Our two Senators recently expressed support for ratification of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, hereafter Law of the Sea Treaty, LOST. The public discussion about ratification has largely been about the treaty’s navigation and boundary provisions with political, military, bureaucratic and other officials cited in support based on these provisions.
LOST, however, includes at least two seldom-mentioned elephants in the room. When these were pointed out to our Senators, one responded, to paraphrase, “What elephants?” The other suggested that they weren’t elephants at all but a cocker spaniel and a parakeet.
The putative cocker spaniel, Ralph, is provision for a UN-sponsored “Seabed Authority” whose purpose is to control development of the resources on or in the seabed under international waters, more than half the earth’s crust, to the benefit of all mankind (or at least for those finding favor with the Authority) and the Authority itself. Its features include a permitting section, transfer of rights to significant portions of any found resources to itself and sharing with the world of any private technology used to develop the resources. In short, it has re-designated areas heretofore considered as belonging to no one as belonging to everyone with the Authority as the beneficent Central Committee. Those of you comfortable with the integrity of UN bodies when large sums of power and money are involved will have no worries. Those of you who consider the U.N. a poster child for bureaucratic waste, opacity and corruption should be very alarmed.
The technology transfer provisions were rejiggered years ago to hopefully mollify U.S. critics by removing language making them mandatory, but you know how that goes: “Gosh, your permits could take years if successful at all. We suspect that they’d go quicker if you voluntarily gave us a look at your proprietary technology and perhaps let us or our designated friends use it at a reasonable cost.”
One more feature of the Seabed Authority is that its bylaws, if you will, can be changed by vote of its members, making this part of LOST an open-ended commitment by the U.S. should it ratify. What could possibly go wrong? That’s no spaniel’s bark; that’s an elephant trumpeting!
The parakeet, Pretty Peter, is an environmental section addressing all the usual suspects but also addressing pollutants carried through the atmosphere from inland sources, pollutants identified by internationally-accepted bodies among which the IPCC will certainly be counted. In short, LOST is a backdoor Kyoto II agreement. Environmental organizations are wetting their plants in anticipation of its ratification by the US Senate. So all of you dismayed by the state of climate science -by its exaggerations, by the flimsy science underpinning its war on carbon dioxide, by its argumentum ad populum, by its ad hominem responses to legitimate questions and criticism, by its politicization — your travails could soon be over… You LOST! Good heavens, another elephant!
The U.S. should not ratify LOST. It already enjoys the benefits of most or all of the treaty’s maritime navigation and boundary provisions. The U.S. already assumes a 200-mile economic interest zone beyond its shores. It already has the means to defend any interests it may have in its continental shelf beyond the 200-mile zone and, indeed, President Truman, by Proclamation, asserted US rights to resources in that area. It doesn’t need a motley assemblage of UN member states arbitrating its boundary disputes where some of the panel’s member states may hope to extract benefits from whichever disputant may be the most “generous.” It doesn’t need a supra-national body to raid its constituents’ pocketbooks through its corporate resource developers for wealth to redistribute or use in support of its bureaucracy. It doesn’t need endless and expensive legal bickering over its fossil fuel use.
The U.S. does not need to follow the herd to be a world leader. As wiki says, LOST replaces the old “freedom of the seas” concept that served us well for centuries. What wiki doesn’t say is that it substitutes a new “red tape of the seas” concept more in keeping with the aspirations of 21st-century globalists.
But then that is self-evident. Tell our Senators that LOST should get lost.
• Wescott is a retired engineer who lives in Auke Bay.
Comments (32)
Add commentDetails and History Show UNCLOS is Good for the US
We have 18 years of experience with the Law of the Sea Convention. The 'sky is falling' arguments of opponents haven't come to pass. Yet old and incorrect arguments still hang around. I want to address several of these arguments.
First, the International Seabed Authority must be doing something right to have issued 12 contracts for exploration and have three more coming up for approval in July. Meanwhile, the sole US seabed mining company has said it can't move forward under US law outside the Convention. The ISA has stayed at a staff level of fewer than 40 with the majority being local hires of administrative personnel at local pay scales. Its budget has remained level in constant dollars for well over a decade.
Second, the Seabed parts of the Convention and the rules, regulations and procedures can only be changed with the Consensus of the Council and the US is guaranteed the only permanent seat on the Council. (Non-seabeds parts of the Convention only change for parties when they ratify amendments, but new parties must accept the amended version in whole - locking in the current version is another reason for the US to join now.) This gives the US the veto that President Reagan sought over the critical actions, powers and processes of the ISA. It assures that there can be no 'end runs' around the terms of the Convention or the 1994 Agreement. It also gives the US the same veto power over the distribution of funds by the authority.
Also, it is well demonstrated by the ISA's record that the approval of seabed mining applicants involves less "red tape" than does US domestic law.
Third, it is worth noting that the US proposed, and the Convention enacted, that the UN not have a role. The International Seabed Authority is an autonomous body overseen by parties to the Convention. It has different decision rules than the UN (including providing the US a permanent veto on critical issues and implementing chambered voting on other substantive decisions), its budget is overseen by a Finance Committee in which the US would have a veto for as long as we contribute to the dues of the ISA, and its core operational rules and regulations are already in place, having been adopted during the 4 years in which the US was a provisional member by right of signing the 1994 agreement.
Fourth, regarding the convention's environmental provisions, the text clearly makes enactment and enforcement of laws governing marine environmental pollution a sovereign right and responsibility of the coastal state and this is not subject to mandatory dispute settlement. In fact, an article of the convention (always overlooked by critics) titled "Limitations on Applicability" clearly restricts mandatory dispute settlement on the environment to 'specified international rules and standards" "applicable to the state" and "adopted through the Convention or a competent international organization or diplomatic conference". That means that neither (1) general statements of principle, (2) domestic laws or regulations, or (3) unratified commitments can be forced into binding settlement processes. Further, if a rule that meets these requirements is also subject to another mandatory dispute process, that process takes priority over the LOS process.
Fifth, the power of customary law of the sea has weakened drastically since the 1940's and we wouldn't want to go back to it anyway. Under customary international law and the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf, a nation's continental shelf must be "adjacent" to the coast, a term that was and remains vague but was, in the minds of the pre-UNCLOS diplomats, between 25 miles and 100 miles (that limit is ignored by critics of the Convention, but it is still part of the international law recognized by the United States). While we can take the 200 mile breadth of the EEZ as a new definition of 'adjacent' for the continental shelf, customary law can't be stretched to cover Alaska's vast potential extended shelf that may extend over 600 miles under the terms of the Convention.
Final point - it is not our potential adversaries who pose the greatest threat to our navigation rights in distant seas, it is our friends and partners. The US Navy may confront China over excessive claims, but we need India, Indonesia, Thailand and many other countries as partners in anti-piracy activities, the proliferation security agreement, and protection of international straits, as sources of intelligence in the littorals and as local law enforcers. Military challenges and confrontations undercut these essential partnerships, where peaceful recourse to the principles and rules of the LOS Convention allows resolution of disputes in our favor without the cost of forceful confrontation to our working relationships.
Conclusions: The United States pushed in the late 1960's for a new codified law of the sea in order to stem new claims that restricted navigation off foreign coasts while also maximizing US control over our own coastal resources and marine environment. For 10 years our negotiators crafted the detailed terms to do that, and from 1990 to 1994 they negotiated the capstone of the 1994 Agreement on Implementation that fulfilled all six of President Reagan's criteria for an agreement he would sign and recommend to the Senate.
With 18 years of real-life experience, the LOS Convention has been shown to benefit both maritime and coastal states. Since the US is both, the convention is doubly in our interest to join.
I'm going with...
...Caitlyna on this one. Paul is a fear monger with a zoo fetish.
Bet he voted for Joe Miller too.
162 members of ISA
and the only country the ISA wants to offer veto power to is the US? That sounds like an offer too good to refuse! Which makes me think there must be some catch, some very big catch. Any authority with 162 members must have a reason they REALLY want the US on board. Are all member fees paid up to date? What happens when there's an issue of disagreement -- who is the Enforcer?
The permanent seat and veto for the US
The 1982 version of the convention provided that the most critical decisions (amendments, rules and regs, distribution of funds and potential assistance programs) would be made by consensus of the 36 member Council, so a 'no' vote by any council member would veto proposed decisions on those issues. In the 1982 version, the membership of the Council was to include the state party with the largest GDP, which was (and still is) the United States. President Reagan saw that the US was likely to be passed sometime in the future by China as the nation with the largest GDP and wanted the text changed so the US would always have a seat on the council with its blocking vote.
The consultations and negotiations from 1990 to 1994 focused on the issues that Reagan had identified in 1982 as necessary for the US to sign the convention. While all the other issues benefited all of the industrialized nations, the extra plum for the United States was to add one phrase to the seat allocated by GDP. The Council now includes a phrase that makes the US seat permanent:
"the State, on the date of entry into force of the Convention, having the largest economy in terms of gross domestic product"
Since the Convention came into force on November 16, 1994, the US, once we join, will have that seat on the Council permanently.
That provision making the US council seat permanent is part of the 1994 Agreement on Implementation that led all other western industrialized states to join the Convention. The permanent seat on the Council was provided for the US in order to fulfill all of the Reagan's criteria to clear the way for ratification.
Gee Grendel
Maybe it's because we're pretty much the only remaining country that matters that HASN'T signed the treaty, even though we helped write it. Having such a large and powerful nation as the U.S. operating under a different set of rules than everyone else pretty much hamstrings the treaty.
We're lumped right in there with the few remaining non-signatories such as North Korea, Ethiopia, Swaziland, Rwanda, Uzbekistan... Ah, America. Yet again demonstrating world leadership.
Inane Column
Most of the flag-ranked officers & staff of the United States military, including all the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the serious war fighters agree that adoption of the Law of the Sea Treaty is in America's national interest. These are folks who are sworn to upheld the United States Constitution and defend America's interest, not politicians, policy wonks or media reporters.
The kind of juvenile arguments made by the author of this "column" are based on silly points floating around on the Internet that typically are adopted based on vague conspiracy theories and a viewpoint detached from reality. No surprise, really, anymore as these kinds of flat earth sentiments are in play with about 30% of the populace, which in and of itself is perhaps the biggest indictment of America's educational system going. One wonders just how someone trained as an engineer and presumably familiar with facts, reason, logic and analytical thinking could cook up such a skewed and irrational column. Or was this satire? Probably not.
What's next? More arguments that Wrangel Island is really sovereign territory of the United States of America?
Lisa Murkowski and Mark Begich got this right here, along with most folks paying the slightest amount of attention to America's national interest.
The only real question raised by the screed in this column is who at the Empire decided to waste the time and ink devoted to this wacky viewpoint?
I Googled Caitlyna
And discovered that she has been responding to misinformation on the web (such as Wescott's letter) all over the country. Responding with very civil (as opposed to me) and informative rebuttals to said misinformation. She makes some very compelling points, beyond what she posted here.
Turns out she was on the LOS negotiating team for President Reagan in 1982.
Thanks Caitlyn. Nice job countering the hysteria from the fringe right. You are demonstrating that one person can make a difference by shining the light of truth on a subject.
Sounds like a revisit of the League of Nations
just saying...that was a US-led initiative.
the bottom line is a treaty, any treaty, is either beneficial to a country's interests or it's a last resort. So there's got to be good reason we're on our fifth administration since the first draft of LOST and still haven't signed it.
There's a reason, Grendel
But it's not a good reason.
And its name is Senator James Inhofe, though using this bright spot's name in the same sentence as 'reason' creates much cognitive dissonance.
Lat 58
Is on to one of the reasons the measure has not been adopted.
Unfortunately, a small group of pols (including someone from a famous "coastal" state of Oklahoma), can hold legislation, including treaties, hostage.
We live in a great and wonderful nation. Would that the political caste lived up to America's majesty and balanced national and international interest in a harmonious fashion instead of falling for craven theories.
1 senator?
One senator does not account for 5 administrations saying, "not yet."
Were Sen. Inhofe's concerns addressed? Because, again, it looks like the potential is there to gang up on the US once we sign on. Why invite the opportunity to get browbeat by landlocked 3rd World signatories? Once on board we're accountable to the ISA, and that Exclusive Veto we'd rate can very easily contribute to an unnecessary black eye for protecting our interests.
Reasons why the US is slow to join the Convention
Grendel, here are the reasons the Convention is still awaiting US accession.
1982-1994: The US held out for the changes that Reagan said were essential.
1995-2002. In spite or requests from the administration and a personal appeal from Adm. Jay Johnson, the Chief of Naval Operations, Sen. Jesse Helms refused to hold hearings on the Convention.
2003-04: The convention passed the Foreign Relations committee unanimously but the republican majority leader refused to give it time on the floor.
2005-2008: After getting bipartisan (though not unanimous approval) the Bush White House decided not to push the Senate for action because it didn't want it to be caught up in the presidential campaign
2009-2010: Economic crisis, health care and New START took precedence
2011-2012: Momentum picked up again, with pressure coming form US industry as well as from the Navy and Coast Guard. The approaching submissions of Canadian and Russian boundaries for their extended shelf in the Arctic and the importance of the Convention in supporting our friends and allies in the South China Sea pushed this up to the Cabinet Secretaries and Joint Chiefs of Staff.
So, the biggest chunk of the delay (1982-94) was to achieve Reagan's objectives. The next largest time period (1995-2004) was due to refusal by a single member in a key position to permit the Foreign Relations Committee or the full Senate to have an up or down vote, basically a use of the rules of the Senate to impose the view of one senator on the entire body.
The fact that the Navy and Coast Guard, both democratic and republican administrations, and the energy, shipping, telecommunications and fishing industries are still fighting for a vote instead of moving on is a pretty strong indication that the American people and organizations with a stake in the use of the oceans believe that the convention is very important to the military and economic interests of the United States.
The cost of not being part of the ISA
From the early 1970s, it has been clear that the high cost and diverse technology required for deep seabed mining would require multinational partnerships or consortia. Each of the four original operations had partners from the UK, the Netherlands, Japan, Germany, or Canada.
Once the other industrialized states joined the Convention, their companies could no longer participate in any operation conducted outside the Convention. That means no partners sharing their technology with US firms, no investments from foreign companies or loans from international banks. Nor can there be international recognition of exclusive access to a mine site or of title to recovered minerals, both of which are conditions for investment by the traditional funders of mineral and energy development.
Lockheed Martin, the sole remaining holder of a US license for exploration of deep seabed mineral deposits, has said that they will not conduct exploitation outside the LOS Convention's framework.
So, the danger related to deep seabed mineral development is not the ISA (which has already approved exploration activities for Germany, France, Japan, South Korea, India, Russia and China and is addressing a new site for the UK and a second site for France this summer).
Instead, the danger to potential US deep seabed mining is staying outside the convention and putting an end to industry interest in this resource of critical and strategic minerals of cobalt, nickel and rare earth elements.
Finally, when we signed the 1994 Agreement on Implementation we gained four years of provisional membership with full voting rights. We found a collegial working environment in which we established the initial rules of the Authority and managed its budget. There was no bloc trying to attack the US or thwart our interests. Nor has our delegation of observers had any such attacks since then.
I understand that a number of opponents view the world as a dangerous place where other nations are seeking to use any advantage to attack the United States. But in the ISA, all the parties see US participation, both government participation in the Authority and private participation in exploration and exploitation, as a plus for everyone concerned. And in any case, Reagan's changes ensured we have the tools to protect our interests as a member of the ISA.
"Those pushing the treaty
"Those pushing the treaty claim that it will expand U.S. sovereignty, but we all know it will do the opposite.
The three main interest groups pushing for the treaty are the U.S. Navy, the big multinational oil companies led by Shell, and the radical environmentalist lawyers. That peculiar alliance should make you suspicious! Here are the facts:
U.S. Navy
The Navy says we need LOST to preserve our freedom of transit in dangerous waters such as the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has threatened to block, and the South China Sea, where China wants to be the dominant naval power.
In fact, freedom of navigation is recognized and has been successfully ensured by centuries of international law, effectively policed by the British Navy for 400 years, and by our U.S. Navy since 1775. The United Nations has no navy of its own, so American sailors will still be expected to protect the world’s sea lanes and punish piracy.
Big Oil
Big Oil supports LOST because of its provision to extend jurisdiction over the continental shelf beyond the current 200-mile limit. But LOST would require a royalty of 1 to 7 percent on the value of oil and minerals produced from those waters to be paid to the International Seabed Authority based in Kingston, Jamaica.
There’s no need for a 181-nation organization to regulate offshore and deep-sea production everywhere in the world, mostly financed by American capital, and then allow it to be taxed for the benefit of foreign freeloaders. The riches of the Arctic, for example, can be resolved by negotiation among the five nations that border the Arctic.
Environmentalists
This third leg of the unholy coalition to ratify LOST are salivating over its legal system of dispute resolution, which culminates in a 21-member International Tribunal based in Hamburg, Germany. The Tribunal’s judgments could be enforced against Americans and cannot be appealed to any U.S. court.
This tribunal, known as ITLOS (International Tribunal of LOST), has jurisdiction over “maritime disputes,” which suggests it will merely deal with ships accidentally bumping each other in the night. But radical environmental lawyers have big plans to make that sleepy tribunal the engine of all disputes about global warming, with power to issue binding rules on climate change, in effect superseding the discredited Kyoto Protocol which the U.S. properly declined to ratify.
A paper just published by Steven Groves of the Heritage Foundation lays out the roadmap for how the radical environmentalist lawyers can use LOST to file lawsuits against the U.S. to advance their climate-change agenda.
Former UN Ambassador John Bolton warns us that the Law of the Sea Treaty is even more dangerous now than when President Ronald Reagan rejected it: “With China emerging as a major power, ratifying the treaty now would encourage Sino-American strife, constrain U.S. naval activities, and do nothing to resolve China’s expansive maritime territorial claims.” Bolton warns that LOST will give China the excuse to deny U.S. access to what China claims is its “Exclusive Economic Zone” extending 200 miles out into international waters.
The whole concept of putting the United States in the noose of another global organization, in which the U.S. has only the same one vote as Cuba, is offensive to Americans. LOST must be defeated."
Sen. Jim DeMint's letter to Reid urging opposition to LOST -
http://www.eagleforum.org/alert/2012/pdf/DeMint-Letter.pdf
A very long article but a very interesting history of LOST -
http://www.usasurvival.org/ck08.21.07.shtml
"Another participant was Caitlyn L. Antrim, daughter of Navy Admiral Richard Nott Antrim. Caitlyn, once known as Lance Antrim, is a transsexual who now runs a pro-treaty organization, the Center for Leadership in Global Diplomacy, and has declared that ratification of UNCLOS would be "an honor to Louis Sohn."
Oh Frenchie!
Your ENTIRE screed was a cut and paste, WORD FOR WORD, of some opinion piece that's been repeated in lunatic fringe blogs across the web.
Do you EVER have an original thought? Why do I even ask a question with such an obvious answer?
Joe Geldhof nailed it in his comment above: "...silly points floating around on the Internet that typically are adopted based on vague conspiracy theories and a viewpoint detached from reality."
I'm sure Caitlyn can squash this weak argument with ease, as she's no doubt squashed it dozens of times across the web.
Of course my comment was a
Of course my comment was a cut and paste. It's quite obvious..but so what? When one isn't well versed on a particular subject, one reads and researches and then, sometimes, lets others do the talking.
lattie, you just don't like it because it disagrees with what you think you know about LOST.
And regarding geldhof's "comments" - just embarrassing and nothing but put downs. I had higher hopes...
Now, does anyone want to discuss anything I "cut and pasted"?
More Information on the LOS Convention
Listing the DeMint letter and Cliff Kincaid's work as expert sources isn't very impressive, especially compared with the support of every chief of naval operations and commandant of the coast guard, all the former republican secretaries of state and the oil, shipping and telecommunications representatives.
But to get to your points:
Yes, we have a powerful navy that can literally anything we want. However, it can't do everything we need - even if we doubled the size of both the navy and coast guard. We need foreign partners to take part in international task forces to combat piracy, enforce blockades, patrol international straits, and board and inspect vessels suspected of carrying WMD. We need distant coastal nations to provide maritime domain awareness, enforce laws and regulations in their own territorial seas, provide basing and replenishment services.
Keep in mind that in the "Cod Wars" between 1950 and 1980, the tiny Icelandic patrol force on three occasions stood up to 20 frigates and destroyers of the Royal Navy in a dispute over access to fisheries that British fisherman has used for years and won each time. The public relations of the Royal Navy facing off against the Iceland coast guard were bad enough, but when push came to shove Iceland threatened to pullout of NATO, ending monitoring of Russian transits between the Arctic and the Atlantic. Pressure from the US forced the British to give up in spite of overwhelming naval superiority.
Regarding rights in the Arctic, the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf doesn't support the vast extension of control permitted by the LOS Convention. And what do you propose to offer in negotiations with the other Arctic states to give us a deal freeing the US of responsibilities that they have under the convention. Why would they give cover to the US to stay out of a convention that they accept themselves? This is just wishful thinking.
And I hope you read and understand the point I raised about about why there will be no deep seabed mining by American firms except under the Law of the Sea Convention. That comes from the only remaining US firm with deep ocean mining technology and a US claim to a mine site.
Steven Groves' paper addressing environmental issues ignored the article of the Convention that limits application of binding dispute settlement to protects against frivolous court cases on environmental issues; in particular, the general responsibilities for states to pass and enforce laws to prevent pollution of the marine environment that both Steven Groves and environmentalist William Burns discuss do not qualify for binding dispute settlement. And there are no throngs of 'radical environmental lawyers' waiting for us to join. Groves' article referred to an article by William Burns, a lone academic researcher, who even in his own paper highlighted the problems likely to block his proposal - and like Groves, Burns failed to read the article on limitations to the application of the dispute resolution provisions.
John Bolton's article also said we shouldn't join the Convention because it would upset China. It didn't make sense to me as a reason, but it must have to him.
Your arguments basically say the Navy and Industry don't know their own interest as well as you do, and that we should be scared of a lone environmental professor whose article demonstrated he hadn't read all of the relevant parts of the convention.
I think your basic argument comes down to the last part of Bolton's statement: you don't like international organizations in which the United States doesn't have dominant power. I can understand that, even though I think that having a veto over rules, amendments, distribution of funds and budget of the seabed authority is pretty dominant.
Now, now Lats
Don't put Calypso into a shame spiral by pointing out the obvious. Calypso is the King of Cut and Paste in the electronic world. It is so much easier than conducting any original thinking. Why, you practically make him seem like a plagiarizer.
Calypso will tell you that freedom isn't free, except that he feels free to cut and paste through life, which shows he is a free thinker.
I think it is time to move along here to something that really matters like asserting US sovereignty over Wrangel Island or another topic that will really get Calypso revved up.
Are you guys just now finally
Are you guys just now finally figuring out that Calypso is a cut and paste guy? That has been flaming obvious to me for a long time. To his credit, he's pretty good at finding stuff to cut and paste.
Anyway, I still consider him as "one of the guys" here on this forum and value his input regardless of how much I disagree with him on most topics.
Make it a campaign issue!
interesting (and convenient) to blame a single member of the GOP for derailing this crucial treaty at the precise moment(s) it could've/shoud've/would've passed thru the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to the Senate floor. I see a trend toward cherry-picking the successes and the blame for what does and does not get done.
If LOST is so vital to our country's interest, and the ducks are lined up in support of it, then this administration should make it a campaign issue. Should be a slam-dunk, eh? "American people and organizations with a stake in the use of the oceans believe that the convention is very important to the military and economic interests of the United States."
Obama could force Romney to openly align himself with these miscreant senators AND tout what a champion he is of GLOBAL FAIRNESS! He would go down in history as the president that put America's economic and energy interests on par with the other nations on this earth! So why not?
Thanks for proving my point,
Thanks for proving my point, geldhof. When you've got nothing worth adding to the discussion, just attack the messenger. It's a tried and true tactic of the LEFT. And you call yourself a Republican - please. You need some serious vetting!!
@fume - I'm going to take that as a compliment!! Thank you very much!
@grendel - you're exactly right. Obama's too much of a chicken to stand up for anything. What's frightening though, is what he may be doing in the backroom. 'Psssst, tell Vlad I'll have more "flexibility" after I win re-election.'
Wahoo!
You guys are a hoot today!
JEF, Frenchie's plagiarism is a well-known trait of his. It was just fun to catch such a blatant example of it. But your gracious reminder that he's a part of this forum is noted. Myself, I wouldn't miss him, but I respect your wisdom in this matter.
Frenchie, if you do a cut n' paste, it's generally accepted practice to acknowledge the author and the source. You did neither. It was not "obvious" that it was a cut and paste, except for the generally coherent sentence structure and grammar, which an original post from you would lack.
Grendel, which member of the GOP are you talking about? Caitlyn singled out Jesse Helms. Is that who you're referring to? You do know that he's deceased, right?
If you're referring to Inhofe, well, if Romney's stupid enough to align himself with that clown, he deserves the notoriety he'll get. Now that he's clinched the nomination, I fully expect Romney to tack hard to the center, leaving you rightie-tighties to wander in the desert. You know that too. He almost certainly will support the treaty if he's elected president.
Calypso, I think you're a
Calypso,
I think you're a good guy. Just because I don't really agree with you is no reason to have any animosity. To be honest, I think I'd rather have you as a neighbor than some of these people who post on here that I basically agree with.
From Redstate.com - "Conn
From Redstate.com -
"Conn Carroll had an excellent piece at the Washington Examiner yesterday titled “Obama’s Lame Duck Plan To Pass Cap And Trade.” Carroll makes the case that Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) may use the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) as a back door to implement cap and trade regulations on United States citizens."
And from Frank Gaffney at The Washington Times -
"As it happens, even before such important forces are brought fully to bear in opposition to Team Obama’s bid to ram through the Senate this “constitution of the oceans,” the ratification bandwagon hit something of a roadblock. At the initiative of freshman Rep. John J. Duncan Jr., Tennessee Republican, and Rep. Jim Jordan, Ohio Republican, who chairs the House Republican Study Committee, the House of Representatives on Friday voted 229-193 to bar millions of dollars the administration had sought to contribute to the funding of LOST organizations. This is the first time either chamber has formally voted in opposition to this agreement and is a salutary shot across the bow of its proponents.
There is, of course, one other factor that should prove problematic in terms of the timing of Mr. Obama’s effort to foist LOST on the American people - it comes amid an election in which his presumptive Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, is no fan of this accord. According to an October 2007 report, a spokesman declared “Governor Romney has concerns with the Law of the Sea Treaty. He believes giving unaccountable international institutions more power is a serious problem.”"
The entire article is here -
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/21/this-week-the-obama-admi...
@fume - and I don't bite
@fume - and I don't bite either!
Comments on links
Calypso, there is nothing new in the links - those pop up all the time. Original comments that show you dug a bit deeper to understand the issues would be appreciated. I did note, though it wasn't revealed in the Washington Examiner, that the writer of that article, Conn Carroll, came to the Examiner from his preceding job an Assistant Director for Strategic Communications at the Heritage Foundation and the article simply recycles poorly researched material (as in, the Heritage piece took no notice of the article of the convention that limits the application of binding dispute resolution in environmental issues).
The House action to deny funding for the Seabed Authority if we join the Convention is a case of cutting off ones nose to spite ones face. If we join the Convention, we automatically become a member of the Authority and can take out seat with the ability to veto plans for the distribution of funds. However, if we don't pay our dues, we will lose out voting rights until we catch up (that applies to all members of the authority). The result would be abdication of a right we would have to ensure that funds distributed by the authority are distributed properly and without danger to friends and allies.
I can understand opposition to joining the Convention, but to abdicate our power if we do join is just acting to make a short term point without thinking about the long term consequences.
Regarding Romney, "having concerns" is a way to avoid offending the conservative base while keeping his options open. If he wins the election, do you expect him to shut the door on both the Navy and big industry? Since US membership in the Authority assures that it won't be "unaccountable," he has an easy way to justify supporting the Convention (just as did George W. Bush) when the time comes.
The Convention is available on-line (I recommend the consolidated version that shows how the 1994 agreement modified the original 1982 Convention. But be careful because some issues, particularly dispute resolution, are addressed in several parts and article of the convention. If you would like I can point you to an article that discusses how the 1994 agreement resolved Reagan's six criteria for an acceptable convention. Of course, that matters only if you care that Reagan said if those six points were corrected he would sign and recommend senate approval of the Convention.
@Lat
If Obama had any intention of getting behind this one and shepherding it like he did his crowning achievement Obamacare, I'm sure he could find a way to get around Senator Inhofe. It's not like his administration hasn't let floor procedures get in the way before, has it?
Fact is, as Calypso pointed out, he's a moistie and has no principles, so LOST will languish.
side-note: curt tone re: Sen Helms noted. It's too early in the day to start out surly, but that's not an invitation for you to get aserbic just because you are being you.
Ok, nuff about LOST. If this
Ok, nuff about LOST. If this thing has languished for over 30 years something must be reeeeeally wrong with it. Here's hoping Sen. DeMint is successful in beating it back.
My consensus is that this treaty turns more of America's sovereignty over to a global governing unit, i.e. the UN. No thanks...but typical that the progressives are pushing it considering the history of the treaty. And I'm beginning to think it's just a back door way to get a carbon tax or Cap and Trade enacted. The Democrats are funny that way.
And we're supposed to believe the backers of LOST when they woo us with veto this and veto that power that America would enjoy? I think not - consider this from Hillary Clinton a few days ago -
"Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says the U.S. would need international support, including from Russia, for any military action in Syria. Clinton says U.N. and international support made possible last year’s intervention in Libya. She says Russia and China stand in the way of an international coalition against the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad."
So now America has become so weak in foreign affairs that we need to ask permission of Russia and China? Yikes...how do you suppose those countries would slap us around with a Law of the Sea Treaty? It could get ugly.
O/T but, has there ever been a more dismal failure as Secretary of State than Clinton? And notice how the left is talking about her running in 2016? Hopefully they're seeing the writing on the wall for Obama this go around.
Let's turn up the heat on Murkowski and Begich through emails and phone calls to educate them on LOST.
Calypso's Autodidactism
Can you explain "my consensus" in terms that make sense.
No, joe. But thank you for
No, joe. But thank you for including me in such great company!