WorldNetDaily
December 3, 2007
By Michael Rawlins
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58995
Presently, the Law of the Sea Treaty, derided by critics as "The LOST," is like an encrusted artifact on the ocean floor just waiting to be excavated. Since 1982, it has periodically resurfaced for cloaked Senate committee debate only to re-submerge in the heat of analysis. The salvagers –in this case the U.N. – have the treaty in their sounding crosshairs and merely await U.S. Senate confirmation before officially implementing their oceanic redistribution of wealth from the richer nations, i.e. the U.S., to the smaller ones.
Want proof of this socialist agenda? Just look at Article 82, Section 4, which states that the International Seabed Authority "shall distribute them (payments) to States … on the basis of equitable sharing criteria, taking into account the interests and needs of developing States, particularly the least developed … among them."
One needs only to go so far as the treaty's preamble to see that it could be used as a Marxist primer, with the words "an important contribution to the maintenance of peace, justice and progress for all peoples of the world." In fact, the 202 pages are filled with socialist code phrases, including "just and equitable economic order," "for the benefit of mankind as a whole" and "the common heritage of mankind."
As a career professional mariner, I recognize the need for free and orderly sea passage. I understand the U.S. military's support of the treaty on the grounds of seeking a legal framework to allow clear transit on, above and below straits. However, the military's tunnel-vision support is based strictly on the "right of innocent passage doctrine" and ignores numerous flaws to their own detriment.
Article 19 outlaws the practice or exercise of any kind of weapons in state territorial waters. What if a naval or commercial ship is boarded by pirates or terrorists in these waters? How can they defend themselves without first having to petition the International Seabed Authority, or ISA? For example, the Bab al-Mandab at the base of the Red Sea and the Malacca Straits in Southeast Asia are current hotspots of piracy. In 2003 alone, there were 445 reported incidents of ship attacks worldwide. Article 20 requires all unmanned vessels – even submarines used for mine detection- to transit territorial waters on the surface.
One tradition the U.N. is attempting to trample upon is the sovereignty of salvagers to bring up valuable artifacts from sunken treasures. Historically, wrecks on the international ocean floor have fallen under the doctrine of "finders, keepers." Private treasure hunters have been outstanding stewards of historical objects and if it weren't for them, they never would have seen the light of day. Now, according to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the U.N.'s watchdog body, anything more than 100 years old may only be recovered if it can be displayed in a public museum for perpetuity. With a cost of up to $50,000 per day for recovery operations, what is the incentive to find these glorious objects?
Marine scientists should be aware that, should the treaty come to pass, when working in international waters they would be de-facto employees of the U.N. In Article 144, the transfer of technology clause, the ISA has the authority to seize scientific research data and give it to other states under the power of eminent domain.
Article 150, the development of resources clause, allows the U.N. to play Uncle Hugo Chavez to oil and gas drilling companies by charging them a user fee and taxing their profits. The ISA has untrammeled power to socialize the seabed by deciding who it wants to extract resources. This is the equivalent of an international no-bid contract program. Iraq oil-for-food program, anyone? Do the accusations of Haliburton favoritism ring a bell?
Supporters claim it creates a global standard to protect living resources for future generations. However, under the conservation provisions, if nations do not harvest their entire allowable fish stocks within territorial waters, the surplus could be given to other nations, a policy that could result in forced overfishing and depletion of fish stocks.
[THIS 'COMMON HERITAGE OF MANKIND' STANDARD HAS SINCE 1994 EVOLVED INTO THE NEW UNITED NATIONS DOCTRINE OF MALTHUSIAN 'NEGATIVE' SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ARTICULATED IN THE GRO HARLEM BRUNDTLAND REPORT 'OUR COMMON FUTURE']
On Oct. 31, 2007, the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 17 to 4 to send the treaty to the full Senate for ratification. Though President Bush is pushing for its approval by year's end, it is not clear when that vote will take place; Spring of '08 appears likely. If it does pass, just know that a small, land-locked nation like Luxemburg and American adversary like Cuba will have as much power over the international seafloor as the U.S. – literally.
Showing posts with label freedom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label freedom. Show all posts
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Statement from Mayor Rudy Giuliani on the Law of the Sea Treaty
http://www.joinrudy2008.com/article/pr/948
October 30, 2007
TodayMayor Giuliani made the following statement on the Law of the Sea Treaty today which the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will begin consideration of tomorrow:
"I oppose ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty. I believe the treaty is well intentioned, and I appreciate the hard work of U.S. negotiators who sought to resolve problems in the treaty first identified by President Reagan. I also understand the arguments of those – particularly in our military – who claim that this treaty will enhance America’s ability to guarantee freedom of the seas for all peace-loving nations."
"But I believe that the treaty is fundamentally flawed. I cannot support the creation of yet another unaccountable international bureaucracy that might infringe on American sovereignty and curtail America’s freedoms. I oppose ratification of this treaty as long as it fails to address these concerns."
October 30, 2007
TodayMayor Giuliani made the following statement on the Law of the Sea Treaty today which the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will begin consideration of tomorrow:
"I oppose ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty. I believe the treaty is well intentioned, and I appreciate the hard work of U.S. negotiators who sought to resolve problems in the treaty first identified by President Reagan. I also understand the arguments of those – particularly in our military – who claim that this treaty will enhance America’s ability to guarantee freedom of the seas for all peace-loving nations."
"But I believe that the treaty is fundamentally flawed. I cannot support the creation of yet another unaccountable international bureaucracy that might infringe on American sovereignty and curtail America’s freedoms. I oppose ratification of this treaty as long as it fails to address these concerns."
The US Should Reject the UN Law of the Sea Treaty
http://www.coin.dk/default.asp?aid=1406
By Simon Espersen,
Candidate, Political Science,
Administrative Director, Copenhagen Institute, Denmark
October 28, 2007
The United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea that, allegedly sets up a system to manage navigation and explore the oceans should be firmly rejected by the US senate, if it is put to the vote.
For the moment the Senate foreign relations committee is, according to the British newspaper the Guardian (October 25), likely to approve the treaty during the coming week. If this happens two-thirds of a full Senate chamber must then vote in favor to ensure US ratification.
But doing so would be a disastrous and harmful political act. The United Nations is an institution that should have been abolished many decades ago. Any ratification of UN laws are therefore equivalent of policy, that enhance the power of a corrupt institution even more - to the detriment of all freedom loving people.
Anti-freedom and anti-reason-states as members of the UN
Any moral institution must be based on moral values. But the United Nations is based on the opposite: these are "values" that invite every kind of regime to participate in policymaking, no matter whether it is a communist dictatorship; a theocracy; some populist regime ruled by a “junta” or by some charismatic cult figure. They are all there - in the UN.
These un-free states are in fact in the UN exactly because of a "UN-value", which is the tolerance of what is malevolent: In the UN there are in accordance with the tolerance for dictatorships and collectivism no respect for the values that allow men to be free; to use their minds freely; and to prosper in doing so.
The "UN-tolerance" does simply not allow defending the values of freedom and reason that have to be upheld by the defense for private property rights, the freedom of information and all the other individual freedoms that has ensured the wealth of the west. This is why it is very disconcerting, that there is to be voted on a law of such a disreputable institution as the UN in the United States in particular, where the respect for the freedoms of the individual and upholding private property rights historically have been quite entrenched.
The environmentalism of the UN
The tolerance of anti-reason and anti-freedom is nevertheless not only to be observed in the all-inclusive approach toward membership of the UN, including the free participation of representatives of these un-free states in the workings of the UN. The same kind of tolerance of non-reason and non-science may be found in a newer phenomenon which is “environmentalism”.
Environmentalism may be described as the idea that all existing species have a value-in-them-self; and furthermore that the existing state of affairs with respect to nature should be kept in a sort of stasis or at “best”: that man changing the environment to suit his own needs should be a phenomenon that is “rolled back” and for some environmentalists should even be reversed.
- This is what “conservation” is all about; and the increasing strength of conservationism may be observed in the fact that a greater part of the planet is selected by institutions such as the UN for “conservation” and “preservation” to the detriment of the needs of human beings.
Why are old-time leftwing dictatorships, Islamic theocracies and the green movement then to be found in the same global institution? The obvious answer is that there is a common enemy: The shared-in "value" in the tolerance of anti-reason and anti-freedom, that make the various participants who are to be found in the UN stay there has also a common opponent, and that is precisely the value of the freedom of the individual, that is also the freedom to use ones mind to improve on ones own life (and thus the freedom to change ones surroundings in the process).
The system that ensures such freedoms is the system of capitalism. And anyone who studies the UN dutifully will not be able to conclude that it is not for the market economy but is in fact an institution working against it.
The environmentalists are therefore opposed to and fighting the same thing that the older type of actors in the institution are combating as well; and that is the freedom of people in the pursuit of happiness and wealth. Fortunately no matter what the US senate will be voting, the goals and aspirations of individuals who understand that reason, freedom and the institution of private property is a precondition to living and improving on ones own life will not disappear alongside any disgraceful voting behavior on behalf of the US Senate.
By Simon Espersen,
Candidate, Political Science,
Administrative Director, Copenhagen Institute, Denmark
October 28, 2007
The United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea that, allegedly sets up a system to manage navigation and explore the oceans should be firmly rejected by the US senate, if it is put to the vote.
For the moment the Senate foreign relations committee is, according to the British newspaper the Guardian (October 25), likely to approve the treaty during the coming week. If this happens two-thirds of a full Senate chamber must then vote in favor to ensure US ratification.
But doing so would be a disastrous and harmful political act. The United Nations is an institution that should have been abolished many decades ago. Any ratification of UN laws are therefore equivalent of policy, that enhance the power of a corrupt institution even more - to the detriment of all freedom loving people.
Anti-freedom and anti-reason-states as members of the UN
Any moral institution must be based on moral values. But the United Nations is based on the opposite: these are "values" that invite every kind of regime to participate in policymaking, no matter whether it is a communist dictatorship; a theocracy; some populist regime ruled by a “junta” or by some charismatic cult figure. They are all there - in the UN.
These un-free states are in fact in the UN exactly because of a "UN-value", which is the tolerance of what is malevolent: In the UN there are in accordance with the tolerance for dictatorships and collectivism no respect for the values that allow men to be free; to use their minds freely; and to prosper in doing so.
The "UN-tolerance" does simply not allow defending the values of freedom and reason that have to be upheld by the defense for private property rights, the freedom of information and all the other individual freedoms that has ensured the wealth of the west. This is why it is very disconcerting, that there is to be voted on a law of such a disreputable institution as the UN in the United States in particular, where the respect for the freedoms of the individual and upholding private property rights historically have been quite entrenched.
The environmentalism of the UN
The tolerance of anti-reason and anti-freedom is nevertheless not only to be observed in the all-inclusive approach toward membership of the UN, including the free participation of representatives of these un-free states in the workings of the UN. The same kind of tolerance of non-reason and non-science may be found in a newer phenomenon which is “environmentalism”.
Environmentalism may be described as the idea that all existing species have a value-in-them-self; and furthermore that the existing state of affairs with respect to nature should be kept in a sort of stasis or at “best”: that man changing the environment to suit his own needs should be a phenomenon that is “rolled back” and for some environmentalists should even be reversed.
- This is what “conservation” is all about; and the increasing strength of conservationism may be observed in the fact that a greater part of the planet is selected by institutions such as the UN for “conservation” and “preservation” to the detriment of the needs of human beings.
Why are old-time leftwing dictatorships, Islamic theocracies and the green movement then to be found in the same global institution? The obvious answer is that there is a common enemy: The shared-in "value" in the tolerance of anti-reason and anti-freedom, that make the various participants who are to be found in the UN stay there has also a common opponent, and that is precisely the value of the freedom of the individual, that is also the freedom to use ones mind to improve on ones own life (and thus the freedom to change ones surroundings in the process).
The system that ensures such freedoms is the system of capitalism. And anyone who studies the UN dutifully will not be able to conclude that it is not for the market economy but is in fact an institution working against it.
The environmentalists are therefore opposed to and fighting the same thing that the older type of actors in the institution are combating as well; and that is the freedom of people in the pursuit of happiness and wealth. Fortunately no matter what the US senate will be voting, the goals and aspirations of individuals who understand that reason, freedom and the institution of private property is a precondition to living and improving on ones own life will not disappear alongside any disgraceful voting behavior on behalf of the US Senate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
