This is a long shot..., most people, most normal
people, don't pay much attention to the treaties our political and politically-inclined public
servants court, or propose.
Mostly because of two things: 1) The narrative that they create to describe the treaty (much like they do with legislation) creates a presupposition
about the matter which implies something clearly beneficial to the trusting public (for example consider the "Patriot Act," or the "2011 Bipartisan
"Build Act"... it's a verbal public relations game they enjoy deeply.) Then there reason number 2) crafted by the most capable legal minds, the act
is nearly impossible to completely comprehend because it's a gigantic compilation of exceptions, shifting definitions, multifaceted provisos, and
buried stipulations designed to be intelligible only to those indoctrinated in the field of diplomatic communications and international law.
Our hosts into this latest push to jump on board and join the treaty is overflowing with scarcely applicable logic, nonsensical forays into unrelated
material, and a sense that their audience is either already sold on the idea, or too simple-minded to understand the ramifications of our becoming
members of this particular "club."
I am not really going to subject you to a barrage of points and counterpoints as that would probably serve only to delay your own review of the
material (all those links up there are really pertinent.... just pretend you are a "good" president and actually try to understand them before doing
as your party commands and signing up)...
Here's a simple set of observations I offer to entice you into this world of obfuscation and doublespeak:
(I'm lifting these from various locations... and they represent my current bias... dissuade me if you can.)
- The treaty creates the International Seabed Authority (ISA) with its own dispute resolution tribunal. However, should the U.S. stop its current
compliance with the U.S.-negotiated laws of the Convention, the U.S. could not be taken to the Law of the Sea Tribunal since the U.S. has indicated
that it would choose binding arbitration rather than availing itself of the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea.
- Requirements that nations either harvest their entire allowable catch in certain areas or give the surplus to other nations could result in mandated
- 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.
- 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.
- One of the treaty's main selling points, legally recognized navigation rights on, over, and under straits, is unnecessary because these rights are
not currently threatened by law or by any military capable of opposing the U.S.
- The treaty applies eminent domain to intellectual property giving the UN the power to seize technology and share it with potentially enemy
- The U.S. already honors almost all the provisions of the treaty. For practical purposes, there is no pressing need to ratify it that outweighs the
negatives of the remaining provisions.
Negotiated in the 1970s, the treaty was heavily influenced by the "New International Economic Order," a set of economic principles first formally
advanced at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). That agenda called for "fairer" terms of trade and development financing
for the so-called under-developed and developing nations.
Another way the New International Economic Order has been described is "redistributionist."
The Law of the Sea Treaty calls for technology transfers and wealth transfers from developed to undeveloped nations. It also requires parties to the
treaty to adopt regulations and laws to control pollution of the marine environment. Such provisions were among the reasons President Ronald Reagan
rejected the treaty in 1982. As Edwin Meese, U.S. Attorney General under President Reagan, explained recently, "...it was out of step with the
concepts of economic liberty and free enterprise that Ronald Reagan was to inspire throughout the world."
Frankly, this should get the conversation started... if there is to be one. I understand the "global" so-called "New World Order" is predicated on US
submission to a "higher global authority" (read as: supranational cartel) - but I can't accept that as a valid sacrifice of sovereignty... not based
on media-induced faith of elites and their supposed intentions to 'save us all.'
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 11-5-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)