Good day all, I have a rather tough one here. It’s the Law of The Sea Treaty, or LOST as it has come to be known. This treaty was purported to establish establishes a system for resolving disputes in international waters and recognizes sovereign rights over a country’s continental shelf out to 200 nautical miles and beyond if the country can provide evidence to substantiate its claims. The United States has abided by the rules of the treaty since President Ronald Reagan’s administration.
While this has been abided by the United States since the administration of the Great Ronald Reagan, Reagan was utterly opposed to it, to the point where he fired the State Department staffers who came up with this document. The Los Angeles Times has a column today from former Reagan Attorney General Edwin Meese.
President Reagan so strongly opposed the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea that he didn’t just not sign the treaty. He very publicly refused to sign it. He also dismissed the State Department staff that helped negotiate it. And in case anyone didn’t get the message, he sent special envoy Donald Rumsfeld on a globe-trotting mission to explain his opposition and urge other nations to follow suit.
I don’t recall this, but I’m not surprised by it. The State Department has long had a tradition of protecting everyone’s interests BUT the United States and Americans in general. Meese continues:
But with the treaty again under consideration by the Senate, it’s important to note that Reagan’s objections to it were anything but trivial. In his view, articulated long before he entered the Oval Office, its fatal flaw was as great as it was simple: LOST posed a direct threat to American sovereignty.
In a 1978 radio address titled “Ocean Mining,” he asserted that “no nat[ional] interest of ours could justify handing sovereign control of two-thirds of the Earth’s surface over to the Third World.” He added: “No one has ruled out the idea of a [Law of the Sea] treaty — one which makes sense — but after long years of fruitless negotiating, it became apparent that the underdeveloped nations who now control the General Assembly were looking for a free ride at our expense, again.”
Gee whiz, the UN trying to form a one world government at the expense of the United States? Who would have believed it? Well, except for the majority of Americans of course.
What had begun as an effort to codify certain navigational rights had, during the course of extended negotiations, morphed into a “constitution for the oceans” that would push nations further along the road to a world government. Of particular concern was Part XI of the treaty, which created supra-national executive, legislative and judicial mechanisms to regulate the mineral resources of the world’s oceans.
Now I am looking at the section Mr. Meese is speaking about and it is rather frightening. Here are a few bits for you to look at. I do apologize that it’s in bureaucratic gobbledygook, but you know what bureaucrats are like when given writing implements.
SECTION 2. PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE AREA
Common heritage of mankind
The Area and its resources are the common heritage of mankind.
In other words, all your resources, America, belong to the ruling elite people of the world. It gets better.
General conduct of States in relation to the Area
The general conduct of States in relation to the Area shall be in accordance with the provisions of this Part, the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations and other rules of international law in the interests of maintaining peace and security and promoting international cooperation and mutual understanding.
Now if I understand this, it says that “What you want America, means nothing. You will do our bidding since we are smarter than you ignorant Americans.” Yeah I can see why Reagan wasn’t happy with the treaty. But Wait! It gets better!
Responsibility to ensure compliance and liability for damage
- States Parties shall have the responsibility to ensure that activities in the Area, whether carried out by States Parties, or state enterprises or natural or juridical persons which possess the nationality of States Parties or are effectively controlled by them or their nationals, shall be carried out in conformity with this Part. The same responsibility applies to international organizations for activities in the Area carried out by such organizations.
- Without prejudice to the rules of international law and Annex III, article 22, damage caused by the failure of a State Party or international organization to carry out its responsibilities under this Part shall entail liability; States Parties or international organizations acting together shall bear joint and several liability. A State Party shall not however be liable for damage caused by any failure to comply with this Part by a person whom it has sponsored under article 153, paragraph 2(b), if the State Party has taken all necessary and appropriate measures to secure effective compliance under article 153, paragraph 4, and Annex III, article 4, paragraph 4.
- States Parties that are members of international organizations shall take appropriate measures to ensure the implementation of this article with respect to such organizations.
Now if I understand this, it means that our legal system will be supplanted by UN Diktats. I’ll be honest and say I’m not sure about this section. However I have no doubt about the next one!
Benefit of mankind
- Activities in the Area shall, as specifically provided for in this Part, be carried out for the benefit of mankind as a whole, irrespective of the geographical location of States, whether coastal or land-locked, and taking into particular consideration the interests and needs of developing States and of peoples who have not attained full independence or other self-governing status recognized by the United Nations in accordance with General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and other relevant General Assembly resolutions.
- The Authority shall provide for the equitable sharing of financial and other economic benefits derived from activities in the Area through any appropriate mechanism, on a non-discriminatory basis, in accordance with article 160, paragraph 2(f)(i).
And there you have it. We would lose all our sovereignty over our own minerals and other resources. This, as other have said, is the wet dream of collectivists everywhere. Considering that the USSR was still in existence, this disaster of a treaty and who it is aimed it doesn’t surprise me. And if you think we will be able to use our navy to defend ourselves? Think again.
Use of the Area exclusively for peaceful purposes
The Area shall be open to use exclusively for peaceful purposes by all States, whether coastal or land-locked, without discrimination and without prejudice to the other provisions of this Part.
You dirty evil Americans can just park your carriers and forget about blowing your enemies into small pieces.
If you are a true masochist, you can read the entire treaty in it’s current version here.
Mr. Meese continues:
One of these institutions — the International Seabed Authority — is assigned the power to regulate deep seabed mining and development on the extended continental shelf. In return for “assuring” those rights, the ISA would receive royalties from gas and oil exploration. Those revenues would then be redistributed to poorer countries.
In other words, the royalties don’t go to the sovereign nation, but to a pack of corrupt UN bureaucrats. This was to be a nice revenue stream to keep the kleptocracy in champagne and caviar. This was one of the things that bothered President Reagan but not the only thing. From Mr. Meese:
Those who claim that the U.S. is out of step with LOST need to know that in 1983, after rejecting the treaty, Reagan issued an “ocean policy statement” affirming the U.S. intent to abide by most of the pact’s provisions, such as navigational rights. After all, most of them merely recapitulate rights established by customary international law. Reagan’s statement also proclaimed that the U.S. had a 200-nautical-mile “exclusive economic zone” in conformity with the treaty. No foreign nation has challenged the existence or breadth of that U.S. zone.
The statement specifically took exception to the treaty’s deep seabed mining provisions. Some have claimed those provisions were the only ones that troubled Reagan. But his diary entry of June 29, 1982, makes it clear that the problems went far beyond that: “Decided in [National Security Council] meeting — will not sign ‘Law of the Sea’ treaty even without seabed mining provisions.”
Reagan tried for months to renegotiate the treaty, but to no avail.
The man who tried to renegotiate the treaty was Ambassador James Malone. In 1984, he explained why Reagan considered LOST to be unacceptable: “The treaty’s provisions were intentionally designed to promote a new world order — a form of global collectivism … that seeks ultimately the redistribution of the world’s wealth through a complex system of manipulative central economic planning and bureaucratic coercion.”
In the 90’s, that paragon of virtue, Bill Clinton had his people negotiate a few “fixes.” Mr. Malone had something to say about that:
Eleven years later, Malone declared: “This remains the case today.” Despite the claims that the 1994 agreement “fixed” the offending deep seabed provisions, the “new and improved” pact remained fundamentally objectionable.
Over the years, Democrats have pushed to ratify the treaty, and a few Republicans have been more then happy to assist them. The Republicans who were pushing this treaty all had one thing in common. They were/are big government RINO’s who have more in common with the Democrats then with most of the people they purport to represent. One of the loudest mouths on the Republican side is soon to be former Senator Richard Lugar1. Lugar, once he became a member of the Senate, drank deeply from the Kool-Aid tub. There were many reasons his constituents told him to take a hike. I can’t say this was one of them, but if they knew and understood what this treaty would do, they wold have booted that moron out a long time ago.
Recently, Our Fearless Golfer, SCoaMF Supreme, Der Fubar himself, started trying to ram this through the senate. Now in order to pass a treaty, it needs to be voted for by a two thirds majority. This would be 67 members of the Senate would be required to approve.
Today, Senator James DeMint announced that he had 34 votes to oppose this treaty, killing it. Here’s the story from the Washington Times:
Critics of the treaty argue that it would subject U.S. sovereignty to an international body, require American businesses to pay royalties for resource exploitation and subject the U.S. to unwieldy environmental regulations as defined.
The list of treaty opponents has been growing, and on Monday, Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican and a leader of efforts to block it, announced that four more Republicans have said that they would vote against ratification: Sens. Mike Johanns of Nebraska, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Rob Portman of Ohio and Johnny Isakson of Georgia. “With 34 senators against the misguided treaty, LOST will not be ratified by the Senate this year,” Mr. DeMint said in a statement on his website.
That ANY Republicans would support this treaty tells me that they do not have the interests of the United States first and foremost in their minds. They need to explain to their constituents why they are supporting this thing. I suspect most would try and duck the issue.
As for the Democrats? I expect no less from them. The destruction of the United States and the subjugation of Americans to the UN Bluehats has been their goal for decades. Why Bill Clinton is angling for the General Secretary’s2 job when the current drone’s3 term is up. He can’t go any higher in the United States so obviously, he wants to start raping teen girls and pillaging UN bank accounts help the world become a better place. Being able to control the world’s resources would give him huge power to reward the “Friends of Bill & Hillary.” It wouldn’t do much for the United States.
Thankfully for Senator DeMint and the others, this treaty will remain dead. However, there is still a risk from the RINO’s in the Senate. John Kerry is doing his best to ram this POS through.
“No letter or whip count changes the fact that rock-ribbed Republican businesses and the military and every living Republican secretary of state say that this needs to happen, and that’s why it’s a matter of ‘when’ not ‘if’ for the Law of the Sea,” Kerry spokeswoman Jodi Seth said.
John Kerry is a traitor. He was treating with the enemy when he came back from Vietnam. He has never released his discharge papers and the rumor is they would show he was to get a dishonorable discharge or less than honorable discharge, but thanks to Jimmy Carter’s amnesty, that DD was upgraded to a general discharge.
You need to find out how your senator plans to vote on this and hold their feet to the fire. If you are a stockholder in a company that supports this, you need to question the management. If this things manages to pass, the United States may end up with UN Bluehats stopping our fishing boats and arresting the crew. Think it can’t happen? Think again.
Elections mean things. If your representative doesn’t support the sovereignty, get rid of them and vote for someone who will. I would also ask Mittens how he stands on this. I don’t think he’s taken a position yet. (Big surprise there)
Remember in November!
~The Angry Webmaster~