It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NWO, China, USA Economics and International Policy - March 13, 2009

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 10:04 AM
The recent China/US ships debacle are good examples of the NWO shaping US economic and international policy. It doesn't technically qualify as a false flag event because it’s an economic not physical attack but it is an absolutely CREATED event to ensure that the United Nations Law of the Seas Treaty is ratified by the U.S. Congress. I am certain it was agreed to when Hillary Clinton visited China recently. I find it very insulting that TPTB think that we are so stupid as to not see this ruse. To be honest, I had not even heard of this treaty until these stories starting coming up and I started to wonder what was REALLY going on. It took me about an hour to put this story together, and it makes sense. The question is, why the MSM hasn’t reported the link. We all know the answer to that one.

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."

For those of you who don’t know what I’m talking about:

On January 13, 2009, speaking at her Senate confirmation hearing as nominee for Secretary of State, Senator Hillary Clinton said that ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty would be a priority for her.

Saturday, February 21, 2009 - Clinton met with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao in Beijing, where they discussed what they regard as the new defining Sino-U.S. strategic goals: the world economic crisis, regional security and the environment.

Monday, March 09, 2009 - Pentagon: Chinese Ships Harassed Unarmed Navy Craft in International Waters

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 - China: Activity by Confronted U.S. Ship Was Illegal

Friday, March 13, 2009 - China Condemns U.S. Warship Deployment as Tensions Mount

Thursday, March 12, 2009 - LOST and Found: Senate Moves Toward Ratification of U.N.'s 'Law of the Sea Treaty'

The Senate is gearing up to ratify a decades-old U.N. treaty that critics warn could create a massive U.N. bureaucracy that could even claim powers over American waterways.

"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."

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.

List of countries that have ratified Law of the Sea Conventions

China ratified it on 7 June 1996 and has be a proponent of it’s ratification by the remaining holdouts, i.e. the U.S.

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

The United States strongly objected to the provisions of Part XI of the Convention on several grounds, arguing that the treaty is unfavorable to American economic and security interests. The U.S. felt that the provisions of the treaty were not free-market friendly and were designed to favor the economic systems of the Communist states.

Among the listed pro & con arguments on the treaty are:

Pro-ratification arguments - National security: The U.S. military, which relies heavily on its ability to freely navigate on and fly over the sea, has been a strong advocate of UNCLOS. In the absence of treaty law, the US relies on customary law that can change as states' practices change. Also, under this customary law, the Pentagon claims that countries often make unreasonable and irresponsible claims on marine territory that frustrates U.S. military action. The U.S. has tried to work around these claims, but without a legal framework to support them, the Pentagon believes it risks compromising its intelligence and military operations at sea.

Anti-ratification arguments

Taxation: The license fees and taxes levied on economic activities in the deep seabed area by the ISA would be, in effect, a form of 'taxation without representation'. Citizens would be indirectly taxed through business and governmental activities in the area.

Economics: Businesses can already exploit resources from the international area; ratifying the treaty would force them to buy licenses for that right and pay taxes on the proceeds.

Limited control over funding: The U.S. would have no direct control over how the money is used.

[edit on 13/3/2009 by Iamonlyhuman]

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 10:06 AM
Although the Law of the Seas is a socialist agenda, it doesn't really matter if you agree with it or not, it will be imposed on us just as a global government will be imposed. We are seeing it happen right now!

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 11:46 AM
No comments? I'm surprised.

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 04:39 PM
Come on people... this has a very real potential to have a great deal of impact on the economic sovereignty of the U.S and they're doing this under the cover of a created necessity. What say ye??

[edit on 13/3/2009 by Iamonlyhuman]

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 10:52 AM
I am bumping this because I feel it's important and can't believe that NOT ONE PERSON has responded to this thread.

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 10:58 AM
What is there to say? We owe China 1 Trillion dollars We do not have 1 trillion dollars. China is starting to become very concerned about this. Just this Friday, suddenly the government is touting how good the US economy is and how it is still the best place to invest.

No good can come from this.

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 11:05 AM
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

Yeah, I know the feeling. NWO, Internationalists or what every you want to call them had all the bills prepped and ready to go. Want to bet the same exact bill appears in the house and the senate and is rushed through without debate, just like they are planing to do with the food bills?

While every one is watching the PORKULUS bill NWO is sliding through international law bills as fast as they can. By 2010 the USA will have "harmonized" all its laws to the international standards.

Welcome to the United Soviet Socialist Republic of America

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 11:16 AM
The US is well known to cause political conflict to meet their agenda for a more sinister purpose. The reconciliation process is the mail goal to reach these warped objectives.

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 11:28 AM
The world trade contraction already predicted for 2010 by the World Bank can mean an export crash in financial liquidity of the foreign reserves for China. They are one of the critical countries we must follow closely. I believe, that like the US being broke we will join forces at the G20 summit. April's will only set the stage and pretend nothing gets accomplished. Lots of pens will be in action. It will not be transparent.

top topics


log in