Sea Treaty all but dead, 34 GOP senators oppose., page 1


Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times


reply posted on 16-7-2012 @ 05:40 PM by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by michaelbrux


Does anyone know about this Treaty and why has it all of the sudden appeared as a topic in cyber dialogue?


This thing has been around forever. The US is one of the very last nations to have never ratified it, and probably never will.

The latest push has more to do with the South China Sea than anything else, where the US would like to challenge China on some of their territorial water claims, but without having signed onto the Sea Treaty to begin with, we don't really have a leg to stand on.

GOP Scuttles Law-of-Sea Treaty


reply posted on 16-7-2012 @ 05:44 PM by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by GoldenRuled


This bill was to essentially give ownership of any and all 'bodies'(oceans, lakes, ponds, rivers, puddles) of water to the UN. Don't matter where it's at. Not yours. Don't matter if it runs thru your property. You would have to have UN permission to use it for any reason.


Sorry, but that is false. It's a common set of laws governing the "high seas". It doesn't turn over anything to the UN. The US doesn't really have anything to gain by signing onto it, which is why it won't pass Congress.


reply posted on 16-7-2012 @ 06:00 PM by michaelbrux
reply to post by Wrabbit2000


i see what you are saying. the 200 miles off the coast seems like it could close the Mediterranean and Red Seas and the Persian Gulf; all really important sea ways.

I'm looking at the lead lobbying group and the 2 Senators that gave the last two votes against.

this may take me some time.


reply posted on 16-7-2012 @ 10:13 PM by Happy1
reply to post by orionthehunter
It's the same reasons the US will not sign onto the worldwide court - soveriegn rights and the right of our millitary personnel to not be charged with crimes while on "police actions" in other countries - we don't go to war anymore - the congress would have to vote to authorize "war".

The sea treaty is a POS. It's part of the agenda 21 where the UN would be in control of all water on the planet and decide how it's appropriated. Just like food, medicine, and guns, weaponry.


reply posted on 17-7-2012 @ 06:17 PM by GoldenRuled
Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by GoldenRuled


This bill was to essentially give ownership of any and all 'bodies'(oceans, lakes, ponds, rivers, puddles) of water to the UN. Don't matter where it's at. Not yours. Don't matter if it runs thru your property. You would have to have UN permission to use it for any reason.


Sorry, but that is false. It's a common set of laws governing the "high seas". It doesn't turn over anything to the UN. The US doesn't really have anything to gain by signing onto it, which is why it won't pass Congress.


Actually true but not. It isn't outright worded to the end, but it's how you can interpret it. Politicians will use it to their own end or whatever they get a bribe for. Here's something I read a couple years ago on it.
Examiner


reply posted on 18-7-2012 @ 10:22 AM by desert
Re Reagan
But the treaty spooked conservatives straightaway. Before it was even finalized, President Reagan worried that "the deep seabed mining part of the convention does not meet United States objectives." Ultimately, he refused to sign the treaty for that very reason, but even that rejection wasn't enough for the right wing of his party -- probably because Reagan said he would nevertheless abide by the rest of the treaty's terms, which he found sensible.

source


God, how I wish for a zombie William F. Buckley to fight these right wing extremists..

The military wants it. Business wants it. But to get it, they have to get past conservatives who simply don't trust the United Nations .... The treaty has spooked them ever since 1982, when it opened for signature, even though it has been widely supported by their more moderate Republican brethren. Whatever specific qualms its opponents raise, the treaty's real problem is that in the last 30 years, compulsive U.N. skepticism has moved from the fringes of the GOP into its mainstream.
...

In Gaffney's corner: Everything from Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum to Jeane Kirkpatrick to the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute to the columns of Pat Buchanan. ("Should the U.N. be lord of the oceans?") In Inhofe's corner: A new team of conservatives like Jim DeMint, who only needed to hear the letters "U" and "N" to know what they were against.

same source
Pages:     ^^TOP^^