Law of the Sea Treaty Will Erode U.S. Sovereignty "Very Socialst"

[Californiaman]

If Senate Democrats get their way, the United States Senate will push for ratification of the U.N. sponsored Law of the Sea Treaty, which will effectively give away more of our country's sovereignty.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., is advocating ratification of a treaty that critics warn could give the U.N. powers over American waterways. Kerry is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Commitee.

 

LOST -- the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, also called the Law of the Sea Treaty -- regulates all things oceanic, from fishing rights, navigation lanes and environmental concerns to what lies beneath: the seabed's oil and mineral wealth that companies hope to explore and exploit in coming years.

 

But critics say the treaty, which declares the sea and its bounty the "universal heritage of mankind," would redistribute American profits and have a reach extending into rivers and streams all the way up the mighty Mississippi

 

The U.N. began working on LOST in 1973, and 157 nations have signed on to the treaty since it was concluded in 1982. Yet it has been stuck in dry dock for nearly 30 years in the U.S. and never even been brought to a full vote before the Senate.

 

But swelling approval in the Senate and the combined support of the White House, State Department and U.S. Navy mean LOST may be ready to unfurl its sails again.

 

Sen. John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said during a January confirmation hearing that he intends to push for ratification. "We are now laying the groundwork for and expect to try to take up the Law of the Sea Treaty. So that will be one of the priorities of the committee, and the key here is just timing -- how we proceed."

 

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, saying the treaty is vital for American businesses and the Navy, told Kerry that his committee "will have a very receptive audience in our State Department and in our administration."

 

LOST apportions "Exclusive Economic Zones" that stretch 200 miles from a country's coast and establishes the International Seabed Authority to administer the communal territory farther out. The treaty's proponents say it clears up a murky legal area that has prevented companies from taking advantage of the deep seas' wealth.

 

"American firms and businesses want legal certainty so they can compete with foreign companies for marine resources," said Spencer Boyer, director of international law and diplomacy at the Center for American Progress. Without the clearly defined authority established by the treaty, "there's confusion -- a lot of businesses don't want to take that risk."

 

The American military is looking for another kind of certainty from LOST -- a guarantee of safe passage through all seaways, a right China sought to deny an unarmed Navy vessel Monday in its own Exclusive Economic Zone in the South China Sea.

 

"The Convention codifies navigation and overflight rights and high seas freedoms that are essential for the global mobility of our armed forces," the Joint Chiefs of Staff wrote in a June 2007 letter to Senate leadership.

 

LOST has even managed to unify environmental groups and deep-sea miners, who both see something to gain in the treaty.

 

"We gain sovereignty, we gain territory, we gain access to places that we have not had access to as easily," said Don Kraus, president of Citizens for Global Solutions, a group that advocates strengthening international institutions. "We don't stand to lose anything."

 

But critics say clauses built into the treaty could directly harm American interests. They say it could force the U.S. to comply with unspecified environmental codes, and that the treaty gives environmental activists the legal standing to sue over river pollution and shut down industry, simply because rivers feed into the sea.

 

The treaty allows environmental groups to bring lawsuits to the Law of the Sea Tribunal in Germany, a panel of 21 U.N. judges who would have say over pollution levels in American rivers. Their rulings would have the force law in the U.S., according to a reading in a 2008 Supreme Court decision by Justice John Paul Stevens.

 

"You've got an unaccountable tribunal that will surely be stacked with jurists hostile to our interests," said Chris Horner, author of "Red Hot Lies," a book critical of environmentalists. "This would never pass muster if the Senate held an open, public debate about this."

 

Legal experts also warn that the treaty demands aid for landlocked countries that lack the access and technology to mine the deep seas -- and that it might not even benefit the U.S. at all.

 

"You have to pay royalties on the value of anything you extract (from the deep seabed), those royalties to be distributed as the new bureaucracy sees fit, primarily to landlocked countries and underdeveloped countries," said Steven Groves, a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. American money would also go to fund the International Seabed Authority, which Groves warned "would have the potential to become the most massive U.N. bureaucracy on the planet."

 

"The whole theory of the treaty is that the world's oceans and everything below them are the common heritage of mankind," said Groves. "Very socialist."

 

Any nation that is party to the treaty can have a seat on the tribunal and seabed authority -- even ones that don't have access to the sea. The current vice president of the tribunal represents Austria, a landlocked nation that hasn't had a sea berth since the Austro-Hungarian Empire was dissolved in the First World War.

 

Some legal experts worry that without ratification, the U.S. will lose a seat at the table as maritime law continues to be codified and resources get divvied up. But opponents note that many of the benefits offered the U.S., such as navigation rights, are already international custom, and that the U.S. has effected the treaty without being party to it. President Reagan's initial opposition on the basis of seabed laws forced the rewriting of the original treaty in 1994, which led the U.S. to sign it, but not to ratify it.

 

Its complexity, however, still beguiles even experts, who say it is unlikely to be understood when brought to a vote in the Senate.

 

"The thing is about 150 pages long -- meaning there are exactly zero people in the Senate who have read it," said Groves.

[Homz]

Not trying to start a fight.... just two questions.

 

1. Could you post the actual bill, draft, or law that supports your article and state who wrote the article?

 

2. Are there any Democrats you have respect for and support?

[Homz]

Was it Groves? Where was it published?

 

 

I should probably actually read it, but I'm lazy.

[KSG_Standard]

I should probably actually read it' date=' but I don't understand anything and my union workrules don't allow me to learn. The sea is pretty, it's full of animals that I haven't had sex with yet. The sea is pretty, it's blue, I like blue. The sky is blue, why don't fish live in the sky too? I like rabbits. I like having sex with rabbits. Tell me the story about the rabbits again. I wish I wasn't so dumb. I wish I had some ketchup. Is it time for a break yet? I like wearing ladies underwear. I like living off the fat of other people's labor. I want to move to France. In France you only have to work part time to get full time pay and benefits. It's okay to be like me in France. In France everybody is like me, nobody wants to work and they let me have sex with anything I want to. Tell me the story about the rabbits again.[/quote']

[Homz]

 

hhehehehehehehhehehehhehehhehhehe

[80LPC]

which will effectively give away more of our country's sovereignty.

 

Steal a little here, lose a little there, what the heck...

[Californiaman]

Was it Groves? Where was it published?

 

 

I should probably actually read it' date=' but I'm lazy.

[/quote']

 

LOST

[Homz]

 

LOST

 

Fox News. Ok. Thanks.

[KSG_Standard]

 

Fox News. Ok. I love Fox news' date=' they are the only news organization that even comes close to reporting the facts. IF my union boss knew I was watching Fox News, I'd get in trouble. Tell me about the rabbits again...

[/quote']

[Homz]

 

I must have really gotten to you with that 'broke back mtn.' reference from the travel thread.

LOL.... that was a good one. Ya got to give me an at-a-boy once n a while.

[Bluemoon]

I like rabbits too. And the sea makes me sleepy.

[AXE®]

If Senate Democrats get their way' date=' the United States Senate will push for ratification of the U.N. sponsored Law of the Sea Treaty, which will effectively give away more of our country's sovereignty.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., is advocating ratification of a treaty that critics warn could give the U.N. powers over American waterways. Kerry is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Commitee.

 

LOST -- the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, also called the Law of the Sea Treaty -- regulates all things oceanic, from fishing rights, navigation lanes and environmental concerns to what lies beneath: the seabed's oil and mineral wealth that companies hope to explore and exploit in coming years.

 

But critics say the treaty, which declares the sea and its bounty the "universal heritage of mankind," would redistribute American profits and have a reach extending into rivers and streams all the way up the mighty Mississippi

 

The U.N. began working on LOST in 1973, and 157 nations have signed on to the treaty since it was concluded in 1982. Yet it has been stuck in dry dock for nearly 30 years in the U.S. and never even been brought to a full vote before the Senate.

 

But swelling approval in the Senate and the combined support of the White House, State Department and U.S. Navy mean LOST may be ready to unfurl its sails again.

 

Sen. John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said during a January confirmation hearing that he intends to push for ratification. "We are now laying the groundwork for and expect to try to take up the Law of the Sea Treaty. So that will be one of the priorities of the committee, and the key here is just timing -- how we proceed."

 

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, saying the treaty is vital for American businesses and the Navy, told Kerry that his committee "will have a very receptive audience in our State Department and in our administration."

 

LOST apportions "Exclusive Economic Zones" that stretch 200 miles from a country's coast and establishes the International Seabed Authority to administer the communal territory farther out. The treaty's proponents say it clears up a murky legal area that has prevented companies from taking advantage of the deep seas' wealth.

 

"American firms and businesses want legal certainty so they can compete with foreign companies for marine resources," said Spencer Boyer, director of international law and diplomacy at the Center for American Progress. Without the clearly defined authority established by the treaty, "there's confusion -- a lot of businesses don't want to take that risk."

 

The American military is looking for another kind of certainty from LOST -- a guarantee of safe passage through all seaways, a right China sought to deny an unarmed Navy vessel Monday in its own Exclusive Economic Zone in the South China Sea.

 

"The Convention codifies navigation and overflight rights and high seas freedoms that are essential for the global mobility of our armed forces," the Joint Chiefs of Staff wrote in a June 2007 letter to Senate leadership.

 

LOST has even managed to unify environmental groups and deep-sea miners, who both see something to gain in the treaty.

 

"We gain sovereignty, we gain territory, we gain access to places that we have not had access to as easily," said Don Kraus, president of Citizens for Global Solutions, a group that advocates strengthening international institutions. "We don't stand to lose anything."

 

But critics say clauses built into the treaty could directly harm American interests. They say it could force the U.S. to comply with unspecified environmental codes, and that the treaty gives environmental activists the legal standing to sue over river pollution and shut down industry, simply because rivers feed into the sea.

 

The treaty allows environmental groups to bring lawsuits to the Law of the Sea Tribunal in Germany, a panel of 21 U.N. judges who would have say over pollution levels in American rivers. Their rulings would have the force law in the U.S., according to a reading in a 2008 Supreme Court decision by Justice John Paul Stevens.

 

"You've got an unaccountable tribunal that will surely be stacked with jurists hostile to our interests," said Chris Horner, author of "Red Hot Lies," a book critical of environmentalists. "This would never pass muster if the Senate held an open, public debate about this."

 

Legal experts also warn that the treaty demands aid for landlocked countries that lack the access and technology to mine the deep seas -- and that it might not even benefit the U.S. at all.

 

"You have to pay royalties on the value of anything you extract (from the deep seabed), those royalties to be distributed as the new bureaucracy sees fit, primarily to landlocked countries and underdeveloped countries," said Steven Groves, a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. American money would also go to fund the International Seabed Authority, which Groves warned "would have the potential to become the most massive U.N. bureaucracy on the planet."

 

"The whole theory of the treaty is that the world's oceans and everything below them are the common heritage of mankind," said Groves. "Very socialist."

 

Any nation that is party to the treaty can have a seat on the tribunal and seabed authority -- even ones that don't have access to the sea. The current vice president of the tribunal represents Austria, a landlocked nation that hasn't had a sea berth since the Austro-Hungarian Empire was dissolved in the First World War.

 

Some legal experts worry that without ratification, the U.S. will lose a seat at the table as maritime law continues to be codified and resources get divvied up. But opponents note that many of the benefits offered the U.S., such as navigation rights, are already international custom, and that the U.S. has effected the treaty without being party to it. President Reagan's initial opposition on the basis of seabed laws forced the rewriting of the original treaty in 1994, which led the U.S. to sign it, but not to ratify it.

 

Its complexity, however, still beguiles even experts, who say it is unlikely to be understood when brought to a vote in the Senate.

 

"The thing is about 150 pages long -- meaning there are exactly zero people in the Senate who have read it," said Groves.

 

[/quote']

 

There is no way in hell I'm reading all of that!!!

[Homz]

 

There is no way in hell I'm reading all of that!!!

 

There was only a remote chance for me to read it. That remote chance went to no chance once I got the source.

Sorry Californyman.

[Californiaman]

Here's something you need to think about.

If you own a company anywhere near a waterway and for some unforseen reason or accident you pollute the water, if that waterway leads to the sea, you will have to pay a heavy fine to the United Nations. This is exactly why I say that it chipps away at our sovereignty as a nation. There are other examples as well. The globalists make it sound so wonderful and something we need to do, but it's a total attempt by the United Nations at controling our lives.

Read the article for yourself. It's crazzy!

[AXE®]

I'll wait for the DVD .

[Bluemoon]

Here's something you need to think about.

If you own a company anywhere near a waterway and for some unforseen reason or accident you pollute the water' date=' if that waterway leads to the sea, you will have to pay a heavy fine to the United Nations. This is exactly why I say that it chipps away at our sovereignty as a nation. There are other examples as well. The globalists make it sound so wonderful and something we need to do, but it's a total attempt by the United Nations at controling our lives.

Read the article for yourself. It's crazzy![/quote']

 

Two points.

 

Point 1. Your pollution could hurt the sea monkeys. And I love sea monkeys.

 

Point 2. We evolved from sea creatures...oh wait, you guys don't believe in evolution.

[KSG_Standard]

 

Two points.

 

Point 1. Your pollution could hurt the sea monkeys. And I'm a sea monkey.

 

Point 2. Liberals evolved from sea monkeys...oh wait' date=' you guys my diaper is full.

 

[/quote']

[milod]

Actually this, or something like it, has been under debate for decades.

 

Also, lotsa folks don't realize that in ways, the US Corps of Engineers functionally has control of all navigable waters in the US. What waters are those? The ones they claim to have control over. Good luck figuring which ones. I've seen stuff that you could only navigate if you could ride a toothpick downstream. I weigh a bit much for that.

 

But yes, there are a number of questions in this deal that do, in effect, give "international" control to some waters claimed by the U.S. and other nations. It has other ramifications too - all with interpretations changing every six minutes.

[Bluemoon]

KSG, you have changed your tactics from postings long winded articles written by those who are smarter than you to manipulating other people's posts to make your point. I am proud of you. But don't overdo it. It's only funny if you do is selectively.

[Homz]

Here's something you need to think about.

If you own a company anywhere near a waterway and for some unforseen reason or accident you pollute the water' date=' if that waterway leads to the sea, you will have to pay a heavy fine to the United Nations. This is exactly why I say that it chipps away at our sovereignty as a nation. There are other examples as well. The globalists make it sound so wonderful and something we need to do, but it's a total attempt by the United Nations at controling our lives.

Read the article for yourself. It's crazzy![/quote']

 

Californiaman, are you trying to say companies should be allowed to pollute when ever and how ever much they wish.? Or perhaps you saying the proposed bill is an over regulation issue. Which point are you making here in this post.

[Californiaman]

homz, that is in no way my point.

Let me ask you this, do you want the United Nations regulating our waterways?

That's a simple question. What do you think about the UN chipping away at the United State's sovereignty? I thought a guy like you would be upset over that. Maybe I'm wrong. BTW thanks for the Zep.

[The Mick]

I can see the sea from here.

[The Mick]

[Homz]

homz' date=' that is in no way my point.

Let me ask you this, do you want the United Nations regulating our waterways?

That's a simple question. What do you think about the UN chipping away at the United State's sovereignty? I thought a guy like you would be upset over that. Maybe I'm wrong. BTW thanks for the Zep.[/quote']

 

What did you think of the zep?

 

I really need to review the actual treaty, bill, what ever. To answer your question. No, I don't want the U.N. regulating pollution in our borders. Fox News isn't my idea of a legitimate source though so I reserve judgment until I get a better source.

[KSG_Standard]

KSG' date=' you have changed your tactics from postings long winded articles written by those who are smarter than you to manipulating other people's posts to make your point. I am proud of you. But don't overdo it. It's only funny if you do is selectively. [/quote']

 

Thanks Moonie, your approval means everything to me, and I treasure your advice, it will guide my every waking moment...