US Administration Renews Push to Ratify Law of Sea Treaty

reply to post by Maxmars


People need to be aware that once this Law of Sea Treaty (LOST) is ratified is CANNOT be repealed. There is no second chance with this.

I tried to post another thread on this – it’s that important to me.

I’m glad I caught this bit while channel surfing, there is very little time (four weeks) to fight this.

I am aware of the past scandals around Dick Morris and that many here will have a knee-jerk reaction to dismiss anything out of Fox News or Dick Morris. That is a mistake. Sometimes real news leaks out – even on Fox or CNN. Things are NOT all black or all white – our world is a bit more complicated than that – there are too many people who do this because it’s easier than thinking.

See a fuller explanation of LOST at the following link:

www.dickmorris.com...

reply to post by AuranVector

I am referring to the Chinese aces who attempted to buzz our Orion and rammed it no doubt utilizing their superior flying skills I humurously referred to as "Kamikaze"

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
My god they have a carrier up and running? Full of those incompetent Kamikaze pilots?IN OPEN OCEAN!!!?

The carrier is an old Soviet one that was partially constructed. When the Soviet Union collapsed the carrier construction stopped. China has refurbished / outfitted it and they were conducting sea trials. It was supposedly purchased by a private individual in China to be used as a floating Casino if I remember right (Hong Kong zone).

The moment it hit territorial waters it was diverted to a naval base for refurbishment for the Army-Navy (or so the story goes).

The potential for damage is there since it gives them a bump in force projection however their inexperience in carrier doctrine coupled with an old carrier design I think negates that potential.

It's all for show, it's a diesel boat. They bought land based arresting gear for training, but they are years away from fielding an operational carrier wing. And even when they do get up to speed, it's one small carrier that would be on the bottom of the briny 5 minutes into a shooting war.

It's chest puffing by China, nothing more.

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
It's chest puffing by China, nothing more.

When compared to the US sure... When compared to the military abilities of surrounding nations to China who dont have distance and technology on their side the chest puffing is more effective.

More news from the "let's get this done" front....

Source: Global Security.org "US Congress Ponders International Sea Treaty"

Our Executive and Legislative branches continue to march down the path...

The Obama administration .... dispatched Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to Capitol Hill to argue for U.S. accession before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Accession requires ratification, which is the sole purview of the President. (If interested, see: www.abovetopsecret.com...)

Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee Senator John Kerry (you know the guy.. ran for President.. got "swift-boated"... super rich) Asserts that we "need" to do this....

"Ratifying the treaty will lock in the favorable navigational rights that our military and shipping interests depend on every single day. It will strengthen our hand against China and others who stake out claims in the Pacific, the Arctic, or elsewhere. It will give our oil and gas companies the certainty that they need to make crucial investments to secure our energy future. And it will help secure access to rare earth minerals which we need for weapons systems, computers, cell phones, and the like..."

(((Emphasis is mine)))

------------------

As for the first ("lock in the favorable navigational rights...")

"Lock in" as in there is some danger that we could or will be "losing" them? That is, of course, what the implication is designed to lead us to infer... yet there is no danger of that happening ANYWHERE on this planet... so what's the point? I will tell you... you need to "fear" not being "locked in" ... never mind that there are no consequences for NOT being "locked in."

In regards to the second ("..strengthen our hand against China and others who stake out claims...")

Why intimate that there is some 'impending' naval conflict that is inevitable .. and why China and others who stake out claims? I'll tell you again... "fear it" ... the simple truth is that WE STAKE OUT CLAIMS TOO... so would this protect them against us? Truthfully; this is about big business...

The third assertion ("...help secure access to rare earth minerals...")

This one is utter bunk... it will only help transnational corporations remain free from claims by sovereign countries as to their preeminent "sovereign" rights over the resources they exploit for profit.

------------------

Then the next tag-team of globalist agendas get to speak to our representatives (who presumably either don't understand, or don't care beyond dong what the Party commands.)

Secretary of State Clinton: "If we do not join the convention, our companies will miss out on opportunities to explore vast areas of continental shelf and deep seabed. If we do join the convention, we unlock economic opportunities worth potentially hundreds of billions of dollars..."

Note the phrasing here; "If we do not..." you know this is the hallmark of a "warning" right? Once again the politics of fear... but what of?

"...our companies will miss out on opportunities..."

Oh... heaven forbid! "Our" companies? Which of "our" companies would she be referring to, I wonder? And would these companies "of ours" be the same one's footing the bill for the campaign season? Or are we patriotically surrendering our sovereignty for something other than the profit of the corporate super-citizens?

"If we do join the convention, we unlock economic opportunities..."

And exactly WHAT opportunities are currently "locked?" Of course, none. What's not locked is the ability to exploit resources without regard for trivialities like the quaint notion of the sovereign rights of those most proximate and affected by exploitation.

Of course, the next pinch hitter adds the most vacuous of ideas....

Defense Secretary Panetta argued that adhering to international conventions strengthens America's moral authority when it comes to pressuring other states to do likewise.

Really? As in "Join the club... we did." Seriously? "Moral authority" is something these people should never be allowed to discuss... as they often appear to lack the former and abuse the latter.

---------------------

The article at least includes one persons attempt to redirect the consideration:

"If the U.S. approves the treaty, it would be forced to transfer billions of dollars in royalties generated from oil and gas production on the U.S. extended continental shelf to the U.N. International Seabed Authority for redistribution to the developing world..." said Republican Senator James Inhofe.

But this is hardly the most effective defensive argument... perhaps intentionally (sue me, I'm cynical)

The last bit makes me so angry that I would rather just leave it to your judgement because I would be very harsh.

Secretary Clinton noted that, as a member of the convention, the United States would have veto rights over royalty distribution. And, she argued, the treaty's benefits far outweigh any costs. "Critics claim we would surrender U.S. sovereignty under this treaty. But, in fact, it is exactly the opposite. We would secure sovereign rights over vast new areas and resources," she said.

What arrogance.. what presumed ignorance....

.... and here's another.... more decisive article... as the matter becomes more and more "public"

Forbes: Will U.S. Sovereignty Be LOST At Sea? Obama Supports U.N. Treaty That Redistributes Drilling Revenues

But note the glaring error which needs to be recognized as the misconception which is continually promoted by the press...

(((emphasis below mine)))

A proposed Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), which is supported by President Obama but has not yet been ratified by Congress, will subordinate U.S. naval and drilling operations beyond 200 miles of our coast to a newly established U.N. bureaucracy. If approved, it will grant a Kingston, Jamaica-based International Seabed Authority (ISA) the power to regulate deep-sea oil exploration, seabed mining, and fishing rights.

As I stated in How do international treaties affect people in the United States of America?

Legislators do not ratify treaties. When the Senate gives its consent, the President--acting as the chief diplomat of the United States--has discretion whether or not to ratify the instrument.

So it is not up to the congress or senate to "ratify" accession to the treaty. That is up to the President.

The Forbes staff point out some further details that seem inconsistent with the so-called "facts" that our political appointees and talking heads like to assert.

The counter standing in the words of Secretary Clinton:

Secretary Clinton noted that, as a member of the convention, the United States would have veto rights over royalty distribution. And, she argued, the treaty's benefits far outweigh any costs. "Critics claim we would surrender U.S. sovereignty under this treaty. But, in fact, it is exactly the opposite. We would secure sovereign rights over vast new areas and resources," she said.

I wonder how the other members of the LOST treaty would agree that entering the agreement under the proviso of "...as a member of the convention, the United States would have veto rights over royalty distribution." is a good faith approach to international cooperation?

As part of the deal, as much as 7% of U.S. government revenue that is collected from oil and gas companies operating off our coast will be forked over to ISA for redistribution to poorer, landlocked countries. This apparently is in penance for America’s audacity in perpetuating prosperity yielded by our Industrial Revolution.

Under current law, oil companies are required to pay royalties to the U.S. Treasury (typically at a rate of 12 ½% to 18%) for oil and gas exploration in the Gulf of Mexico and off the northern coast of Alaska. Treasury keeps a portion, and the rest goes to Gulf states and to the National Historic Preservation Fund. But if LOST is ratified, about half of those Treasury revenues, amounting to billions, if not trillions of dollars, would go to the ISA. We will be required to pay 1% of those “international royalties” beginning in the sixth year of production at each site, with rates increasing at 1% annual increments until the 12th year when they would remain at 7% thereafter.

Of course, unlike the characterization offered - this is no "deal." There is no negotiation involved... it is a treaty - an obligation the US will "accede" to, if the current political regime has its way.

Like the U.N.’s Kyoto Protocol debacle that preceded it, this most recent LOST cause embodies the progressive ideal of subordinating the sovereignty of nation states to authoritarian dictates of a world body. The U.S. would have one vote out of 160 regarding where the money would go, and be obligated to hand over offshore drilling technology to any nation that wants it… for free.

And who are those lucky international recipients? They will most likely include such undemocratic, despotic and brutal governments as Belarus, Burma, China, Cuba, Sudan and Zimbabwe…all current voting members of LOST.

Here are some comments once made by one of the drafters of this treaty which our Executive Administration is trying to agree to under our name....

“The world ocean has been and is so to speak, our great laboratory for making a new world order.”

Ahem.... you know... that says something right there. I am no worshiper of President Reagan but he got this on right...

...President Reagan thought it was such a lousy idea that he not only refused to sign, but actually fired the State Department staff that helped negotiate it.

More still:

ISA would settle international maritime and jurisdictional disputes, possibly even to the extent of overriding our U.S. Navy’s freedom of navigation and governing where ships can and cannot go. ISA’s prerogative to do so would be entirely consistent with a “global test” definition advocated by key LOST proponent Senator John Kerry in 2004.

If you think that the abortion of Carbon economics has nothing to do with this guess again:

William C. G. Burns of the Monterey Institute of International Studies says that the definition of pollution could be read to include “…the potential impact of rising sea surface temperature, rising sea levels, and changes in ocean pH as a consequence of rising levels of carbon dioxide in sea water.” Burns warns that this could “give rise to actions under the Convention’s marine pollution provisions to reduce carbon emissions worldwide.” He warns that this can easily be expanded to include anti-global warming measures, and since [the treaty] would be “self-executing”, U.S. courts can be used to enforce it.

Gorian economics anyone?

Given good prospects that the White House and Senate may have fewer Democrat residents after November, Senator Kerry has been working hard to speed up the approval process before moving vans arrive. Republican Senator Luger, another strong treaty supporter and career globalist, apparently didn’t want to highlight that fact during the course of his hard-fought Indiana reelection campaign.

Reaffirming my own misgivings. When globalist Democrats and Republicans agree to "bipatrtisan" support ...we need to watch closely and fully understand what they are doing.

According to Forbes:

Given good prospects that the White House and Senate may have fewer Democrat residents after November, Senator Kerry has been working hard to speed up the approval process before moving vans arrive. Republican Senator Luger, another strong treaty supporter and career globalist, apparently didn’t want to highlight that fact during the course of his hard-fought Indiana reelection campaign.

I think that this thread is worth flagging so that the significance is not swept aside in the furor over the Small Arms Treaty. From my vague understanding, ratifying this treaty would present a threat to US sovereignty. I feel that if this Treaty were ratified, it would put us one step closer to the same with the arms treaty. I think the two sort of go hand in hand (not in subject, but in the threat to constitutionality) and as such, both should be watched.Here is an article that gives a brief (and somewhat biased) overview of it. There are more sources available, just google.