Mississippi and other waterways be under UN control?


festus

God Bless Our Troops!!!
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., is advocating ratification of a treaty that critics warn could give the U.N. powers over American waterways (Reuters).

powered by BaynoteThe Senate is gearing up to ratify a Nixon-era U.N. treaty meant to create universal laws to govern the seas -- a treaty critics say will create a massive U.N. bureaucracy that could even claim powers over American waterways.

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.

Source: Link Removed
 

Last edited by a moderator:

festus

God Bless Our Troops!!!
The First UN blue beanies I see...

If I see any blue beanies, I ain't gonna be happy. Write your congressman/senator/officials today. Allowing the UN to control anything in America is TREASON!
 

ricbak

New member
E-Mail Letters sent. Ms Stabmenow and Mr Levin... I am going to have to find the time to read this and see how it effects the Great Lakes. Thanks for the post Festus.
 

Sheldon

New member
Yeah tell that to Cuba they just gave unlimited drilling rights to China in our territorial waters....

and as to the UN in lake Michigan.... Humm I wonder if the USS Silverfish is still operable.....
 

ricbak

New member
I really thought that this treaty was "Put to Bed" along time ago. I guess that I was mistaken. I did a quick search for LOST and found an 2007 article worth reading.
Many of LOST’s costs are obvious, and reason enough to reject the
treaty. But the agreement’s potentially greatest costs are unknown today.
By punishing entrepreneurship directed at transforming the great frontiers​
[FONT=SPVAAA+TimesNewRomanPSMT]
of the oceans and space, LOST threatens potentially enormous losses​
[/FONT]
well into the future. The exact impact of the regulatory regime might be
unpredictable, since the treaty’s exact operation is not certain. But the​
[FONT=SPVAAA+TimesNewRomanPSMT]magnitude of the loss would be enormous.~

Link Removed
[/FONT]
 

HK4U

New member
I used to tell Boris when we would talk about something like this happened or we heard some bad news "And tomorrow when you get up it will be worse". I told him today that anymore it seems like everyday that is really true. The good news as I have said before is that I have read the back of the book and we win. For those of you that are Christians you know what I mean. The bad news is that before we get to the last chapter there is going to be a lot of pain.
 

festus

God Bless Our Troops!!!
I cheated...

I used to tell Boris when we would talk about something like this happened or we heard some bad news "And tomorrow when you get up it will be worse". I told him today that anymore it seems like everyday that is really true. The good news as I have said before is that I have read the back of the book and we win. For those of you that are Christians you know what I mean. The bad news is that before we get to the last chapter there is going to be a lot of pain.
I skipped ahead to the end of "THE BOOK" !




WE WIN!!!!!!!!!!
 

ricbak

New member
Reply from Senator Levin of Michigan

Mr Levin and I do not see eye to eye on alot of issues, but at least he or his staff does reply in a timely manner.


I recieved an Answer from Mr Levin today about his LOST Treaty (Law of the Sea) views, as well as some history of the Treaty.
In Part:
Thank you for contacting me concerning the United Nations (U.N.) Convention on the Law of the Sea (Treaty Doc.103-39). I support ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty.

In March 2004, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee favorably reported this Convention to the Senate. Unfortunately, the full Senate did not consider this treaty before the adjournment of the 108th Congress. In addition, the Convention was not considered during the 109th Congress. However, the Law of the Sea Treaty remains in the Foreign Relations Committee due to Senate rules, which do not require treaties to be resubmitted during each new session. Currently, 155 countries are party to the Law of the Sea Convention.

I believe it is important that the United States takes this opportunity to demonstrate leadership. If we do not accede to this Convention, which is already in force, we are less able to participate in its implementation and possible modification. By ratifying the Law of the Sea Convention, the United States has the chance to advance U.S. national security interests, assume a prominent role in implementing the Convention commensurate with our status as the world’s largest maritime power, and enhance our ability to work with other nations to influence the direction of international maritime law for the future. I will support the Law of the Sea Convention if it is considered by the full Senate.

Again, thank you for contacting me.

Sincerely,
Carl Levin
 

Piece Corps

New member
Whenever the U.N. is mentioned, look for the NWO. The UN has never been in the best interest of the US - NEVER! The only thing we have benefitted from is our veto power. And we are talking here about giving up more of our US sovereignty, this time of our coastline and worse.

It's time we threw the UN out of the US, quit the UN totally, and started taking care of ourselves.
 

Glockster20

Clinging to God and guns
+1... Agreed! BHO is selling us down the river... flushing our sovereignty down the proverbial toilet under the guise of PC.
 

OldOwl

New member
amazing how many people are learning about the NWO lately. Two years ago I'd mention it, and all I heard was huh? whut?

Spread the word brother. We're in the end game.
 

Tex4oc

Patriot 1st
Get the U.S. out of the U.N., and get the U.N. out of the U.S., I've been saying that for years. The U.N. is the reason Saddam remained in power after we went over there the first time, and is directly responsible for 9/11. Get them the f%*@ out of our country, and quit letting them tell our government what we can and can't do. I understand why the Dems. want to reach out to the U.N., they don't know what to do and need someone to tell them, and God forbid they go to the Republicans!!:fie:
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,337
Messages
622,558
Members
74,165
Latest member
seniorgeek
Top