BUILDING A BRIDGE TO NOWHERE BUT OBLIVION **
The UNCLOS has not been properly researched and scientifically investigated by the U.S. Executive and Legislative branches. Neither have these organs of U.S. government closely examined whether the UNCLOS's environmental regulatory rules can: 1) advance sound environmental policy; 2) ensure objective, balanced enforcement free from the political influence of special interests’ having philosophical/political and economic leanings antithetical to free markets and the protection of private property rights; and 3) guarantee that the Rule of Law, NOT the Rule by Law, is the order of the day - i.e., that Rule of Law is NOT undermined, circumvented or usurped to support a system of unaccountable supranational power where top-down rather than bottom-up Global Governance reigns.
As a result of inadequate executive and legislative branch research and oversight of the UNCLOS and its relationship to the burgeoning United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), U.S. policymakers have remained largely unaware of how the U.S. State Department continues to fund and seek future funding for these organizations/institutions - despite the fact that such funding can be and, in some cases, is actually being employed against U.S. national sovereign interests. For one thing, the UNEP is the multilateral environmental treaty-making machine of the UN, which the European Union, specifically, France and Germany, aim to enlarge and reform into an International Environmental Organization with vast powers to facilitate global environmental regulatory and economic governance over U.S. affairs, based on other than free market, private property, rule of law and scientific principles.
It is therefore surprising that the U.S. State Department has actually funded the UNEP in the neighborhood of $42.17 million from 2004-2007 ($10.94 million – 2004, $10.91 million – 2005, $10.16 million – 2006, $10.16 million – 2007), has estimated that actual 2008 UNEP funding will be $10.42 million, and has recently requested additional 2009 UNEP funding in the amount of $9.52 million – for a total of $19.94 ($20) more million, for a grand total of actual, estimated and projected UNEP funding for 2004-2009 of $62.11 million! [1] Adding insult to injury, the U.S. State Department has also, on at least two occasions, sought federal budget line funding for the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) and the International Seabed Authority (ISBA). These funding requests were submitted FY 2006 $3.1 million (ITLOS - $1.9 million + ISBA - $1.2 million) and just recently FY 2009 $4.9 million (ITLOS – $3.6 million + ISBA - $1.3 million)! [2]
What is the sound rationale justifying the U.S. Department of State's appropriation of monies to the UNCLOS [a treaty not yet ratified], to the tune of approximately $5 million dollars? If the monies are being allocated to the UNCLOS, where other treaty parties hostile to U.S. interests are 1) refocusing and reshaping the UNCLOS into a more communal, centralized social system and 2) planning to utilize the interrelationship between the UNCLOS and the UNEP to promote the development of a global governance system that compromises U.S. national sovereignty, are we not undermining ourselves by building a “Bridge That Leads to Nowhere”, but oblivion?
**[THE ITSSD WISHES TO THANK CLIFF KINCAID OF AMERICA'S SURVIVAL (http://www.usasurvival.org ) FOR BRINGING THE U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT'S PROPOSED FY 2009 BUDGET LINE FUNDING OF THESE UNCLOS BODIES TO OUR ATTENTION]
[1] See U.S. State Department “Summary and Highlights - International Affairs Function 150 Budget Requests”, ‘Contributions to International Organizations’, FY 2009 at p. 92, at: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/100014.pdf ; FY 2008 at p. 109, at: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/80151.pdf ; FY 2007 at p. 88, at: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/60297.pdf ; FY 2006 at p. 90, at: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/41913.pdf .
[2] See U.S. State Department “Summary and Highlights - International Affairs Function 150 Budget Requests”, ‘Contributions to International Organizations’, FY 2006, supra at p. 92; FY 2009, supra at p. 96.
Showing posts with label complex treaty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label complex treaty. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Industry Brief: Law of the Sea Treaty Pros & Cons Debate
http://www.industrywatch.com/pages/iw2/Story.nsp?story_id=113725075&ID=iw&scategory=Aerospace%3AHardware&P=&F=&R=&VNC=hnall
Industry Brief: Law of the Sea Treaty
The Officer, January 18, 2008
By Brooks, Will
ROA's Defense Education Forum hosted a debate on the United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty Oct. 17 at the Minuteman Memorial Building in order to establish the major arguments both for and against this treaty.
The debate featured four panelists: two in favor of the treaty's ratification, CAPT Patrick Neher, USN, and J. Ashley Roach, of the U.S. State Department's Office of the Legal Adviser; two against the treaty, Frank Gaffneyjr., and Lawrence Kogan, President and CEO of the Institute for Trade, Standards, and Sustainable Development.
CAPT Neher and Mr. Gaffney continue their debate in the two essays on these pages.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 17-4 in favor of the treaty on Oct. 31, sending the treaty to the Senate floor. A treaty requires at least a two-thirds vote in the Senate to ratify it, a feat that may not be possible given growing Republican opposition toward this treaty. President George W. Bush supports the treaty.
Aye: Law of the Sea Convention will enhance our national security.
By CAPT Patrick Neher, USN
We are at war. The president, his war cabinet, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the commandant of the Coast Guard agree that joining the Law of the Sea Convention will enhance our national security.
The Convention codifies navigation rights and freedoms essential for the global mobility of our armed forces and the sustainment of our combat troops. Benefits include the following:
* 12 nautical-mile limit to territorial seas;
* innocent passage through territorial seas;
* archipelagic sea lanes passage through island nations such as Indonesia;
* ability to lay and maintain submarine cables for communication;
* warship right-of-approach and -visit;
* sovereign immunity of warships and public vessels;
* transit passage in international straits and their approaches;
* high seas freedoms in exclusive economic zones (EEZs).
The last two are the most important. Transit passage gives us freedom of movement above, on, and below the surface in critical chokepoints such as the Straits of Singapore and Malacca, Hormuz, Gibraltar, and the Bab el Mandeb. Exercising high seas freedoms in foreign EEZs includes conducting military activities.
Our non-party status is hurting us. It denies us a seat at the table when the 155 parties to the Convention interpret or try to amend those rights and freedoms; it denies us use of an important enforcement tool against coastal state encroachment (binding dispute resolution); it prevents us from gaining legal certainty for our extended continental shelf in the Arctic and elsewhere; and it denies U.S. companies access to deep seabed mining sites.
[IF THE U.S. IS AT WAR, WHY DOES IT NEED LEGAL CERTAINTY OVER ITS MILITARY ACTIONS THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE EXEMPT FROM LOST TRIBUNALS ANYWAY??]
Convention opponents are wrong. The Convention does not provide the United Nations control over 71 percent of the Earth's surface, nor will an international body levy taxes or regulate the Navy.
[THE NAVY OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T UNDERSTAND EVOLVING INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW WELL ENOUGH TO SEE THE EMERGING TAX AND REGULATIONS REGIME COMING FORTH FROM THE UNITED NATIONS]
A U.S. resolution of advice and consent will reject the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and remove military activities from dispute resolution. The military activities exemption in the Convention is ironclad; it permits a nationand solely a nation-to completely reject all of the dispute resolution procedures for any matter it determines to be a military activity.
[THIS IS NOT TRUE AS A MATTER OF INTERNATIONAL LAW - EITHER THE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL ON THE LAW OF THE SEA (ITLOS) OR ARBITRAL BODIES CAN UNILATERALLY DETERMINE, FOR JURISDICTIONAL AND SUBSTANTIVE LAW PURPOSES, WHAT TYPES OF ACTIVITIES QUALIFY AS 'MILITARY ACTIVITIES'. THUS THERE IS NO 'IRONCLAD' EXEMPTION] *******
President Ronald Reagan supported the Convention except for six specific objections to the deep seabed mining provisions, and those were fixed in 1994.
[THIS ALSO IS NOT TRUE - THE RECENTLY RELEASED REAGAN DIARIES AND THE PUBLISHED STATEMENTS OF FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR JAMES MALONE CONTRADICT THESE CLAIMS]***
It is both the original Convention and the 1994 agreement that are before the Senate. We already are formally bound to and abide by innocent passage rules, including submarine passage in foreign territorial seas. The first sentence of Article 110 makes clear that the interdiction authorities it provides, which are substantial, are in addition to other interdiction authorities extant. The Proliferation Security Initiative requires compliance with international law, including the Convention, and almost all our partners are already parties to the Convention. Language reserving the ocean for peaceful purposes and prohibiting use or threat of force in a manner inconsistent with the UN Charter merely restates obligations we already have and fully supported.
ROA has a proud tradition of supporting a strong military policy for the United States, and therefore it should support the Law of the Sea Convention.
CAPT Neher is the director of the International and Operational Law Office of the Judge Advocate General in the Pentagon.
Nay: U.S. Navy will rue the day it urged Law of the Sea ratification.
By Frank J. Gaffney Jr.
As the debate over the ratification of the controversial UN. Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) moves to the floor of the U.S. Senate, it appears that a principal-if not decisive-consideration will be the insistence by the Navy that it needs this accord to perform its missions. If past experience is any guide, however, the nation's sea services are likely to be victims of this treaty, not beneficiaries of it.
The Navy's enthusiasm for LOST arises from provisions that codify navigation rules of the road deemed essential for the mobility of our forces. If that were all the treaty did, such enthusiasm would be warranted.
Unfortunately, the Law of the Sea Treaty has a host of other provisions as well. Some will be harmful to U.S. sovereignty, representative government, and commercial interests. Even if the accord were an unalloyed blessing for the Navy, these costs to the country would net out far in excess of its putative benefits to the naval service.
For the following reasons, though, it is predictable that the Navy will also be a loser under LOST.
The treaty contains at least six provisions inconsistent with the Navy's standard operating procedures. These impose limits on uses of the oceans, submerged transit of and intelligence collection in territorial waters, interceptions on the high seas, and research and development. There are also sweeping environmental obligations that will affect both the Navy's own activities and those of commercial contractors vital to its equipping, maintenance, and logistics.
When-not if-disputes arise over U.S. conduct at odds with these commitments, we will be obliged to submit to binding, unappealable dispute resolution mechanisms. All four of these mechanisms will be rigged against us, with the deciding votes selected by parties generally unsympathetic to this country.
The Navy is counting on an exemption in the treaty for "military activities" to prevent it from being subjected to these stacked- deck arrangements. While that exemption exists, it is unlikely in practice to protect the Navy's equities.
First, such activities are undefined, allowing a LOST tribunal to determine whether, for example, the use of high-power sonar is a military action or environmental predation. second, Navy contractors enjoy no "military" exemption. Third, notions of "universal jurisprudence" can trump the preferences and even the laws of sovereign nations. At this writing, the U.S. Supreme Court is weighing whether to agree with the Bush Administration that a ruling by the World Court (one of LOST's four designated arbitral tribunals) should override Texas statutes in a criminal case. Navy equities will likely be subject to similar perils if LOST is ratified.
The bottom line is that the Navy has enough trouble at the moment with environmentalists and others using various legal instruments to impede or prevent its activities, a practice increasingly known as "Lawfare." The Navy will come to rue the day if, at its urging, the Senate agrees to the ratification of LOST and subjects this country to still more, and evermore onerous, forms of such warfare by judicial means.
Mr. Gaffney was assistant secretary of defense in the Defense Department of President Ronald Reagan. He is a recipient of the Alfred Thayer Mahan Award for literary achievement from the U.S. Navy League.
WILL BROOKS * DIRECTOR, ROA NAVAL SERVICES SECTION
Copyright Reserve Officers Association Jan 2008
(c) 2008 Officer, The. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.
Publication Date: Arrival Time: 2008-01-18
© 2008, YellowBrix, Inc.
Industry Brief: Law of the Sea Treaty
The Officer, January 18, 2008
By Brooks, Will
ROA's Defense Education Forum hosted a debate on the United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty Oct. 17 at the Minuteman Memorial Building in order to establish the major arguments both for and against this treaty.
The debate featured four panelists: two in favor of the treaty's ratification, CAPT Patrick Neher, USN, and J. Ashley Roach, of the U.S. State Department's Office of the Legal Adviser; two against the treaty, Frank Gaffneyjr., and Lawrence Kogan, President and CEO of the Institute for Trade, Standards, and Sustainable Development.
CAPT Neher and Mr. Gaffney continue their debate in the two essays on these pages.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 17-4 in favor of the treaty on Oct. 31, sending the treaty to the Senate floor. A treaty requires at least a two-thirds vote in the Senate to ratify it, a feat that may not be possible given growing Republican opposition toward this treaty. President George W. Bush supports the treaty.
Aye: Law of the Sea Convention will enhance our national security.
By CAPT Patrick Neher, USN
We are at war. The president, his war cabinet, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the commandant of the Coast Guard agree that joining the Law of the Sea Convention will enhance our national security.
The Convention codifies navigation rights and freedoms essential for the global mobility of our armed forces and the sustainment of our combat troops. Benefits include the following:
* 12 nautical-mile limit to territorial seas;
* innocent passage through territorial seas;
* archipelagic sea lanes passage through island nations such as Indonesia;
* ability to lay and maintain submarine cables for communication;
* warship right-of-approach and -visit;
* sovereign immunity of warships and public vessels;
* transit passage in international straits and their approaches;
* high seas freedoms in exclusive economic zones (EEZs).
The last two are the most important. Transit passage gives us freedom of movement above, on, and below the surface in critical chokepoints such as the Straits of Singapore and Malacca, Hormuz, Gibraltar, and the Bab el Mandeb. Exercising high seas freedoms in foreign EEZs includes conducting military activities.
Our non-party status is hurting us. It denies us a seat at the table when the 155 parties to the Convention interpret or try to amend those rights and freedoms; it denies us use of an important enforcement tool against coastal state encroachment (binding dispute resolution); it prevents us from gaining legal certainty for our extended continental shelf in the Arctic and elsewhere; and it denies U.S. companies access to deep seabed mining sites.
[IF THE U.S. IS AT WAR, WHY DOES IT NEED LEGAL CERTAINTY OVER ITS MILITARY ACTIONS THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE EXEMPT FROM LOST TRIBUNALS ANYWAY??]
Convention opponents are wrong. The Convention does not provide the United Nations control over 71 percent of the Earth's surface, nor will an international body levy taxes or regulate the Navy.
[THE NAVY OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T UNDERSTAND EVOLVING INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW WELL ENOUGH TO SEE THE EMERGING TAX AND REGULATIONS REGIME COMING FORTH FROM THE UNITED NATIONS]
A U.S. resolution of advice and consent will reject the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and remove military activities from dispute resolution. The military activities exemption in the Convention is ironclad; it permits a nationand solely a nation-to completely reject all of the dispute resolution procedures for any matter it determines to be a military activity.
[THIS IS NOT TRUE AS A MATTER OF INTERNATIONAL LAW - EITHER THE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL ON THE LAW OF THE SEA (ITLOS) OR ARBITRAL BODIES CAN UNILATERALLY DETERMINE, FOR JURISDICTIONAL AND SUBSTANTIVE LAW PURPOSES, WHAT TYPES OF ACTIVITIES QUALIFY AS 'MILITARY ACTIVITIES'. THUS THERE IS NO 'IRONCLAD' EXEMPTION] *******
President Ronald Reagan supported the Convention except for six specific objections to the deep seabed mining provisions, and those were fixed in 1994.
[THIS ALSO IS NOT TRUE - THE RECENTLY RELEASED REAGAN DIARIES AND THE PUBLISHED STATEMENTS OF FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR JAMES MALONE CONTRADICT THESE CLAIMS]***
It is both the original Convention and the 1994 agreement that are before the Senate. We already are formally bound to and abide by innocent passage rules, including submarine passage in foreign territorial seas. The first sentence of Article 110 makes clear that the interdiction authorities it provides, which are substantial, are in addition to other interdiction authorities extant. The Proliferation Security Initiative requires compliance with international law, including the Convention, and almost all our partners are already parties to the Convention. Language reserving the ocean for peaceful purposes and prohibiting use or threat of force in a manner inconsistent with the UN Charter merely restates obligations we already have and fully supported.
ROA has a proud tradition of supporting a strong military policy for the United States, and therefore it should support the Law of the Sea Convention.
CAPT Neher is the director of the International and Operational Law Office of the Judge Advocate General in the Pentagon.
Nay: U.S. Navy will rue the day it urged Law of the Sea ratification.
By Frank J. Gaffney Jr.
As the debate over the ratification of the controversial UN. Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) moves to the floor of the U.S. Senate, it appears that a principal-if not decisive-consideration will be the insistence by the Navy that it needs this accord to perform its missions. If past experience is any guide, however, the nation's sea services are likely to be victims of this treaty, not beneficiaries of it.
The Navy's enthusiasm for LOST arises from provisions that codify navigation rules of the road deemed essential for the mobility of our forces. If that were all the treaty did, such enthusiasm would be warranted.
Unfortunately, the Law of the Sea Treaty has a host of other provisions as well. Some will be harmful to U.S. sovereignty, representative government, and commercial interests. Even if the accord were an unalloyed blessing for the Navy, these costs to the country would net out far in excess of its putative benefits to the naval service.
For the following reasons, though, it is predictable that the Navy will also be a loser under LOST.
The treaty contains at least six provisions inconsistent with the Navy's standard operating procedures. These impose limits on uses of the oceans, submerged transit of and intelligence collection in territorial waters, interceptions on the high seas, and research and development. There are also sweeping environmental obligations that will affect both the Navy's own activities and those of commercial contractors vital to its equipping, maintenance, and logistics.
When-not if-disputes arise over U.S. conduct at odds with these commitments, we will be obliged to submit to binding, unappealable dispute resolution mechanisms. All four of these mechanisms will be rigged against us, with the deciding votes selected by parties generally unsympathetic to this country.
The Navy is counting on an exemption in the treaty for "military activities" to prevent it from being subjected to these stacked- deck arrangements. While that exemption exists, it is unlikely in practice to protect the Navy's equities.
First, such activities are undefined, allowing a LOST tribunal to determine whether, for example, the use of high-power sonar is a military action or environmental predation. second, Navy contractors enjoy no "military" exemption. Third, notions of "universal jurisprudence" can trump the preferences and even the laws of sovereign nations. At this writing, the U.S. Supreme Court is weighing whether to agree with the Bush Administration that a ruling by the World Court (one of LOST's four designated arbitral tribunals) should override Texas statutes in a criminal case. Navy equities will likely be subject to similar perils if LOST is ratified.
The bottom line is that the Navy has enough trouble at the moment with environmentalists and others using various legal instruments to impede or prevent its activities, a practice increasingly known as "Lawfare." The Navy will come to rue the day if, at its urging, the Senate agrees to the ratification of LOST and subjects this country to still more, and evermore onerous, forms of such warfare by judicial means.
Mr. Gaffney was assistant secretary of defense in the Defense Department of President Ronald Reagan. He is a recipient of the Alfred Thayer Mahan Award for literary achievement from the U.S. Navy League.
WILL BROOKS * DIRECTOR, ROA NAVAL SERVICES SECTION
Copyright Reserve Officers Association Jan 2008
(c) 2008 Officer, The. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.
Publication Date: Arrival Time: 2008-01-18
© 2008, YellowBrix, Inc.
Friday, January 18, 2008
LOST will enhance security
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/EDITORIAL/111140015/1013/EDITORIAL&template=nextpage
Washington Times Letter to the Editor
November 14, 2007
The editorial "Defeat the Law of the Sea Treaty" (yesterday) contained four errors.
First, President Reagan supported the convention except for six specific objections to Part XI on deep seabed mining. Those objections were fixed in the 1994 agreement formally modifying Part XI, to which the United States is a signatory.
Mandatory technology transfer was rescinded outright in Section 5, paragraph 2 of the agreement annex.
Second, the convention's provisions on "peaceful purposes" do not constrain U.S. military activities. They restate binding obligations we already have and support under the U.N. Charter. The negotiating history on this point is clear.
In 1976, Ecuador attempted to turn the "peaceful purposes" provisions into arms control obligations. They went nowhere. Why does The Washington Times raise today a long-discredited and failed socialist argument from the 1970s?
Third, the convention not only supports the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), but not being a party hinders efforts to recruit PSI countries.
But you don't have to believe me: As then-Under Secretary John Bolton testified before the Senate in 2005, "the PSI statement of interdiction principles says very clearly that any actions taken pursuant to PSI would be done in accordance with existing national and international authority. And of course all of our other core group members of the PSI are states party to the Law of the Sea Treaty."
The PSI interdiction of the vessel BBC China, which broke the back of Libya's weapons of mass destruction program, was conducted in accordance with the Law of the Sea Convention.
Fourth, our maritime interdictions as well as all our military activities will be exempt from dispute resolution. Article 298.1 of the convention expressly provides that it is the right of a state, and solely the state, to pre-emptively and completely reject all the dispute resolution procedures for activities it determines are military activities.
[THIS DEPENDS ON WHETHER THE ANNEX VII AND ANNEX VIII ARBITRATION TRIBUNALS, OR THE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL OF THE LAW OF THE SEA (ITLOS), WHOSE JURISDICTION, IF INVOKED BY ANOTHER UNCLOS PARTY ALLEGING A VIOLATION, DEFINES THE ACTIVITY IN QUESTION AS 'MILITARY' OR 'OTHER THAN MILITARY' - SOMETHING THAT IS NOT ASSURED]***
All permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (except us) and numerous other countries have taken the military activities exemption. They, like us, would never accept a court or tribunal acting ultra vires beyond the limits of the convention itself. And by the way: Iran is not a party to the convention; like us, North Korea, Libya and Syria they are on the outside.
Also, the Senate resolution will reject the World Court and International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, and instead choose arbitration for dispute resolution of nonexempt issues.
The Times should know better than to repeat myths on important national security matters. We are at war. The president, his war cabinet, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the commandant of the Coast Guard agree that joining the Law of the Sea Convention will enhance our national security.
CAPT. PATRICK J. NEHER
Judge Advocate General's Corps
Director, international and operational law
Pentagon
Washington Times Letter to the Editor
November 14, 2007
The editorial "Defeat the Law of the Sea Treaty" (yesterday) contained four errors.
First, President Reagan supported the convention except for six specific objections to Part XI on deep seabed mining. Those objections were fixed in the 1994 agreement formally modifying Part XI, to which the United States is a signatory.
Mandatory technology transfer was rescinded outright in Section 5, paragraph 2 of the agreement annex.
Second, the convention's provisions on "peaceful purposes" do not constrain U.S. military activities. They restate binding obligations we already have and support under the U.N. Charter. The negotiating history on this point is clear.
In 1976, Ecuador attempted to turn the "peaceful purposes" provisions into arms control obligations. They went nowhere. Why does The Washington Times raise today a long-discredited and failed socialist argument from the 1970s?
[THIS ARGUMENT IS EVEN MORE RELEVANT TODAY GIVEN THE NETWORK OF HUNDREDS OF RELATED TREATIES THAT HAVE GONE INTO FORCE SINCE 1994, EACH OF WHICH CONTAIN TOP-DOWN, CENTRALIZED REGULATORY PROVISIONS REMINISCENT OF SOCIALISM]**
Third, the convention not only supports the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), but not being a party hinders efforts to recruit PSI countries.
But you don't have to believe me: As then-Under Secretary John Bolton testified before the Senate in 2005, "the PSI statement of interdiction principles says very clearly that any actions taken pursuant to PSI would be done in accordance with existing national and international authority. And of course all of our other core group members of the PSI are states party to the Law of the Sea Treaty."
The PSI interdiction of the vessel BBC China, which broke the back of Libya's weapons of mass destruction program, was conducted in accordance with the Law of the Sea Convention.
Fourth, our maritime interdictions as well as all our military activities will be exempt from dispute resolution. Article 298.1 of the convention expressly provides that it is the right of a state, and solely the state, to pre-emptively and completely reject all the dispute resolution procedures for activities it determines are military activities.
[THIS DEPENDS ON WHETHER THE ANNEX VII AND ANNEX VIII ARBITRATION TRIBUNALS, OR THE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL OF THE LAW OF THE SEA (ITLOS), WHOSE JURISDICTION, IF INVOKED BY ANOTHER UNCLOS PARTY ALLEGING A VIOLATION, DEFINES THE ACTIVITY IN QUESTION AS 'MILITARY' OR 'OTHER THAN MILITARY' - SOMETHING THAT IS NOT ASSURED]***
All permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (except us) and numerous other countries have taken the military activities exemption. They, like us, would never accept a court or tribunal acting ultra vires beyond the limits of the convention itself. And by the way: Iran is not a party to the convention; like us, North Korea, Libya and Syria they are on the outside.
Also, the Senate resolution will reject the World Court and International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, and instead choose arbitration for dispute resolution of nonexempt issues.
The Times should know better than to repeat myths on important national security matters. We are at war. The president, his war cabinet, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the commandant of the Coast Guard agree that joining the Law of the Sea Convention will enhance our national security.
CAPT. PATRICK J. NEHER
Judge Advocate General's Corps
Director, international and operational law
Pentagon
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."
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Fast-tracked LOST faces Senate vote GOP battling plan to give U.N. control of 70 percent of planet
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58433
Posted: October 31, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
The U.S. Senate is scheduled to vote today on the ratification of the United Nations' Law of the Sea Treaty, a wide-ranging measure critics say will grant the U.N. control of the 70 percent of the planet under its oceans.
With Democrats in nearly unanimous agreement with the treaty and the Bush administration behind it, it will be up to a handful of determined Republican senators to derail it.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has indicated he will oppose the plan, and other senators have indicated they have heard from constituents who are afraid of the proposal.
"In the same way that the people prevailed in the Senate in the matter of defeating the illegal alien amnesty bill, it is entirely possible that the U.N. power grab known officially as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) could be rejected," one commentator noted.
"If you want a U.N. on steroids, you want the Law of the Sea Treaty," Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., has said.
A two-thirds vote is required for approval, meaning only 34 "no" votes can kill it.
This is not the first time LOST has come up. International negotiators drafted it in 1982 in an attempt to establish a comprehensive legal regime for international management of the seas and their resources. President Ronald Reagan, however, refused to sign LOST because he realized that the treaty doesn't serve U.S. interests.
In 1994, however, President Clinton signed a revised version of the treaty and forwarded it to the Senate. The record shows the Senate was not convinced the 1994 changes corrected the problems, and it has deferred action on the treaty ever since.
The Heritage Foundation warns the treaty would have unintended consequences for U.S. interests – including a threat to sovereignty.
The conservative think tank says "bureaucracies established by multilateral treaties often lack the transparency and accountability necessary to ensure that they are untainted by corruption, mismanagement or inappropriate claims of authority. The LOST bureaucracy is called the International Seabed Authority Secretariat, which has a strong incentive to enhance its own authority at the expense of state sovereignty."
"For example, this treaty would impose taxes on U.S. companies engaged in extracting resources from the ocean floor," wrote Heritage fellows Baker Spring and Brett D. Schaefer. "This would give the treaty's secretariat an independent revenue stream that would remove a key check on its authority. After all, once a bureaucracy has its own source of funding, it needs answer only to itself."
"The United States should be wary of joining sweeping multilateral treaties negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations," say Spring and Schaefer of Heritage. "Specifically, the benefit to U.S. national interests should be indisputable and clearly outweigh the predictable negative consequences of ratification."
Other critics fear the treaty will be used as a back-door to implement policies against global warming without any accountability to the American people. Parts of the treaty, they say, mandate international regulation of U.S. economic and industrial activities on land. With that in mind, critics of the treaty believe so-called greenhouse gases could be viewed as ocean pollutants.
In the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing recently, Bush administration officials were repeatedly embarrassed by tough questioning from Sen. David Vitter, R-La., who also has led opposition to ratification.
For instance, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte testified the U.N. body established by the treaty has "no jurisdiction over marine pollution disputes involving land-based sources."
"Why is there a section entitled pollution from land-based sources?" questioned Vitter.
Vitter also questioned who decides what is considered military activity under the treaty.
"We will decide that. We consider that within our sovereign prerogative," said Negroponte.
"Where does the treaty say that we decide that and an arbitral body does not decide that?" questioned Vitter.
Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England answered: "My understanding – and I'll ask my lawyer behind me – that that's in the treaty that we make that determination and that's not subject to review by anyone else."
"It's not in the treaty because I point to Article 298 1b where it simply says disputes concerning military activities are not subject to dispute resolution," explained Vitter. "But it doesn't say who decides what is and what is not a military activity."
England conceded the point.
"We say it is up to us, but nobody else in the world says it is up to us," Vitter said.
Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said the United States had special military and commercial interests as the globe's only superpower, interests that the treaty did not take into account. He said many of the concerns over loss of national sovereignty that surfaced in the recent debate over immigration reform were surfacing once again in the Law of the Sea debate.
"This is not a good time to be bringing something like this before the American people," he said.
The battle over the Law of the Sea Treaty first began 25 years ago, eventually being torpedoed by President Reagan. It resurfaced in 2004 under the sponsorship of Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and was defeated by then Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.
Then a short time agoPresident Bush announced his intention to seek reintroduction of LOST for ratification to a small group of trusted Republican grass-roots organizers – an announcement that was met with horror and scorn.
Eagle Forum leader Phyllis Schlafly, Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney, Leadership Institute President Morton Blackwell, Free Congress Foundation founder Paul Weyrich and leaders of the Heritage Foundation were quick to denounce the idea in forceful terms, calling on their members to begin lobbying the White House immediately.
LOST has long had the support of environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council.
It would establish rules governing the uses of the of the world's oceans – treating waters more than 200 nautical miles off coasts as the purview of a new international U.N. bureaucracy, the International Seabed Authority
The ISA would have the authority to set production controls for ocean mining, drilling and fishing, regulate ocean exploration, issue permits and settle disputes in its own new "court."
Companies seeking to mine or fish would be required to apply for a permit, paying a royalty fee.
Critics also point out the new U.N. agency would have the right to compete directly with private companies in those profit-making activities.
The U.S. would have only one vote of 140 – and no veto power as it has on the U.N. Security Council.
The Bush administration claims the initiative for reintroduction of the treaty comes from the military, which likes the 12-mile territorial limits it places on national claims to waters. Yet, critics point out international law already protects non-aggressive passage, including non-wartime activities of military ships.
One of the main authors of LOST not only admired Karl Marx but was an ardent advocate of the Marxist-oriented New International Economic Order. Elisabeth Mann Borgese, a socialist who ran the World Federalists of Canada, played a critical role in crafting and promoting LOST, as WND reported in 2005.
Borgese was hailed by her U.N. supporters as the "Mother of the Oceans" or "First Lady of the Oceans." She died in 2002.
In an article co-authored with an international lawyer, Borgese noted how LOST stipulates that the oceans "shall be reserved for peaceful purposes" and that "any threat or use of force, inconsistent with the United Nations Charter, is prohibited."
She argued LOST prohibits the ability of nuclear submarines from the U.S. and other nations to rove freely through the world's oceans.
Posted: October 31, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
The U.S. Senate is scheduled to vote today on the ratification of the United Nations' Law of the Sea Treaty, a wide-ranging measure critics say will grant the U.N. control of the 70 percent of the planet under its oceans.
With Democrats in nearly unanimous agreement with the treaty and the Bush administration behind it, it will be up to a handful of determined Republican senators to derail it.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has indicated he will oppose the plan, and other senators have indicated they have heard from constituents who are afraid of the proposal.
"In the same way that the people prevailed in the Senate in the matter of defeating the illegal alien amnesty bill, it is entirely possible that the U.N. power grab known officially as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) could be rejected," one commentator noted.
"If you want a U.N. on steroids, you want the Law of the Sea Treaty," Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., has said.
A two-thirds vote is required for approval, meaning only 34 "no" votes can kill it.
This is not the first time LOST has come up. International negotiators drafted it in 1982 in an attempt to establish a comprehensive legal regime for international management of the seas and their resources. President Ronald Reagan, however, refused to sign LOST because he realized that the treaty doesn't serve U.S. interests.
In 1994, however, President Clinton signed a revised version of the treaty and forwarded it to the Senate. The record shows the Senate was not convinced the 1994 changes corrected the problems, and it has deferred action on the treaty ever since.
The Heritage Foundation warns the treaty would have unintended consequences for U.S. interests – including a threat to sovereignty.
The conservative think tank says "bureaucracies established by multilateral treaties often lack the transparency and accountability necessary to ensure that they are untainted by corruption, mismanagement or inappropriate claims of authority. The LOST bureaucracy is called the International Seabed Authority Secretariat, which has a strong incentive to enhance its own authority at the expense of state sovereignty."
"For example, this treaty would impose taxes on U.S. companies engaged in extracting resources from the ocean floor," wrote Heritage fellows Baker Spring and Brett D. Schaefer. "This would give the treaty's secretariat an independent revenue stream that would remove a key check on its authority. After all, once a bureaucracy has its own source of funding, it needs answer only to itself."
"The United States should be wary of joining sweeping multilateral treaties negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations," say Spring and Schaefer of Heritage. "Specifically, the benefit to U.S. national interests should be indisputable and clearly outweigh the predictable negative consequences of ratification."
Other critics fear the treaty will be used as a back-door to implement policies against global warming without any accountability to the American people. Parts of the treaty, they say, mandate international regulation of U.S. economic and industrial activities on land. With that in mind, critics of the treaty believe so-called greenhouse gases could be viewed as ocean pollutants.
In the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing recently, Bush administration officials were repeatedly embarrassed by tough questioning from Sen. David Vitter, R-La., who also has led opposition to ratification.
For instance, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte testified the U.N. body established by the treaty has "no jurisdiction over marine pollution disputes involving land-based sources."
"Why is there a section entitled pollution from land-based sources?" questioned Vitter.
Vitter also questioned who decides what is considered military activity under the treaty.
"We will decide that. We consider that within our sovereign prerogative," said Negroponte.
"Where does the treaty say that we decide that and an arbitral body does not decide that?" questioned Vitter.
Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England answered: "My understanding – and I'll ask my lawyer behind me – that that's in the treaty that we make that determination and that's not subject to review by anyone else."
"It's not in the treaty because I point to Article 298 1b where it simply says disputes concerning military activities are not subject to dispute resolution," explained Vitter. "But it doesn't say who decides what is and what is not a military activity."
England conceded the point.
"We say it is up to us, but nobody else in the world says it is up to us," Vitter said.
Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said the United States had special military and commercial interests as the globe's only superpower, interests that the treaty did not take into account. He said many of the concerns over loss of national sovereignty that surfaced in the recent debate over immigration reform were surfacing once again in the Law of the Sea debate.
"This is not a good time to be bringing something like this before the American people," he said.
The battle over the Law of the Sea Treaty first began 25 years ago, eventually being torpedoed by President Reagan. It resurfaced in 2004 under the sponsorship of Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and was defeated by then Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.
Then a short time agoPresident Bush announced his intention to seek reintroduction of LOST for ratification to a small group of trusted Republican grass-roots organizers – an announcement that was met with horror and scorn.
Eagle Forum leader Phyllis Schlafly, Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney, Leadership Institute President Morton Blackwell, Free Congress Foundation founder Paul Weyrich and leaders of the Heritage Foundation were quick to denounce the idea in forceful terms, calling on their members to begin lobbying the White House immediately.
LOST has long had the support of environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council.
It would establish rules governing the uses of the of the world's oceans – treating waters more than 200 nautical miles off coasts as the purview of a new international U.N. bureaucracy, the International Seabed Authority
The ISA would have the authority to set production controls for ocean mining, drilling and fishing, regulate ocean exploration, issue permits and settle disputes in its own new "court."
Companies seeking to mine or fish would be required to apply for a permit, paying a royalty fee.
Critics also point out the new U.N. agency would have the right to compete directly with private companies in those profit-making activities.
The U.S. would have only one vote of 140 – and no veto power as it has on the U.N. Security Council.
The Bush administration claims the initiative for reintroduction of the treaty comes from the military, which likes the 12-mile territorial limits it places on national claims to waters. Yet, critics point out international law already protects non-aggressive passage, including non-wartime activities of military ships.
One of the main authors of LOST not only admired Karl Marx but was an ardent advocate of the Marxist-oriented New International Economic Order. Elisabeth Mann Borgese, a socialist who ran the World Federalists of Canada, played a critical role in crafting and promoting LOST, as WND reported in 2005.
Borgese was hailed by her U.N. supporters as the "Mother of the Oceans" or "First Lady of the Oceans." She died in 2002.
In an article co-authored with an international lawyer, Borgese noted how LOST stipulates that the oceans "shall be reserved for peaceful purposes" and that "any threat or use of force, inconsistent with the United Nations Charter, is prohibited."
She argued LOST prohibits the ability of nuclear submarines from the U.S. and other nations to rove freely through the world's oceans.
Permission Slip for the Sea
By Oliver NorthFriday
October 12, 2007
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/OliverNorth/2007/10/12/permission_slip_for_the_sea
WASHINGTON -- In his 2004 State of the Union Address, President Bush said, "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country." Members of both parties and both houses of Congress applauded. But if the Senate votes to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea -- known as the Law of the Sea Treaty -- or its appropriate acronym -- LOST -- he and his successors are going to need lots of permission slips.
In 1982, Ronald Reagan, concerned about the treaty's implications for our sovereignty and national security, formally rejected LOST because it did "not satisfy the objectives sought by the United States." In 1994, William Jefferson Clinton, eager to appease One World Government advocates in his own party and at the United Nations, negotiated a parallel "agreement" that purported to address Mr. Reagan's concerns -- and urged ratification. Since then, LOST has gathered dust in the bowels of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee. All that may be about to change. The deeply flawed, Soviet-era agreement giving unelected, unaccountable international bureaucrats control over 71 percent of the Earth's surface is now on a fast track to ratification.
Advocates for LOST -- among them Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden, D-Del. -- claim that the Clinton-negotiated parallel "agreement" eliminates concerns about empowering international organizations to collect heavy fees or interfere with the U.S. military or intelligence collection. Yet a careful reading of LOST's 202 pages -- and the so-called agreement -- proves that's not true.
The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea already has created a Byzantine array of international organizations to administer the provisions of LOST. Everything from compliance with global environmental agreements, to the collection of "user fees" from private companies, to disputes about military operations above, on or under international waters are subject to mandatory dispute resolution by one or more of these international bodies.
According to the U.N., the purpose of LOST is to preserve international waters for peaceful purposes. But Articles 19 and 20 of the treaty would proscribe the U.S. Navy from training with weapons, collecting intelligence or interfering with enemy communications in the territorial waters of other countries without their expressed permission. Military aircraft are prohibited specifically from taking off and landing in these waters, and severe limitations would be imposed on loading and unloading "any commodity, currency or person" including military equipment. Submarines are required to travel on the surface and "show their flag in territorial waters." Article 30 states that warships not complying with the laws of a coastal nation can be forced to leave. Disputes about these issues would be adjudicated by international lawyers. Right.
LOST's proponents discount these concerns by claiming the U.S. simply will exempt military activities from the treaty's compulsory dispute resolution requirements. However, the "opt out" clause in Article 298 fails to define such operations. In our own Congress, intelligence functions are not considered to be military activities, so it is far from certain that the U.N. would accept the U.S. position that intelligence operations over, on or under the seas are indeed military activities. If there is a dispute as to what is or isn't a military activity, LOST requires the matter to be resolved by international arbitration.
In 2003, Navy Adm. Michael Mullen, now the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that rulings from these arbitration panels "could have an impact on operational planning and activities, and our security." Last week, in response to questions from Sen. David Vitter, R-La., during a committee hearing, professor Bernard Oxman, a witness supporting LOST, admitted that if the parties to a dispute can't agree on the arbitration panel, the U.N. secretary-general will chose the arbitrators. Lawyers in Pyongyang, Havana and Tehran: Call Turtle Bay.
LOST also opens the door to a long-sought U.N. goal: the redistribution of wealth by taxing Americans. The International Seabed Authority, a bloated, multinational bureaucracy headquartered in Jamaica, has the mandate to distribute revenues and "other economic benefits" on the basis of "equitable sharing criteria, taking into account the interests and needs of developing states." In addition to acting as a global IRS, the ISA also decides which companies from which nations will develop mineral resources on the seabed.
In urging ratification, former President Bill Clinton described LOST as "a far-reaching environmental accord" that would "harmonize" U.S. laws to "prevent, reduce and control pollution" in the "best practical means." But Article 213 requires nations to adopt "laws and regulations to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from land-based sources." Thus, LOST could become a means of enforcing another agreement we never ratified: the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. Al Gore, call your office.
Before casting a vote to ratify LOST, all 100 senators should read Article 314 of this onerous treaty and Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. The U.N.-crafted document specifies that amendments to the treaty can be adopted -- and therefore enforced -- without the consent of any signatory. Yet our Constitution requires that two-thirds of our Senate concur in any treaty. Do 67 members of this Senate now want to surrender that authority to foreign governments?
Oliver North is the founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance and author of The Assassins.Oliver North is the host of War Stories on the Fox News Channel and the founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance.
October 12, 2007
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/OliverNorth/2007/10/12/permission_slip_for_the_sea
WASHINGTON -- In his 2004 State of the Union Address, President Bush said, "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country." Members of both parties and both houses of Congress applauded. But if the Senate votes to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea -- known as the Law of the Sea Treaty -- or its appropriate acronym -- LOST -- he and his successors are going to need lots of permission slips.
In 1982, Ronald Reagan, concerned about the treaty's implications for our sovereignty and national security, formally rejected LOST because it did "not satisfy the objectives sought by the United States." In 1994, William Jefferson Clinton, eager to appease One World Government advocates in his own party and at the United Nations, negotiated a parallel "agreement" that purported to address Mr. Reagan's concerns -- and urged ratification. Since then, LOST has gathered dust in the bowels of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee. All that may be about to change. The deeply flawed, Soviet-era agreement giving unelected, unaccountable international bureaucrats control over 71 percent of the Earth's surface is now on a fast track to ratification.
Advocates for LOST -- among them Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden, D-Del. -- claim that the Clinton-negotiated parallel "agreement" eliminates concerns about empowering international organizations to collect heavy fees or interfere with the U.S. military or intelligence collection. Yet a careful reading of LOST's 202 pages -- and the so-called agreement -- proves that's not true.
The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea already has created a Byzantine array of international organizations to administer the provisions of LOST. Everything from compliance with global environmental agreements, to the collection of "user fees" from private companies, to disputes about military operations above, on or under international waters are subject to mandatory dispute resolution by one or more of these international bodies.
According to the U.N., the purpose of LOST is to preserve international waters for peaceful purposes. But Articles 19 and 20 of the treaty would proscribe the U.S. Navy from training with weapons, collecting intelligence or interfering with enemy communications in the territorial waters of other countries without their expressed permission. Military aircraft are prohibited specifically from taking off and landing in these waters, and severe limitations would be imposed on loading and unloading "any commodity, currency or person" including military equipment. Submarines are required to travel on the surface and "show their flag in territorial waters." Article 30 states that warships not complying with the laws of a coastal nation can be forced to leave. Disputes about these issues would be adjudicated by international lawyers. Right.
LOST's proponents discount these concerns by claiming the U.S. simply will exempt military activities from the treaty's compulsory dispute resolution requirements. However, the "opt out" clause in Article 298 fails to define such operations. In our own Congress, intelligence functions are not considered to be military activities, so it is far from certain that the U.N. would accept the U.S. position that intelligence operations over, on or under the seas are indeed military activities. If there is a dispute as to what is or isn't a military activity, LOST requires the matter to be resolved by international arbitration.
In 2003, Navy Adm. Michael Mullen, now the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that rulings from these arbitration panels "could have an impact on operational planning and activities, and our security." Last week, in response to questions from Sen. David Vitter, R-La., during a committee hearing, professor Bernard Oxman, a witness supporting LOST, admitted that if the parties to a dispute can't agree on the arbitration panel, the U.N. secretary-general will chose the arbitrators. Lawyers in Pyongyang, Havana and Tehran: Call Turtle Bay.
LOST also opens the door to a long-sought U.N. goal: the redistribution of wealth by taxing Americans. The International Seabed Authority, a bloated, multinational bureaucracy headquartered in Jamaica, has the mandate to distribute revenues and "other economic benefits" on the basis of "equitable sharing criteria, taking into account the interests and needs of developing states." In addition to acting as a global IRS, the ISA also decides which companies from which nations will develop mineral resources on the seabed.
In urging ratification, former President Bill Clinton described LOST as "a far-reaching environmental accord" that would "harmonize" U.S. laws to "prevent, reduce and control pollution" in the "best practical means." But Article 213 requires nations to adopt "laws and regulations to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from land-based sources." Thus, LOST could become a means of enforcing another agreement we never ratified: the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. Al Gore, call your office.
Before casting a vote to ratify LOST, all 100 senators should read Article 314 of this onerous treaty and Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. The U.N.-crafted document specifies that amendments to the treaty can be adopted -- and therefore enforced -- without the consent of any signatory. Yet our Constitution requires that two-thirds of our Senate concur in any treaty. Do 67 members of this Senate now want to surrender that authority to foreign governments?
Oliver North is the founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance and author of The Assassins.Oliver North is the host of War Stories on the Fox News Channel and the founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
