It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Does anyone know about this Treaty and why has it all of the sudden appeared as a topic in cyber dialogue?
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.
But those hypothetical benefits are less important than LOST’s actual derogation of U.S. sovereignty by empowering a U.N. bureaucracy — the International Seabed Authority (ISA), based in Jamaica — to give or withhold permission for mining, and to transfer perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars of U.S. wealth to whatever nation it deems deserving — “on the basis of equitable sharing criteria, taking into account the interests and needs of developing states, particularly the least developed and the land-locked among them.”
Royalties paid by nations with the talent and will for extracting wealth from the seabed will go to nations that have neither, on the principle that what is extracted from 56 percent of the earth’s surface is, the United Nations insists, “the common heritage of mankind.” And never mind U.S. law, which says that wealth gained from the continental shelf — from which the ISA would seek royalty payments — is supposed to be held by the U.S. government for the benefit of the American people.
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.
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.
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.