http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1203652526272450.xml&coll=7
Military's strategists promote 'soft power'
Portland visit - Navy, Marines and Coast Guard to stress war prevention, admirals say
Friday, February 22, 2008
By RICHARD READ
The Oregonian
U.S. military leaders in Portland on Thursday said a new strategy stressing international cooperation was not intended as a departure from Bush administration policies that have emphasized a troop surge.
Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard officers said they would emphasize war prevention, humanitarian assistance and international cooperation.
"Although our forces can surge when necessary to respond to crises, trust and cooperation cannot be surged," says a summary of their new policy, entitled "A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower."
Despite the new directions and the reference to a surge -- a term associated most recently with President Bush for Iraq tactics -- the strategy is not a jab at the administration, Navy Vice Adm. John Morgan Jr. said during an interview.
[THIS IS NOT CERTAIN. HOWEVER, WHAT IS CERTAIN, IS THAT THE 'NEW' POLICY IS ACTUALLY AN 'OLD' POLICY RECYCLED FROM THE CLINTON-GORE ADMINISTRATIONS. THAT POLICY, WHICH IS FORMERLY KNOWN AS 'MILITARY OPERATIONS OTHER THAN WAR', FOCUSED ON FOSTERING INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW COOPERATION. DURING THE CLINTON ERA, U.S. MILITARY RESOURCES, INCLUDING THOSE OF THE U.S. NAVY, HAD BEEN SYSTEMATICALLY RE-ORIENTATED TOWARDS ENSURING MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP AS PART OF AN INTEGRATED AND 'REVISED' U.S. NATIONAL MILIATARY/POLITICAL STRATEGY. ARGUABLY, TO THE EXTENT THIS MODE OF THINKING CONTINUES TO BE REFLECTED IN TODAY'S RECYCLED THINKING, IT ARGUABLY IMPAIRS THE SOUND PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT OF THE U.S. NAVY'S OFFICER CORPS (WHICH CURRENTLY SUPPORTS UNCLOS RATIFICATION), AND WILL CONTINUE TO INTERFERE WITH THE U.S. MARITIME SERVICES' PRIMARY ROLE OF PROJECTING AMERICAN POWER ABROAD IN ORDER TO PREVENT AND/OR TO RESOLVE INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS AND TO ENSURE THE SECURITY OF THE AMERICAN HOMELAND. SEE: Myth & Realities # 2 Concerning UN Law of the Sea Treaty: U.S. Naval Freedom of Navigation and Avoidance of LOST Tribunal Jurisdiction, Despite Europe’s Aggressive Use of the Precautionary Principle? at fn#s 30-32, AT: http://itssdjournalunclos-lost.blogspot.com/2008/01/myth-realities-2-concerning-un-law-of.html .]
"I'm confident that we're in sync with this administration," said Morgan, citing approaches advocated by State Department officials. "We follow their lead."
[THE FACT THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT ADVOCATES THIS POLICY IS REASON ALONE FOR CONCERN].
Military officials picked Portland as the first West Coast stop in a series of national "conversations." They invited community leaders to respond to the new strategy, which goes beyond traditional sea combat, in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and subsequent wars.
[THIS IS NOT LIKELY TRUE. THE REASON MILITARY OFFICIALS HAVE PICKED PORTLAND IS BECAUSE OF ITS ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP ROLE. PORTLAND OREGON HAS THE DUBIOUS DISTINCTION OF BEING ONLY ONE OF THREE MAJOR U.S. CITIES, ALL LOCATED ALONG THE WEST COAST, THAT HAVE ADOPTED THE EUROPE UNION'S HAZARD, NOT RISK-BASED PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE AS MUNICIPAL LAW. THE OTHERS, NOT SURPRISINGLY, ARE SEATTLE, WA and SAN FRANCISCO, CA - THE HOME DISTRICT OF THE SPEAKER OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES].
About 200 members of the World Affairs Council of Oregon and other organizations attended the one-day event at a downtown hotel. Invitations were sent to more than 2,000 community leaders, academics and people interested in maritime issues, said Coast Guard Rear Adm. David Pekoske.
The strategy emphasizes the use of "soft power" in an approach that could appeal more to doves than hawks.
But defense analysts in Washington, D.C., agreed it would be a mistake to interpret the strategy, crafted before the current presidential campaign, as an attempt by the military to prepare for a potential Democratic administration.
Defense Department officials have recently elevated missions such as peacekeeping to a "purported par" with war-fighting, said Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a liberal think tank.
"When they start building warships that hold food packets as conveniently as they hold missiles, I'll find the claim more compelling," O'Hanlon said, "at which point I'll also probably object to it, since militaries are first and foremost about combat."
What's especially significant about the strategy is that the Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard are collaborating, instead of duplicating or even competing, said Stephen Pietropaoli, executive director of the Navy League of the United States, a nonprofit supporting the sea services.
Morgan, 57, participated in the first strikes on Afghanistan after 9/11 as battle-group commander aboard the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, in charge of about 10,000 personnel. He said war prevention and international cooperation were the most significant new points in the strategy.
A University of Virginia economics graduate, Morgan said U.S. forces at sea secure the flow of commerce. "We can never take that for granted," said Morgan, noting Portland's heavy reliance on international trade.
Morgan received applause when he endorsed U.S. ratification of The Law of the Sea Treaty, which would govern ocean activities.
That stance appealed to Joella Werlin, a Portland personal historian and World Affairs Council member who attended Thursday's event.
"What an extraordinary experience in a democracy," Werlin said, "that the military is actually asking for public input." Richard Read: 503-294-5135; richread@aol.com. %%endby%%
©2008 The Oregonian
Showing posts with label land-based sources of pollution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label land-based sources of pollution. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Friday, January 18, 2008
Bush support for sea treaty affirmed 'I understand there are concerns. We believe those have been addressed'
November 16, 2007
WorldNetDaily.com
The president continues to support the pending Law of the Sea Treaty, but a spokeswoman isn't going to speculate on how it would have affected critical U.S. operations on the sea had it been adopted earlier.
The issue was resurrected recently in the U.S. Senate at President Bush's urging even though critics making up a wide-ranging chorus have concluded it would grant the United Nations control of 70 percent of the planet under its oceans, and undermine U.S. sovereignty.
The plan recently was approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on a 17-4 vote, and now must go before the full Senate.
Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., has called it, "U.N. on steroids," and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has concluded it is "the dumbest thing we've ever done. It's like taking our sovereignty and handing it over to some international tribunal. What's wrong with us?"
The affirmation of Bush's position came from White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, who responded to a question from Les Kinsolving, WND's White House correspondent. He asked. "How does the president react to the fact that while he supports the Law of the Sea Treaty, all the leading Republican candidates for president now have announced they oppose it?"
"The president's position is very clear. The Defense Department and the State Department have been to Capitol Hill to help explain why this Law of the Sea Treaty makes sense. The president's position on the Law of the Sea is clear. And presidential candidates are going to make their own decisions," she said.
"Does the president believe that had we been subject to the Law of the Sea Treaty, that President Kennedy could have quarantined Cuba with the U.S. Navy, that President Ford could have used the Navy to rescue the Mayaguez, and President Reagan could have sent a Navy carrier force to defy Qaddafi of Libya in the Gulf..?" Kinsolving asked.
"I always avoid hypotheticals for the future; I'm going to avoid them for past scenarios as well," she said.
One day earlier, she had responded similarly.
"The president is supportive of the treaty, and so is our military and our State Department. And we have testified on Capitol Hill multiple times about it," she said. "I understand that there are concerns, but we believe that those have been addressed."
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 concluded the treaty doesn't serve U.S. interests.
Sen. John McCain, R-Az., also has opposed the idea. "I do worry a lot about American sovereignty aspects of it," he said. "I would probably vote against it in its present form."
Former Sen. Fred Thompson added his concerns over the treaty's threat to the U.S. He said it "gives a U.N.-affiliated organization far too much authority over U.S. interests in international waters."
U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., said it is imperative that the U.S. "not surrender decision making power for military navigation or resource extraction, especially in this age of terrorism with technology and weapons proliferation. And adding a new set of U.N. bureaucrats with license to tax and adjudicate disputes is the last thing this country needs."
Huckabee was a little more pointed. "The Law of the Sea Treaty essentially would say that the United States would give up certain controls of its territorial waters, it would give up its sovereign understanding of what it can do within its own seas both at the surface and within the depths, and that we would virtually hand ourselves over to an international body of justice."
U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., has taken a similar position.
In 1994, 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."
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.
The proposal 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.
The issue was resurrected recently in the U.S. Senate at President Bush's urging even though critics making up a wide-ranging chorus have concluded it would grant the United Nations control of 70 percent of the planet under its oceans, and undermine U.S. sovereignty.
The plan recently was approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on a 17-4 vote, and now must go before the full Senate.
Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., has called it, "U.N. on steroids," and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has concluded it is "the dumbest thing we've ever done. It's like taking our sovereignty and handing it over to some international tribunal. What's wrong with us?"
The affirmation of Bush's position came from White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, who responded to a question from Les Kinsolving, WND's White House correspondent. He asked. "How does the president react to the fact that while he supports the Law of the Sea Treaty, all the leading Republican candidates for president now have announced they oppose it?"
"The president's position is very clear. The Defense Department and the State Department have been to Capitol Hill to help explain why this Law of the Sea Treaty makes sense. The president's position on the Law of the Sea is clear. And presidential candidates are going to make their own decisions," she said.
"Does the president believe that had we been subject to the Law of the Sea Treaty, that President Kennedy could have quarantined Cuba with the U.S. Navy, that President Ford could have used the Navy to rescue the Mayaguez, and President Reagan could have sent a Navy carrier force to defy Qaddafi of Libya in the Gulf..?" Kinsolving asked.
"I always avoid hypotheticals for the future; I'm going to avoid them for past scenarios as well," she said.
One day earlier, she had responded similarly.
"The president is supportive of the treaty, and so is our military and our State Department. And we have testified on Capitol Hill multiple times about it," she said. "I understand that there are concerns, but we believe that those have been addressed."
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 concluded the treaty doesn't serve U.S. interests.
Sen. John McCain, R-Az., also has opposed the idea. "I do worry a lot about American sovereignty aspects of it," he said. "I would probably vote against it in its present form."
Former Sen. Fred Thompson added his concerns over the treaty's threat to the U.S. He said it "gives a U.N.-affiliated organization far too much authority over U.S. interests in international waters."
U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., said it is imperative that the U.S. "not surrender decision making power for military navigation or resource extraction, especially in this age of terrorism with technology and weapons proliferation. And adding a new set of U.N. bureaucrats with license to tax and adjudicate disputes is the last thing this country needs."
Huckabee was a little more pointed. "The Law of the Sea Treaty essentially would say that the United States would give up certain controls of its territorial waters, it would give up its sovereign understanding of what it can do within its own seas both at the surface and within the depths, and that we would virtually hand ourselves over to an international body of justice."
U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., has taken a similar position.
In 1994, 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."
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.
The proposal 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.
Vitter Calls for Full Examination of Law of the Sea Treaty
Senator Vitter Delivers Speech on Law of the Sea Treaty
Press Release
Office of U.S. Senator David Vitter
November 13, 2007 -
http://vitter.senate.gov/?module=pressroom/pressitem&ID=576674df-cb2c-44d6-ae6b-abf51a119f0c#
(Washington, D.C.) – U.S. Sen. David Vitter again today voiced his concerns with the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, speaking out against key provisions on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Vitter has repeatedly called for a further and more thorough review of LOST before it is voted on by the U.S. Senate, and despite its recent approval by the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs he has remained an outspoken critic of the treaty’s potential impact on the United States.
“The impact of this treaty on American sovereignty and security cannot be understated. Ratifying LOST would signal our intent to hand a portion of our national security matters over to the United Nations and similar international bodies – which are not accountable to any higher authority and often hold less than friendly views of the United States,” said Vitter.
LOST carves the sea into zones and, in certain cases, dictates what actions sovereign states may be permitted to engage in under its terms, including those relating to national security, science, trade and the environment. These restrictive activities, and the strengthening of powers granted to the United Nations by the treaty, are among some of Sen. Vitter’s principal concerns.
“LOST attempts to govern the use of the seabed, the airspace above it and the topsoil below it – infringing on the ability of sovereign nations to explore the oceans, conduct scientific research or collect military intelligence vital to national defense. It also allows international courts and tribunals to define what constitutes U.S. ‘military’ or ‘intelligence-gathering activities,’ a subjective power that could routinely lead America into disputes with other nations,” Vitter added.
“This “lawfare” holds grave repercussions for our rights as a country and provides the U.N. with simply too much authority over American interests and concerns,” Vitter said.
Vitter has repeatedly called for further debate on this issue and recently sent letters to the U.S. Senate Committees on Environment and Public Works and Foreign Relations requesting that a panel of experts from present and past administrations be allowed to appear before the committees to answer detailed questions from the members. Vitter also noted that previous questions raised by senators have not yet been adequately addressed.
International treaties must be ratified by the U.S. Senate and LOST must receive full Senate floor consideration before being formalized. It was approved by the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs last month by a vote of 17-4, with Vitter being only one of four who voted in opposition to the treaty.
“LOST holds significant, unseen consequences for the United States and could affect our sovereignty and environmental and commercial policies. This treaty needs to be reviewed carefully, and we need a full and open debate on its merits and flaws before moving forward,” said Vitter.
Press Release
Office of U.S. Senator David Vitter
November 13, 2007 -
http://vitter.senate.gov/?module=pressroom/pressitem&ID=576674df-cb2c-44d6-ae6b-abf51a119f0c#
(Washington, D.C.) – U.S. Sen. David Vitter again today voiced his concerns with the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, speaking out against key provisions on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Vitter has repeatedly called for a further and more thorough review of LOST before it is voted on by the U.S. Senate, and despite its recent approval by the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs he has remained an outspoken critic of the treaty’s potential impact on the United States.
“The impact of this treaty on American sovereignty and security cannot be understated. Ratifying LOST would signal our intent to hand a portion of our national security matters over to the United Nations and similar international bodies – which are not accountable to any higher authority and often hold less than friendly views of the United States,” said Vitter.
LOST carves the sea into zones and, in certain cases, dictates what actions sovereign states may be permitted to engage in under its terms, including those relating to national security, science, trade and the environment. These restrictive activities, and the strengthening of powers granted to the United Nations by the treaty, are among some of Sen. Vitter’s principal concerns.
“LOST attempts to govern the use of the seabed, the airspace above it and the topsoil below it – infringing on the ability of sovereign nations to explore the oceans, conduct scientific research or collect military intelligence vital to national defense. It also allows international courts and tribunals to define what constitutes U.S. ‘military’ or ‘intelligence-gathering activities,’ a subjective power that could routinely lead America into disputes with other nations,” Vitter added.
“This “lawfare” holds grave repercussions for our rights as a country and provides the U.N. with simply too much authority over American interests and concerns,” Vitter said.
Vitter has repeatedly called for further debate on this issue and recently sent letters to the U.S. Senate Committees on Environment and Public Works and Foreign Relations requesting that a panel of experts from present and past administrations be allowed to appear before the committees to answer detailed questions from the members. Vitter also noted that previous questions raised by senators have not yet been adequately addressed.
International treaties must be ratified by the U.S. Senate and LOST must receive full Senate floor consideration before being formalized. It was approved by the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs last month by a vote of 17-4, with Vitter being only one of four who voted in opposition to the treaty.
“LOST holds significant, unseen consequences for the United States and could affect our sovereignty and environmental and commercial policies. This treaty needs to be reviewed carefully, and we need a full and open debate on its merits and flaws before moving forward,” said Vitter.
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.
A Sinkable Treaty: Why America doesn't need the Law of the Sea
http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110010820
WALL STREET JOURNAL
Saturday, November 3, 2007 12:01 a.m.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 17-4 Wednesday to approve the
Law of the Sea Treaty, meaning it's now up to 34 Senate Republicans to send
this giant octopus of a document back where it belongs. To wit, the bottom
of the ocean.
The U.S. last disposed of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea--LOST to its critics--when Ronald Reagan was President. This May,
however, the Bush Administration reversed course and declared that the
Gipper's objections had been fixed by a 1994 amendment. We've since had a
debate on these pages over that point, with former Secretaries of State
George Shultz and James Baker in favor, while Ed Meese and William Clark,
Reagan's Attorney General and National Security Adviser, remain opposed.
The best arguments for the treaty come from the U.S. Navy, which likes how
it creates a legal framework for navigational rights. The oil and gas
industry approves of provisions that create an "exclusive economic zone" for
the U.S. out to 200 miles. There's also the potential for development (with
clear legal title) of resources in the deep seabed, which would be managed
by the International Seabed Authority on which the U.S. would be guaranteed
a seat. And, in fact, the 1994 amendment did get rid of some of LOST's most
obnoxious provisions, such as mandatory technology transfers and other
redistributionist nostrums.
Then again, the Navy has been getting along fine by using the "customary
law" that has guaranteed freedom of the seas for three centuries. Treaty
proponents have taken to arguing that, unless we ratify, Russia will lay
claim to oil rights over the Arctic seabed. But Russia's expansive Arctic
claims, possibly including the sea floor under the North Pole, are
themselves a product of the treaty. We also hear that the U.S. must have its
proverbial "seat at the table" in negotiations over such claims. But the
nations with a direct geographic Arctic claim ought to be able to cut a deal
without giving Cuba or Zimbabwe a seat. America's historic experience with
similar multinational bodies (e.g., the U.N. Human Rights Commission) hardly
justifies confidence that having a seat will enhance our influence, rather
than constrain it.
The larger problem is the treaty's sheer size, with no fewer than 320
articles and nine annexes. These cover everything from "Criminal
jurisdiction on board a foreign ship" (Article 27) to "Anadromous stocks"
and "Catadromous Species" (Articles 65 and 66) to the "Jurisdiction of the
Seabed Disputes Chamber" (Article 187). Much of this is anodyne, but perhaps
the Senators should read the fine print before voting. They might be
surprised by what they find.
Consider the treaty's potential effects on military activities. The
Administration says these are excluded from the treaty and, further, that
the U.S. gets to decide what constitutes such activity. But then how to
explain Article 20, which states that "In the territorial sea, submarines
and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to
show their flag." How will this affect the ability of U.S. submarines to
gather intelligence in coastal waters or deploy special forces on hostile
shores? Last we checked, a $1 billion submarine called the USS Jimmy Carter
had been built precisely for that purpose.
The Navy might also ask how its powerful sonars--which some
environmentalists say harm marine life--could run afoul of Article 196. This
states that countries "shall take all measures necessary to prevent, reduce
and control pollution of the marine environment resulting from the use of
technologies under their jurisdiction or control."
Or take concerns that the treaty's requirements on pollution are a back-door mechanism for forcing U.S. compliance with the Kyoto Treaty and other global environmental pacts. Confronted with the argument, an Administration spokesman told the Senate that the treaty did not exercise jurisdiction over land-based pollution. Replied Republican Senator David Vitter: "If it is . .. not covered by the treaty, why is there a section entitled, 'Pollution
from Land-Based Sources'?" A good question, considering that Article 213 notes that countries "shall adopt laws and regulations and take other measures necessary to implement applicable international rules and standards established through competent international organizations" to control such pollution. Note our emphasis.
Critics are also right to be concerned about the powers of direct taxation
the treaty confers on the International Seabed Authority. The details of
this innovation are buried in Article 13 of the treaty's third annex, and contain a mix of "production charges" and annual million-dollar "administrative" fees. Such measures are all but unprecedented for an international organization and have a potential for corruption, especially
when the taxes can run as high as 70% of net proceeds.
Some 154 countries have joined the Law of the Sea Treaty, with the U.S. one of the few holdouts. Critics are being labeled isolationists, or worse. But the U.S. has been abiding voluntarily with the terms of the treaty since 1983, with no ill effect. Twenty-some years ago a former President objected to handing sovereignty over two-thirds of the Earth's surface to another unaccountable international body. Ronald Reagan sank the treaty then; now it's up to 34 Senators to show similar courage.
Copyright © 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
WALL STREET JOURNAL
Saturday, November 3, 2007 12:01 a.m.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 17-4 Wednesday to approve the
Law of the Sea Treaty, meaning it's now up to 34 Senate Republicans to send
this giant octopus of a document back where it belongs. To wit, the bottom
of the ocean.
The U.S. last disposed of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea--LOST to its critics--when Ronald Reagan was President. This May,
however, the Bush Administration reversed course and declared that the
Gipper's objections had been fixed by a 1994 amendment. We've since had a
debate on these pages over that point, with former Secretaries of State
George Shultz and James Baker in favor, while Ed Meese and William Clark,
Reagan's Attorney General and National Security Adviser, remain opposed.
The best arguments for the treaty come from the U.S. Navy, which likes how
it creates a legal framework for navigational rights. The oil and gas
industry approves of provisions that create an "exclusive economic zone" for
the U.S. out to 200 miles. There's also the potential for development (with
clear legal title) of resources in the deep seabed, which would be managed
by the International Seabed Authority on which the U.S. would be guaranteed
a seat. And, in fact, the 1994 amendment did get rid of some of LOST's most
obnoxious provisions, such as mandatory technology transfers and other
redistributionist nostrums.
Then again, the Navy has been getting along fine by using the "customary
law" that has guaranteed freedom of the seas for three centuries. Treaty
proponents have taken to arguing that, unless we ratify, Russia will lay
claim to oil rights over the Arctic seabed. But Russia's expansive Arctic
claims, possibly including the sea floor under the North Pole, are
themselves a product of the treaty. We also hear that the U.S. must have its
proverbial "seat at the table" in negotiations over such claims. But the
nations with a direct geographic Arctic claim ought to be able to cut a deal
without giving Cuba or Zimbabwe a seat. America's historic experience with
similar multinational bodies (e.g., the U.N. Human Rights Commission) hardly
justifies confidence that having a seat will enhance our influence, rather
than constrain it.
The larger problem is the treaty's sheer size, with no fewer than 320
articles and nine annexes. These cover everything from "Criminal
jurisdiction on board a foreign ship" (Article 27) to "Anadromous stocks"
and "Catadromous Species" (Articles 65 and 66) to the "Jurisdiction of the
Seabed Disputes Chamber" (Article 187). Much of this is anodyne, but perhaps
the Senators should read the fine print before voting. They might be
surprised by what they find.
Consider the treaty's potential effects on military activities. The
Administration says these are excluded from the treaty and, further, that
the U.S. gets to decide what constitutes such activity. But then how to
explain Article 20, which states that "In the territorial sea, submarines
and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to
show their flag." How will this affect the ability of U.S. submarines to
gather intelligence in coastal waters or deploy special forces on hostile
shores? Last we checked, a $1 billion submarine called the USS Jimmy Carter
had been built precisely for that purpose.
The Navy might also ask how its powerful sonars--which some
environmentalists say harm marine life--could run afoul of Article 196. This
states that countries "shall take all measures necessary to prevent, reduce
and control pollution of the marine environment resulting from the use of
technologies under their jurisdiction or control."
Or take concerns that the treaty's requirements on pollution are a back-door mechanism for forcing U.S. compliance with the Kyoto Treaty and other global environmental pacts. Confronted with the argument, an Administration spokesman told the Senate that the treaty did not exercise jurisdiction over land-based pollution. Replied Republican Senator David Vitter: "If it is . .. not covered by the treaty, why is there a section entitled, 'Pollution
from Land-Based Sources'?" A good question, considering that Article 213 notes that countries "shall adopt laws and regulations and take other measures necessary to implement applicable international rules and standards established through competent international organizations" to control such pollution. Note our emphasis.
Critics are also right to be concerned about the powers of direct taxation
the treaty confers on the International Seabed Authority. The details of
this innovation are buried in Article 13 of the treaty's third annex, and contain a mix of "production charges" and annual million-dollar "administrative" fees. Such measures are all but unprecedented for an international organization and have a potential for corruption, especially
when the taxes can run as high as 70% of net proceeds.
Some 154 countries have joined the Law of the Sea Treaty, with the U.S. one of the few holdouts. Critics are being labeled isolationists, or worse. But the U.S. has been abiding voluntarily with the terms of the treaty since 1983, with no ill effect. Twenty-some years ago a former President objected to handing sovereignty over two-thirds of the Earth's surface to another unaccountable international body. Ronald Reagan sank the treaty then; now it's up to 34 Senators to show similar courage.
Copyright © 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
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.
US Citizens Seeking Thorough Congressional Review of UNCLOS Win Debate Against US Navy
U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty - Historic Step Forward or Historic Blunder?
Accessible on the Reserved Officers Association website, at:
http://www.roa.org/site/PageServer?pagename=law_of_sea_video
Accessible on the ITSSD website, at:
Date/Time:
Oct 17 200710:00 a.m.-11:30 a.m.
Location:
ROA Headquarters Minuteman Memorial BuildingSymposium Center, 4th Floor One Constitution Ave NEWashington, DC 20002Directions to ROA
Panel:
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President - Center for Security Policy
Lawrence Kogan, President and CEO - Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development (ITSSD)
CAPT Patrick Neher, USN - Office of the Judge Advocate General.
Ashley Roach,Office of the Legal Adviser - U.S. State Department
On Thursday Oct 17th, 2007
The Defense Education Forum hosted a program on the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, abbreviated UNCLOS or LOST. UNCLOS was initially negotiated in the 1970's but in 1982 President Reagan vetoed the treaty. Now President Bush has urged the Senate to ratify the treaty and the Senate Foreign Affairs committee has held hearings in order to consider a vote and refer it to the Senate as a whole.
DEF brought together military, trade, legal, and political perspectives on LOST that represented both proponents and the opponents. CAPT Patrick Neher from the Navy's Office of the Judge Advocate General, is concerned about “locking in” the rights and responsibilities of the naval vessels upon the high seas. Currently the rules upon which we operate are customary and not within any code, law or treaty. Nations can easily make changes in their dealings that could hamper the United States ability to conduct necessary missions. In response to the charges that the military could be brought under legal restrictions from other nations, CAPT Neher pointed to the treaty provisions that allow exceptions for any military activities.
J. Ashley Roach from the State Department's Office of the Legal Adviser acted to counteract many of the misgivings of the treaties opponents. He was concerned about the United States' ability to access mineral resources if we continue to refuse to ratify the treaty. Mr. Roach pointed out the myriad of officials and organizations, including current and former Secretary of States, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce, Interior, and military officials such as Commandants of the Coast Guard support the treaty.
Those that oppose the ratification were represented by Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President - Center for Security Policy. Mr. Gaffney's perspective was from a larger geo-political perspective. Not only is he concerned that the Navy is misreading the treaty but he pointed to a larger pattern in international affairs where the United States is constantly out voted in U.N. bodies. He made the point that the treaty was supposedly fixed by passing a separate treaty but some nations that joined the first treaty have not joined the second. Ambiguity in the law was one of Mr. Gaffney's themes. This included the idea that many of our activities, such as marine research or contracted transports carrying military supplies, that has military applications but are not technically military activities. Mr. Gaffney called for more hearings by several committees that would give the treaty “the kind of scrutiny that it deserves”.
Lawrence Kogan, President and CEO - Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development (ITSSD), approached the debate from the perspective of trade, legal presidents, and the environment. Mr. Kogan made the point that European law is based upon the “precautionary principle”. This would require that decisions with the dispute resolution process be based upon the worse case scenario and therefor slow down or even stop development, research, and exploration. Especially troubling is the possible use of other environmental treaties that have been enacted to harm American business interests.
Both sides of the argument were eager for participants to read the treaty, and both sides believe that a reading would support their position.
In attendance were staff from several Senate offices and committees, Coast Guard, Navy and Marine officers. The Senate staff took the opportunity to ask questions of the panel. After the program many of the attendees and some panelists remained to further discuss the issue. A Navy JAG in attendance commented that this was one of the best forums on this issue that he had attended. ROA and the DEF are committed to providing such venues for open dialog about important national security issues.
Accessible on the Reserved Officers Association website, at:
http://www.roa.org/site/PageServer?pagename=law_of_sea_video
Accessible on the ITSSD website, at:
Date/Time:
Oct 17 200710:00 a.m.-11:30 a.m.
Location:
ROA Headquarters Minuteman Memorial BuildingSymposium Center, 4th Floor One Constitution Ave NEWashington, DC 20002Directions to ROA
Panel:
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President - Center for Security Policy
Lawrence Kogan, President and CEO - Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development (ITSSD)
CAPT Patrick Neher, USN - Office of the Judge Advocate General.
Ashley Roach,Office of the Legal Adviser - U.S. State Department
On Thursday Oct 17th, 2007
The Defense Education Forum hosted a program on the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, abbreviated UNCLOS or LOST. UNCLOS was initially negotiated in the 1970's but in 1982 President Reagan vetoed the treaty. Now President Bush has urged the Senate to ratify the treaty and the Senate Foreign Affairs committee has held hearings in order to consider a vote and refer it to the Senate as a whole.
DEF brought together military, trade, legal, and political perspectives on LOST that represented both proponents and the opponents. CAPT Patrick Neher from the Navy's Office of the Judge Advocate General, is concerned about “locking in” the rights and responsibilities of the naval vessels upon the high seas. Currently the rules upon which we operate are customary and not within any code, law or treaty. Nations can easily make changes in their dealings that could hamper the United States ability to conduct necessary missions. In response to the charges that the military could be brought under legal restrictions from other nations, CAPT Neher pointed to the treaty provisions that allow exceptions for any military activities.
J. Ashley Roach from the State Department's Office of the Legal Adviser acted to counteract many of the misgivings of the treaties opponents. He was concerned about the United States' ability to access mineral resources if we continue to refuse to ratify the treaty. Mr. Roach pointed out the myriad of officials and organizations, including current and former Secretary of States, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce, Interior, and military officials such as Commandants of the Coast Guard support the treaty.
Those that oppose the ratification were represented by Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President - Center for Security Policy. Mr. Gaffney's perspective was from a larger geo-political perspective. Not only is he concerned that the Navy is misreading the treaty but he pointed to a larger pattern in international affairs where the United States is constantly out voted in U.N. bodies. He made the point that the treaty was supposedly fixed by passing a separate treaty but some nations that joined the first treaty have not joined the second. Ambiguity in the law was one of Mr. Gaffney's themes. This included the idea that many of our activities, such as marine research or contracted transports carrying military supplies, that has military applications but are not technically military activities. Mr. Gaffney called for more hearings by several committees that would give the treaty “the kind of scrutiny that it deserves”.
Lawrence Kogan, President and CEO - Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development (ITSSD), approached the debate from the perspective of trade, legal presidents, and the environment. Mr. Kogan made the point that European law is based upon the “precautionary principle”. This would require that decisions with the dispute resolution process be based upon the worse case scenario and therefor slow down or even stop development, research, and exploration. Especially troubling is the possible use of other environmental treaties that have been enacted to harm American business interests.
Both sides of the argument were eager for participants to read the treaty, and both sides believe that a reading would support their position.
In attendance were staff from several Senate offices and committees, Coast Guard, Navy and Marine officers. The Senate staff took the opportunity to ask questions of the panel. After the program many of the attendees and some panelists remained to further discuss the issue. A Navy JAG in attendance commented that this was one of the best forums on this issue that he had attended. ROA and the DEF are committed to providing such venues for open dialog about important national security issues.
LOST Reality
October 8, 2007
By Lawrence A. Kogan, Esq.*
The United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (a/k/a the Law of the Sea Treaty -‘LOST’), the leviathan of all non-science and non-economics-based UN regulatory environmental treaties, has once again resurfaced and reared its ugly head, despite having been deep-sixed’ years ago by the Reagan Administration.
Unfortunately, a legacy-oriented White House is now shepherding it through a kumbaya Congress whose majority enthusiastically embraces collectivist European-style environmental activism and multilateral treaty-making at the expense of U.S. constitutionally protected individualism and private property rights.
Is the White House merely ill-informed, or has it intentionally chosen to ignore the lessons of history? Does it not recall the past decade of highly contentious trade disputes between the U.S. and an environmentally obsessed and protectionist European Union concerning the EU’s blatantly illegal use of the contra-WTO (‘I fear, therefore I shall ban’) Precautionary Principle? Does it not realize that LOST proponents now seek to have this controversial political philosophy incorporated and/or read into the LOST as an irrefutable international legal standard so that the United States will be compelled to adopt it as domestic law too?
If the administration had done its homework, it would have come across the prior congressional testimony of Roger T. Rufe, Jr., a die-hard proponent of the contra-WTO Precautionary Principle. Mr. Rufe is a retired U.S. Coast Guard Vice Admiral and a former CEO of The Ocean Conservancy (OTC), an environmental activist group. He is currently serving at the pleasure of the president as Director of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Operations Directorate. According to Mr. Rufe, although “the concept ‘precautionary principle’ did not exist at the time UNCLOS was negotiated and... did not appear in the Convention...we [the OTC] urged...the United States...to ensure the appropriate application of this principle to guide decision-making... in future Convention amendments... Fortunately, the convention as a constitution does establish some principles and tools that may provide a framework for future application of the precautionary principle. Moreover, subsequent multilateral agreements related to UNCLOS include the use of the precautionary principle, including the Straddling Stocks Agreement... We think that it ought to be part of the convention” (emphasis added).
The prior Senate testimony of other LOST proponents is also quite revealing. In addition to Mr. Rufe, former Senator Claiborne Pell and current Senator Richard Lugar previously referred to LOST as a new “constitution for the world’s oceans”. In addition, my former law professor, Bernard Oxman, previously testified that LOST is “the most important and comprehensive international environmental agreement in existence” (emphasis added). Also, current Senator John McCain previously testified that the LOST “serves as an umbrella convention under which rules governing all uses of the oceans and their resources are established” (emphasis added). And, a prior report prepared by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a very influential LOST standards body, explained that LOST is characterized as an ‘umbrella convention’ “because most of its provisions, being of a general kind, can be implemented only through specific operative regulations in other international treaties” (emphasis added). What their testimony does not reveal, however, is that LOST would also govern ALL U.S. commercial and private activities undertaken on dry land and in the air that could possibly affect the marine environment! International regulation/taxation of carbon dioxide emissions ala the Kyoto Protocol anyone??
Furthermore, Professor Oxman admitted in a recent telephone conversation that, “there is no foolproof way to prevent U.S. LOST treaty partners in the future from interpreting the LOST’s environmental provisions more stringently than required by the treaty’s express terms [i.e., pursuant to the contra-WTO Precautionary Principle], and thus, contrary to U.S. national interests”. In other words, he acknowledged that the U.S. would likely encounter stiff opposition from other LOST treaty parties, especially EU member states, and would be unable, for the foreseeable future, to secure more than a few like-minded allies that shared our understanding of the treaty.
Moreover, the prior testimony of Brooks Yeager of the World Wildlife Fund, a well known environmental activist group and proponent of the contra-WTO Precautionary Principle, reveals a plan to use the LOST dispute settlement mechanism to have this disputed principle read and incorporated into the treaty. According to Mr. Yeager, “The jurisprudence emerging out of the dispute settlement system of the LOS Convention has been considerably more promising from an environmental perspective than earlier case law generated by other adjudicative bodies, including the ICJ... Most importantly and consistent with its broad mandate over marine environmental cases, ITLOS has issued provisional measures on three occasions to protect marine environmental interests. And, in all these cases there has been at least implicit reliance upon the precautionary principle...ITLOS has attempted to implement the precautionary principle in several [three] of its provisional measures orders, while side-stepping difficult questions as to the content of the principle, and whether it has entered the pantheon of customary norms relating to environmental protection” since 1999 (emphasis added).
And, Mr. Yeager can surely recall that when he and his fellow activists promoted US ratification of the UN Stockholm Convention on ‘POPS’ back during 2004, they had then also endeavored to have the contra-WTO Precautionary Principle read and incorporated into not only that treaty, but also US federal law. They sought to achieve this result via enactment of implementing legislation that would have amended the US Toxic Substances and Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) so as to minimize the roles played by risk assessment and economic cost-benefit analysis.
Would Mr. Yeager, and those LOST proponents in the US military, the State Department and the congressional majority now have us believe that US LOST ratification will require no implementing legislation to amend the federal Clean Air and Water Acts, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the Deep Seabed Hard Minerals Resources Act, the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, the Oil Pollution Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act, CERCLA, the Invasive Species Act, etc. so that they directly or indirectly reflect the contra-WTO Precautionary Principle?
Please forgive me if I am being overly precautious, but, shouldn’t the U.S. and the American people properly prepare themselves before ratifying the LOST? Isn’t the U.S. Constitution the ‘supreme law of our land’, our territories and our territorial waters, including the continental shelf? Doesn’t the U.S. Constitution supersede and limit for U.S. citizens the scope and application of ALL international treaties to which the U.S. becomes a party? Are not our exclusive private property rights protected by the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment from uncompensated regulatory ‘takings’, outright expropriations and international taxation, whether emanating from our own government, foreign governments or the UN’s International Seabed Authority? And, what other UN environmental treaties, specific operative regulations and international standards susceptible to EU reinterpretation must the U.S. be concerned about? What have we not been told that needs to be heard? How much more of the LOST regulatory iceberg lurks below the ocean’s surface?
Independent research confirms a negative LOST reality. If ratified by the United States, LOST would likely expose U.S. small and medium-sized companies, individual citizens and the U.S. military’s civilian technology supply-chain to new significant costs and burdens to which they are NOT already subject under current U.S. environmental law. In particular, private property and due process rights would be lost, and military and civilian hi-technologies would be banned, restricted, and/or taxed by domestic and international bureaucracies not subject to U.S. control or oversight, if it is merely possible, without scientific proof being shown, that they pose some possible future hazard to the marine environment. In addition, the status and scope of intellectual property rights underlying products and processes derived and commercialized from discoveries of sea-based bio-organisms would also be governed by UN and other international tribunals rather than by the WTO or WIPO. As a result, the U.S. could undoubtedly lose its global economic competitiveness, and above all, its national sovereignty.
For these and other reasons, the Wall Street Journal appropriately criticized the LOST as being contrary to ‘the U.S. national interest’. It correctly emphasized that if the regulation-laden LOST were ratified, it would likely subject U.S. maritime and economic power “to the whims of a highly politicized U.N. bureaucracy often driven by an anti-American agenda”.
If there were any lingering doubts about the real risk that uncontrollable international bodies, such as the UN’s LOST Secretariat, Seabed Authority and Tribunal, could seriously threaten U.S. constitutionally protected private property rights concentrated along U.S. coastlines, one need only look to the International (U.S.-Canada) Boundary Commission (IBC)’s recent harassment of Washington state residents Shirley-Ann and Herbert Leu.
According to the Seattle, Los Angeles, and Washington Times newspapers, Mr. and Mrs. Leu received a hand-delivered letter this past February from IBC Commissioner Dennis Schornack. It ordered them to remove, at their own expense, a $15,000 concrete retaining wall built pursuant to Blaine, Washington municipal zoning ordinances, on their own clearly marked private property. Apparently, although the wall was 8 feet away from the Canadian border, it encroached 30 inches into a 20-foot boundary vista (ditch) running along their entire lot. In effect, the IBC, an international bureaucracy, claimed that it possessed the sole and absolute authority to condemn and regulate the development of the Leu’s property (and for that matter, all U.S. private property located along the U.S.-Canadian border) without providing the Leus with ‘just’ compensation and ‘due process’ (adequate notice), as required by the U.S. Constitution.
Most remarkably, Mr. Schornack and the commission have argued that since they are not a U.S. government agency subject to the laws of the United States and its Constitution, they are not obligated to compromise on these issues. And, when President Bush stepped in to fire Mr. Schornack, the sole acting U.S. commissioner on the IBC, for not representing the interests of the United States and its citizens, Schornack responded that he represented the international community, had been appointed for life and could not be fired!
What is really going on here? Have LOST proponents avoided discussing the treaty’s many hidden provisions because of the potential for situations like this? Why have they not explained to the American people the costs, risks and benefits associated with ratifying the LOST, or the nuances of the LOST ratification process itself? What are they afraid to tell us what we need to hear?
As the ultimate representative of the American people, both chambers of the U.S. Congress must hold open public hearings on LOST ratification before the Senate gives its advice and consent. It must educate Americans about how the expansive LOST regime, as it will likely be implemented by the U.S., the UN and foreign countries, would directly and indirectly impact their pocketbooks, their rights and their daily lives. Given what has befallen the Leus, a fresh sea breeze is needed to provide some reality and context to what might surely become a surreal experience for many other Americans in the future.
* Lawrence Kogan is President and CEO of The Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development (ITSSD), a non-partisan non-profit international legal research and educational organization that examines international law relating to trade, industry and positive sustainable development around the world. ITSSD studies are accessible online at: http://www.itssd.org/ .
By Lawrence A. Kogan, Esq.*
The United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (a/k/a the Law of the Sea Treaty -‘LOST’), the leviathan of all non-science and non-economics-based UN regulatory environmental treaties, has once again resurfaced and reared its ugly head, despite having been deep-sixed’ years ago by the Reagan Administration.
Unfortunately, a legacy-oriented White House is now shepherding it through a kumbaya Congress whose majority enthusiastically embraces collectivist European-style environmental activism and multilateral treaty-making at the expense of U.S. constitutionally protected individualism and private property rights.
Is the White House merely ill-informed, or has it intentionally chosen to ignore the lessons of history? Does it not recall the past decade of highly contentious trade disputes between the U.S. and an environmentally obsessed and protectionist European Union concerning the EU’s blatantly illegal use of the contra-WTO (‘I fear, therefore I shall ban’) Precautionary Principle? Does it not realize that LOST proponents now seek to have this controversial political philosophy incorporated and/or read into the LOST as an irrefutable international legal standard so that the United States will be compelled to adopt it as domestic law too?
If the administration had done its homework, it would have come across the prior congressional testimony of Roger T. Rufe, Jr., a die-hard proponent of the contra-WTO Precautionary Principle. Mr. Rufe is a retired U.S. Coast Guard Vice Admiral and a former CEO of The Ocean Conservancy (OTC), an environmental activist group. He is currently serving at the pleasure of the president as Director of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Operations Directorate. According to Mr. Rufe, although “the concept ‘precautionary principle’ did not exist at the time UNCLOS was negotiated and... did not appear in the Convention...we [the OTC] urged...the United States...to ensure the appropriate application of this principle to guide decision-making... in future Convention amendments... Fortunately, the convention as a constitution does establish some principles and tools that may provide a framework for future application of the precautionary principle. Moreover, subsequent multilateral agreements related to UNCLOS include the use of the precautionary principle, including the Straddling Stocks Agreement... We think that it ought to be part of the convention” (emphasis added).
The prior Senate testimony of other LOST proponents is also quite revealing. In addition to Mr. Rufe, former Senator Claiborne Pell and current Senator Richard Lugar previously referred to LOST as a new “constitution for the world’s oceans”. In addition, my former law professor, Bernard Oxman, previously testified that LOST is “the most important and comprehensive international environmental agreement in existence” (emphasis added). Also, current Senator John McCain previously testified that the LOST “serves as an umbrella convention under which rules governing all uses of the oceans and their resources are established” (emphasis added). And, a prior report prepared by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a very influential LOST standards body, explained that LOST is characterized as an ‘umbrella convention’ “because most of its provisions, being of a general kind, can be implemented only through specific operative regulations in other international treaties” (emphasis added). What their testimony does not reveal, however, is that LOST would also govern ALL U.S. commercial and private activities undertaken on dry land and in the air that could possibly affect the marine environment! International regulation/taxation of carbon dioxide emissions ala the Kyoto Protocol anyone??
Furthermore, Professor Oxman admitted in a recent telephone conversation that, “there is no foolproof way to prevent U.S. LOST treaty partners in the future from interpreting the LOST’s environmental provisions more stringently than required by the treaty’s express terms [i.e., pursuant to the contra-WTO Precautionary Principle], and thus, contrary to U.S. national interests”. In other words, he acknowledged that the U.S. would likely encounter stiff opposition from other LOST treaty parties, especially EU member states, and would be unable, for the foreseeable future, to secure more than a few like-minded allies that shared our understanding of the treaty.
Moreover, the prior testimony of Brooks Yeager of the World Wildlife Fund, a well known environmental activist group and proponent of the contra-WTO Precautionary Principle, reveals a plan to use the LOST dispute settlement mechanism to have this disputed principle read and incorporated into the treaty. According to Mr. Yeager, “The jurisprudence emerging out of the dispute settlement system of the LOS Convention has been considerably more promising from an environmental perspective than earlier case law generated by other adjudicative bodies, including the ICJ... Most importantly and consistent with its broad mandate over marine environmental cases, ITLOS has issued provisional measures on three occasions to protect marine environmental interests. And, in all these cases there has been at least implicit reliance upon the precautionary principle...ITLOS has attempted to implement the precautionary principle in several [three] of its provisional measures orders, while side-stepping difficult questions as to the content of the principle, and whether it has entered the pantheon of customary norms relating to environmental protection” since 1999 (emphasis added).
And, Mr. Yeager can surely recall that when he and his fellow activists promoted US ratification of the UN Stockholm Convention on ‘POPS’ back during 2004, they had then also endeavored to have the contra-WTO Precautionary Principle read and incorporated into not only that treaty, but also US federal law. They sought to achieve this result via enactment of implementing legislation that would have amended the US Toxic Substances and Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) so as to minimize the roles played by risk assessment and economic cost-benefit analysis.
Would Mr. Yeager, and those LOST proponents in the US military, the State Department and the congressional majority now have us believe that US LOST ratification will require no implementing legislation to amend the federal Clean Air and Water Acts, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the Deep Seabed Hard Minerals Resources Act, the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, the Oil Pollution Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act, CERCLA, the Invasive Species Act, etc. so that they directly or indirectly reflect the contra-WTO Precautionary Principle?
Please forgive me if I am being overly precautious, but, shouldn’t the U.S. and the American people properly prepare themselves before ratifying the LOST? Isn’t the U.S. Constitution the ‘supreme law of our land’, our territories and our territorial waters, including the continental shelf? Doesn’t the U.S. Constitution supersede and limit for U.S. citizens the scope and application of ALL international treaties to which the U.S. becomes a party? Are not our exclusive private property rights protected by the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment from uncompensated regulatory ‘takings’, outright expropriations and international taxation, whether emanating from our own government, foreign governments or the UN’s International Seabed Authority? And, what other UN environmental treaties, specific operative regulations and international standards susceptible to EU reinterpretation must the U.S. be concerned about? What have we not been told that needs to be heard? How much more of the LOST regulatory iceberg lurks below the ocean’s surface?
Independent research confirms a negative LOST reality. If ratified by the United States, LOST would likely expose U.S. small and medium-sized companies, individual citizens and the U.S. military’s civilian technology supply-chain to new significant costs and burdens to which they are NOT already subject under current U.S. environmental law. In particular, private property and due process rights would be lost, and military and civilian hi-technologies would be banned, restricted, and/or taxed by domestic and international bureaucracies not subject to U.S. control or oversight, if it is merely possible, without scientific proof being shown, that they pose some possible future hazard to the marine environment. In addition, the status and scope of intellectual property rights underlying products and processes derived and commercialized from discoveries of sea-based bio-organisms would also be governed by UN and other international tribunals rather than by the WTO or WIPO. As a result, the U.S. could undoubtedly lose its global economic competitiveness, and above all, its national sovereignty.
For these and other reasons, the Wall Street Journal appropriately criticized the LOST as being contrary to ‘the U.S. national interest’. It correctly emphasized that if the regulation-laden LOST were ratified, it would likely subject U.S. maritime and economic power “to the whims of a highly politicized U.N. bureaucracy often driven by an anti-American agenda”.
If there were any lingering doubts about the real risk that uncontrollable international bodies, such as the UN’s LOST Secretariat, Seabed Authority and Tribunal, could seriously threaten U.S. constitutionally protected private property rights concentrated along U.S. coastlines, one need only look to the International (U.S.-Canada) Boundary Commission (IBC)’s recent harassment of Washington state residents Shirley-Ann and Herbert Leu.
According to the Seattle, Los Angeles, and Washington Times newspapers, Mr. and Mrs. Leu received a hand-delivered letter this past February from IBC Commissioner Dennis Schornack. It ordered them to remove, at their own expense, a $15,000 concrete retaining wall built pursuant to Blaine, Washington municipal zoning ordinances, on their own clearly marked private property. Apparently, although the wall was 8 feet away from the Canadian border, it encroached 30 inches into a 20-foot boundary vista (ditch) running along their entire lot. In effect, the IBC, an international bureaucracy, claimed that it possessed the sole and absolute authority to condemn and regulate the development of the Leu’s property (and for that matter, all U.S. private property located along the U.S.-Canadian border) without providing the Leus with ‘just’ compensation and ‘due process’ (adequate notice), as required by the U.S. Constitution.
Most remarkably, Mr. Schornack and the commission have argued that since they are not a U.S. government agency subject to the laws of the United States and its Constitution, they are not obligated to compromise on these issues. And, when President Bush stepped in to fire Mr. Schornack, the sole acting U.S. commissioner on the IBC, for not representing the interests of the United States and its citizens, Schornack responded that he represented the international community, had been appointed for life and could not be fired!
What is really going on here? Have LOST proponents avoided discussing the treaty’s many hidden provisions because of the potential for situations like this? Why have they not explained to the American people the costs, risks and benefits associated with ratifying the LOST, or the nuances of the LOST ratification process itself? What are they afraid to tell us what we need to hear?
As the ultimate representative of the American people, both chambers of the U.S. Congress must hold open public hearings on LOST ratification before the Senate gives its advice and consent. It must educate Americans about how the expansive LOST regime, as it will likely be implemented by the U.S., the UN and foreign countries, would directly and indirectly impact their pocketbooks, their rights and their daily lives. Given what has befallen the Leus, a fresh sea breeze is needed to provide some reality and context to what might surely become a surreal experience for many other Americans in the future.
* Lawrence Kogan is President and CEO of The Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development (ITSSD), a non-partisan non-profit international legal research and educational organization that examines international law relating to trade, industry and positive sustainable development around the world. ITSSD studies are accessible online at: http://www.itssd.org/ .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
