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.


Bush Moves to Ratify L.O.S.T and Let UN Govern International Waters

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 03:27 PM
LOST, the Law of the Sea Treaty, that was originally drafted in the 1980's has once again been brought before a senate committee for ratification. The committee has unanimously approved this treaty which would in effect hand over the protection of our rights in international waters to a United Nations sponsored organization. Many groups concerned with maintaining our autonomy, have raised a cry against the passage of this treatyl that President Bush has indicated he would sign.
George W. Bush has worked hard, particularly since the 9/11 attacks, to emulate the principled, conservative and consequential presidency of one of his most formidable predecessors, Ronald Reagan. So, why would President Bush want to make one of his top foreign policy priorities the ratification of an accord--the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (better known as the Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST)--that President Reagan rejected 22 years ago?

This decision is all the more puzzling since the Law of the Sea Treaty has not improved with age. In fact, there has been no change to the treaty whatsoever from the document Reagan found wanting.

To be sure, in 1994, the Clinton Administration negotiated a separate accord (called "the Agreement") that proponents claim "fixed" the Reagan objections. But the truth of the matter is that, like so many other Clinton flim-flams, this one is not the real deal since LOST has not actually been amended at all.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

This seems to be a very dangerous treaty that opens the pocketbooks of nations world wide to UN taxation, since it gives the UN the right to dictate and govern the oceans and sea floor. basically it would mandate that all companies and governments that seek to mine, drill, harvest, or develop the sea or the sea floor must obtain a permit and pay fees to the UN.

The treaty is in its original 1980's format since no changes to it have been ratified. It was originally drafted in the cold war and has cold war politics stamped all over its pages. President Bush's support for this treaty has many political groups scratching their heads and others nashing their teeth. Of further interest is the lack of resistance this treaty received in the Senate. The treaty represents the largest hand over of American autonomy in U.S. history yet the news media has not reported a word of it. It passed quietly through the Senate committee and will soon be voted on before the whole senate.

Certainly such a monumental hand over of power deserves a national debate on the issue. While the news media are reporting on Michael Jackson's trial, our leaders are quietly handing over our nations rights in international waters to the UN. After the recent oil for food scandal and the corruption that it revealed within the highest levels of leadership in the UN, I for one am unwilling to give them yet more power.

It is imperative that we have a national debate on this issue and that it not be passed into law in the dark. This is a HUGE issue that has far reaching implications for our nation and the world. To try to sneak it into law is unethical and corrupt politics. It scares me that both the Democrats and Republicans are supporting this. We need to hold our leaders accountable for this treaty and not allow this to be passed without first having a national debate on the issue. Our national sovereignty on the seas is at stake here!

Related News Links:

[edit on 3-3-2005 by Banshee]

posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 03:39 PM
Oh my goodness, I had never even heard of LOST. This thing has not been mentioned by anyone on the news. I read just a little about it and it sounds like a scheme of the NWO. I normally support Bush and his policies but this one just seems to be crazy. What is the point of doing this? When has the UN ever shown itself to be good at governing anything much less the totality of international waters.

posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 03:53 PM
The republicans and Democrats both are pushing for this???
did hell freeze over and i missed it?

anything that both parties want done, is suspicious at the least...
but I would think that it is in our best interests...

maybe someone is getting ready to submit a bill for cleanup, to the "registered owner" of the oceans...

Maybe the UN can prevent the massive dumping of nuclear waste and other toxins that are killing our oceans (and us) ... or at least go after the responsible parties...
(russia, china, USA, UK, Japan....)

posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 04:59 PM
Why are we even considering a treaty that was drafted in the 80's and has not been changed since? I agree that we need to govern the dumping of chemicals and the harvesting of fish but I do not think the UN is the way to go. This smells like some kind of political concession. Maybe the carrot that Bush was using on his trip to Europe.

This story needs to go national! Whether you are a Bush supporter or not this needs to get out. I do not see how it is the right thing to do but even if it is there needs to be a national debate on it. I vote to upgrade the story.

posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 05:26 PM
I knew of LOST back when I was in the Navy. While I don't agree with some of the parts of the Treaty, I have a few questions to ask.

If not the UN, who should govern International Waters? The US?
They seem to want to govern every piece of dry land why not wet?

If the Land does not fall under your countries jurisdiction should you reap all the benefits and profits from what you glean from that land?

If the Land does not fall under your countries jurisdiction should you be allowed to govern the rights of other nations when it comes to that land in International Waters?

Would it be under one nations rights to attack vessels of other nations simply for coming inside the area above that land in International Waters?

Who should be responsible to settle disputes over land in International Waters?


posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 05:31 PM
Is there a seperate UN committee to enforce this, does it fall to the general assembly, or the is it a security council matter?
If execution of the UNs sea powers doesn't rest with the Security Council, that means that the UN has legal basis to order American warships out of any area and the US wont have a veto on it.
It also could allow another nation to claim salvage rights to a lost naval vessel. Just for example, lets say that Saudi Arabia is one day chair of the committee ruling the seas, and they've got a pretty decent system going for controlling other committee members. It is within their power then to get a sabatuer into a US ship and cause that ships sinking, then award the salvage operation to a company they trust and arrange to steal tech off of the ship.

Last but not least, and I believe this will be one of the most likely attempts to be made- the UN might demand that all nuclear weapons be removed from naval service.

posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 05:41 PM
This is way out there, but chew on it and tell me what you think.

What if the US ratified this treaty because we know that somebody triggered the Tsunami by manipulating the fault-lines at sea (with explosives, low frequency bombardment, etc)

posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 06:16 PM
As for who has control of the sea or the sea floor, who ever is useing it at the time so far as I am concerned. But I also just kina have a gut feeling that the hole idea behind this is all about the taxing. If taxing can and will be done, there there will be less intrest to devolp and product resorces from the sea, hence control will be kept in the hands of the few who control the resorcess on the land. Just a thought, but I think I will write my representive about the matter.

posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 10:16 PM
whether you are conservative or Liberal you have to agree that this is big news. If you understand the implications of ratifying this treaty then you know why there needs to be a national debate on the issue. This should not be allowed to sneak quietly by behind the scenes. I personally think this needs top billing in the news. The only way you would not think that is if you did not understand what the ratification of this treaty means.

Wake up folks this is the NWO breaking down the front door of the USA!!! If you like that idea fine maybe that is the direction we need to go but let's at least have a discussion on it. The fact that this is being kept hush, hush is shady at best. This treaty makes kyoto look like a speeding ticket. It would have broad reaching implication that could hamper US naval operations world wide. The navy drafted some major objections to the treaty back in the 80's. I will try to get a copy of these and post it here.

Please, educate yourself on what this means and then get the word out. It could be a defining moment for this decade.

new topics

top topics


log in