental polices, L.O.S.T. empowers the International Seabed Authority (ISA) to impose taxes on American companies. Natural gas and oil companies, which export minerals more than 200 miles off shore, will be forced to pay seven percent of their profits to the I.S.A. Lynn added that “This treaty is a terrible idea that would give the United Nations control over seven-tenths of the world’s surface. We must be cautious because he who rules the sea will rule the land."
Furthermore, the UN body that will administer L.O.S.T. only gives the U.S. one vote and no veto authority. This will, in effect, allow an international body to impose environmental regulations and tax policy on our citizens without even the support of our representative at the UN—let alone voters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
