This editorial first ran in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner:
The U.S. Senate is again poised to take up the proposed Law of the Sea treaty, which has languished for 30 years. It remains a missing piece in the puzzle of future Arctic development.
The treaty has been approved by 161 nations and all of the world’s industrialized countries and those that have Arctic territory — with the exception of the United States.
The treaty, which is supported by Alaska’s U.S. senators, enjoys broad bipartisan support in the U.S., as well as from industry, environmental and military leaders, but its approval has been blocked by those who claim it would relinquish U.S. sovereignty.
On the contrary, this treaty would give the United States more power to exercise maritime rights and responsibilities. Without this legal framework, our ability to lead in the development of future international rules regarding the oceans will be next to nil.
“Not since we acquired the lands of the American West and Alaska have we had such an opportunity to expand U.S. sovereignty,” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said in a recent speech to the Atlantic Council of the United States.
The expansion is crucial for Alaska because of the prospect that declining sea ice will lead to great resource development in the decades ahead by many nations. With both increased risks and opportunities off the Alaska coast, our state has more to gain with the approval of this measure and more to lose with its rejection than most other states.
Approval of the treaty would allow the U.S. to claim jurisdiction to the continental shelf beyond the 200-mile limit, an area twice the size of California.
Without becoming a party to this agreement, there will be no international recognition of any such effort by the U.S., which puts our nation and our state at a great disadvantage.
We agree with Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Mark Begich that U.S. approval of the treaty, which took effect in 1994 after it was approved by 60 nations, is a crucial part of creating a sound Arctic policy for the United States.
Comments (11)
Add commentName names
Who is blocking it?
30 years
of reading an occasional stories about this treaty. Usually there is some reference to those who object in Congress to approving it. Some times those stories will list what reasons they claim for not agreeing to vote for it. Many time the reasons are some what obscure like those who claim there might be a possibility that the treaty could result in a tax on the US. Those claims have been made by the same individuals time after time and apparently in 30 years they have been unable to determine the possible maybe tax question.
30 years to find out what is in a proposed document seems like a rediculios amount of time given all the resources available to our Congressional delegates. Either there are provisions that are what the objectionist claim and those can be shown as being in the treaty or they are not in the document and the politician is just plain wrong in there arguments and they don't want to be proven wrong.
Need to figure something out
The Arctic is the new frontier for resources, and with global warming, new shipping lanes. Norway is claiming huge expanses for itself, Russia is in there, and the Chinese are building a fleet of huge, mega ice breakers. We really need to wake up. There is this underlying belief that if the US stays out, no one will go in there. They also believe no one will trespass into Alaskan lands or waters. The clock is ticking.
A quick google search turns
A quick google search turns up an article by The Heritage Foundation - I'll take their points as credible...
LOST is another UN treaty - nuff said?
"Back in 1982, President Ronald Reagan decided not to sign a treaty known as “Law of the Sea” (LOST), a United Nations convention that would raid America’s treasury for billions of dollars, then redistribute that wealth to the rest of the world by an international bureaucracy headquartered in Kingston, Jamaica."
"LOST is not without consequences, either. One of the more nefarious and insidious of its provisions is Article 82, which requires the United States to forfeit royalties generated from oil and gas development on the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles – an area known as the “extended continental shelf.”
"In addition to shipping America’s money overseas to unsavory recipients, LOST could have other negative consequences, as well, by exposing U.S. industry and manufacturing to baseless international lawsuits."
"If America truly wants to preserve its rights on the sea, then it needs to bolster the one tool that has guaranteed those rights throughout history — a strong U.S. Navy. Unfortunately, under President Obama’s watch, the United States is seeing its fleet diminished in size and ability. A lone piece of paper will not defend America’s interests on the sea, and neither will transferring billions of dollars to an international authority in Jamaica for redistribution the world over. LOST should not be ratified and signed, and instead Washington should turn its attention to ensuring that the U.S. Navy has the resources it needs to protect America’s interests on the high seas."
Read the entire article and comments here -
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/22/morning-bell-the-danger-of-article-8...
What's wrong with Murkowski - she always seems to be on the wrong side of the issues. Is she some kind of Democrat in hiding?
LOST
The Law of the Sea Treaty turns over control of resources in more than half the earth's crust to a UN-sponsored, diverse commission with indirect taxing authority as well as means of acquiring for itself seabed resources and advanced mining technology to keep or distribute to whomever it likes, particularly to developing and/or land-locked nations such as Rwanda. What could possibly go wrong?
It also requires pollution regulations along the coasts AND INLAND if pollutants are carried through the atmosphere depending on "competent international organizations or diplomatic conference ... and regional rules, standards and recommended practices and procedures to prevent, reduce and control such pollution." Sounds like a job for... IPCC Mann! No wonder Greenpeace loves this treaty! Congress can heave a huge sigh of relief - it won't have to be responsible for regulation of CO2; the UN will make them do it.
If our Senators vote for this, I'm willing to step up to the plate, bite the bullet, make myself available to replace one or the other. I'd promote the idea of the UN moving its HQ closer to where it says its heart (and most of its membership) is: the third world.
Ref: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htm
Not for nothing.....
But the Bush administration supported this treaty as well.
Calypso had to go waaay back to find an R not supporting it, and 30 years is a lot of history and experience. Also, Calypso, the treaty was amended to address Reagan's issues.
From the article below - "President Reagan refused to endorse the treaty because of its provisions related to seabed mining, most of which were amended in 1994."
http://www.cfr.org/international-law/united-states-ready-approve-law-sea...
@swimmer - so what Bush
@swimmer - so what Bush supported it - he liked amnisty too.
I went back 30 years to Reagan because the treaty has "languished for 30 years". 1982+30=2012
"The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is having a hearing this week on the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). This Treaty is opposed by Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and a growing caucus of Senators concerned that this Treaty would empower a United Nation’s sanctioned organization to attack American power on the high seas and allow the International Seabed Authority to tax American citizens.
If the Senate is dumb enough to ratify this Treaty then America-hating countries will hold the power to allow America to drill and navigate, or not. Treaties require a two-thirds vote of Senators pursuant to the Constitution. The only way this treaty passes is with the support of some Senate Republicans."
Ok, there's one Republican (?) - Murkowski.
LOST
swimmergirl,
Although the Treaty text was amended, that only sorta fixed a couple of US concerns and ignored the rest. See Jeane Kirkpatrick's 2004 testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee transcript.
The Treaty is still prejudicial against industrialized nations who will largely fund the Seabed enterprise until its fees, taxes and resource development income kick in and industrialized nation corporations are the likely patsies designated to find the resources to turn over to the Authority and show the Authority and/or competitors how to develop them.
Developers will spend large amounts on Authority permits, surveys and exploration and, in the end, not be certain they will be the ones allowed to develop what they've found.
There are a lot of third-world countries out there eying the West's money. The environmental and resource development provisions of this Treaty provide a target-rich environment for them. But then, sending large, "environmental mitigation" and resource-based, pfd-like sums to third-world countries couldn't enrich only the attorneys, leaders or various middlemen, their armies; never happens. The UN's oil-for-food scandal was an aberration, I tell you!
The Treaty is an open-ended commitment by the US since after we sign it, the rest of the Seabed Authority members can change it by vote. After a couple of iterations, the document could look far different than the one we signed. Is it still in force, in essence binding us to provisions we and the Senate never looked at, or in force only as-ratified? Big issue.
If the Treaty addressed only navigation and continental shelf issues, it would be fine. Give us a clean treaty; we'll sign. The UN wants this treaty not for those issues but for its environmental and social engineering provisions.
I think Sen.Murkowski should
I think Sen.Murkowski should be hearing from some constituents about now. She obviously doesn't understand the ramifications of backing LOST.
Not to beat a dead horse, but
Not to beat a dead horse, but kinda, because this treaty is a bad thing. Think Kyoto.
Obama is up to his old games of attempting to make America march to global this and global that. That's not what our founders had in mind for our country. The United Nations should not hold the trump card.
Michelle Malkin has a good piece that adds a few more minuses if LOST is ratified. Alaskans, in particular, should get educated because the treaty could affect fishing and all kinds of other endeavors.
"Here's the bottom line: Crucial national security decisions about our naval and drilling operations would be subject to the vote of 162 other signatories, including Cuba, China and Russia."
"Other members (Obama created a 27-member "National Ocean Council" by administrative fiat) include Dr. Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and a former high-ranking official at the left-wing Environmental Defense Fund, which has long championed draconian reductions of commercial fishing fleets and recreational fishing activity in favor of centralized control, and fraudster Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who doctored the administration's drilling moratorium report."
"Forbes columnist Larry Bell reports that "as much as 7 percent of U.S. government revenue that is collected from oil and gas companies operating off our coast" would be meted out to "poorer, landlocked countries."
Read the entire article here -
http://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2012/05/25/obamas_land_of_...
Call or email Begich and Murkowski and educate them.
Good news. There are enough
Good news. There are enough Republican Senators' signatures to kill this thing. Unless, of course, Obama works his "magic" in the backroom.
No thanks to Republican Murkowski.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/07/16/conservatives-hit-magic-number-to-...