| Submit your comments on this article |
| International-UN-NGOs |
| Senate wants to deed ownership of 7/10’s of world to UN? |
| 2004-03-25 |
| EFL - read the whole thing. It strikes me as imprudent to cede control of all none contiguous ocean/sea to the UN so that they can charge us for use. Then let them use our ship’s to enforce the duties that they decide to charge us. Maybe we should wait until after we see the results of the Oil-For-Food investigation. Better yet, let’s just say no. The highly controversial United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty, which was on a fast track toward ratification by the U.S. Senate, has been temporarily checked though not derailed. In response to a groundswell of well-informed opposition both on Capitol Hill and from the grass roots, a hearing on the LOST (Treaty Doc. 103-39) is scheduled for today before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. -snip- The first "Battle over the LOST" was in 1982 when President Ronald Reagan flatly rejected the treaty because it undercut American sovereignty. LOST II was in the mid-1990s. In 1994, then-U.N. Ambassador Madeleine Albright signed a supposedly amended version of the treaty and President Clinton sent it to the Senate for the constitutionally mandated advise and consent. Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., who headed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was able to keep the treaty in a state of suspension. But Helms is gone, and his place has been taken by Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar, like Helms a Republican, but one who strongly favors the treaty. On Oct. 14 and 21, 2003, the treaty was heard by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Only supporters were allowed or invited to testify; there was, therefore, no registered opposition. On Feb. 25, a quiet vote was taken and the committee gave its unanimous consent. A committee spokesperson said the hearings, despite their one-sided testimony, were "very comprehensive." He explained that although only 10 or 11 senators were present for the vote, those absent took the trouble to "vote by proxy." "This is because the treaty has overwhelming support from the administration, the oil industry, environmentalists," he said. However, knowing word about the LOST would ignite a firestorm of public outrage, proponents in the Senate hoped to keep the matter under wraps, bypassing the usual committee process as much as possible and bringing the treaty – without debate – to the floor for a voice vote, not a roll call. At that point, the cat jumped out of the bag. Columnists like Lamb, Weyrich and Gaffney and talk show hosts Jane Chastain and Rush Limbaugh and others sounded the alarm. Together they pounded the treaty on the air, in print and via the Internet. E-mail lists – like that sponsored by The Liberty Committee – were activated. Tens of thousands of messages poured into Senate offices. "It didn’t take many senators long to realize that there was indeed opposition to the treaty and they started to withdraw their support for it," says Liberty Committee Executive Director Kent Snyder. It became very clear that despite administration support, this treaty was anything but non-controversial. Critics called for additional hearings, asking why the Finance Committee and the Armed Services Committee were not holding any. The hearing today in Environment and Public Works may be the start of such a process. -snip- In 1996, when the Clinton administration was trying to secure ratification, Leitner authored "Reforming the Law of the Sea Treaty: Opportunities Missed, Precedents Set, and U.S. Sovereignty Threatened," a book which highlighted concerns about the high technology transfers mandated by the treaty. -snip- The problem is "there’s nothing limiting the International Seabed Authority from going out and attempting to raise a navy or have contributing member states contribute vessels or act on behalf of the Authority to enforce its rules," he explained. Leitner said the "blue hull" concept came from a report written by the Center for Naval Analysis in 1993, at the time of the earlier negotiations. The Center is a "gold-plated think-tank," funded by tax dollars, but is not a government agency. "One of the things the Center recommended was that in the post-Cold War era – when we had a relatively large Navy before Clinton dismantled most of it – was an operational mission for the Navy." The idea was for the Navy to donate vessels and crew to the Seabed Authority "to assist them in enforcing their judgments and rules." "So there were these two things. The think-tank for the Center for Naval Analysis writes a report suggesting this, and you look in the treaty and there’s absolutely nothing prohibiting that from happening. And in fact if they ever got the U.S. into the treaty, I think there’s a very good chance that they would actually do something like this. So it’s not required or specifically spelled out, but it’s possible and people have been thinking about it and actually suggesting it." While not having specific authority to send American citizens a tax bill, a very large revenue stream will be generated by American companies for the International Seabed Authority. The Enterprise is the operating arm of the Authority and would be the part "that will actually go out and do something active to generate additional capital," Leitner explained. The revenue flow would come from the fees "just for a simple permit," for activities on the continental shelf beyond national jurisdiction, beyond the 200-mile limit. A company would also have to pay royalties on the sale of extracted resources, and the royalties and all payments would go to the International Seabed Authority. As a by-the-way, Leitner added that the annual capitalization of the International Seabed Authority is required from all signatories of the treaty, and it’s based on the U.N. formula of 25 percent for the U.S. "So basically the United States will pay at least 25 percent of the cost of the Seabed Authority – that’s required as part of the price of admission to the treaty," he observed. -snip- The Authority has the authority to set production quotas and limits. Companies wanting to do ocean mining would have to apply for permits and licenses from the ISA. Here’s the kicker – a mining company would have to develop two mine sites and turn one over to the Authority. As Leitner put it: "You pay whatever they’re going to extort from you in order to go into high seas and do some exploration. But as part of the rule-making thing here, you have to basically explore the equivalent of two mine sites. Then you have to turn over all of the documents, assays, mapping information, characteristics of the water column, anything that has to do with that exploration of those mine sites. You have to turn all that data over to the International Seabed Authority, and then they will decide which mine site they want to keep in reserve and give you the other one – if they agree to give you anything. They might turn you down after you’ve turned all that information in, and you get nothing." -snip- But in any event the International Seabed Authority will keep one of them, whichever one it feels it wants to keep. Then, out of all these explorations or potential mine sites that now it monopolizes, it’s supposed to be provided with sufficient capital to then undertake operations of one type or another in whatever mine site it chooses to go after. -snip- One curious clause in the LOST requires some 38,000 metric tons of nickel to be reserved to the Enterprise "from the available production ceiling. 
" Leitner laughed as he recalled it was put in by Canadian and French negotiators to protect their own nickel producers. "They figured that the Enterprise would not be one of the early producers of anything on the seabed," he explained. "Basically they put a number of like that in to eat up a huge part of the quota of the amount of nickel that could be withdrawn from the seabed, in order to protect the two principal nickel producers in the world, which were Canada, and their International Nickel Corporation, and the French because of their interests in New Caledonia, which is basically one huge nickel mine; the whole island is a nickel mine. "Basically, what they’re doing is taking a huge chunk of the potential mining of nickel off the market to keep the prices of their land-based nickel artificially high, by limiting competition on the seabed. -snip- |
| Posted by:Super Hose |
| #7 There are some legitimate issues like piracy, over-fishing, and pollution that need to be solved in a carefully considered way. Declaring the UN to be the new Neptune, ruler of the deep, is not very carefully considered. Several Sicilian mafia families or Rainbow Push could probably do the job more transparently with less graft than the UN. The mafia might even have a "friend in the business" that could repaint the hulls of whatever of the decommissioned FFG-7 class we have lying around. I understand that they partial to tasteful pin-stripes. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-03-25 1:33:15 PM |
| #6 FUCK THE u.n. FUCK EVERY GODDAMN ONE OF THE COMMUNIST BASTARDS |
| Posted by: Texan 2004-03-25 10:06:20 AM |
| #5 Holy crap, this is scary stuff. The UN can't do anything useful as it is; now it wants to police the seas? What are the odds that American companies are going to turn in their data, be denied contracts, and the sites then given to countries with dictatorships, the kind the UN loves? Deep-six this thing, and fast. |
| Posted by: The Doctor 2004-03-25 9:00:13 AM |
| #4 Why all the fuss? The law is invalid as it is overridden by Rule Britannia which declares that the United States Navy inheired the oceans from the Royal Navy in 1943. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-03-25 8:20:59 AM |
| #3 AHhh...but there is the potential to BUILD SHIPS. No doubt Mr. Lott is over this one like Seagulls on a fishing vessel. |
| Posted by: B 2004-03-25 7:23:27 AM |
| #2 Frank Gaffney, a bona-fide non-idiotarian at NRO, hits it hard here. Free Republic post The Conservative Liberty Committee Accuracy in Media Excellent summary: This CATO Institute article does a good job of covering the myriad issues involved in LOST - and demonstrating that most of the supposed positives for the treaty are empty or pointless - while the negatives are a future minefield with particular risk to advanced technology nations --- Can we get a "f**kin' Duh" here? This is a classic fuckup looking for a time and place to happen. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-03-25 6:04:33 AM |
| #1 After reading this entire article, I can't imagine ANY US administration EVER supporting such a treaty. It's just insane, given the treaty's provisions and powers. "No" just won't do -- "Hell No! Are you INSANE!" is more appropriate. It is stupefying that the Senate committee tried to sneak this through - and then play the voice vote slam dunk. Every US politician favoring this amazing surrender of technology and mineral assets should be publicly identified - and targeted for defeat in November. EVERY ONE. Period. If anyone finds further info on this identifying who's involved, please post the info! This is just astonishing. Kill the UN - or follow the SUNS (Snellenr's UN Solution) Protocol - before more such asinine suicidal legal schemes float out of its nether end. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-03-25 5:32:01 AM |