“Negotiated
in the 1970s, the Law of the Sea treaty was heavily influenced by the New
International Economic Order, a set of economic principles first formally
advanced at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in
the 1970s and 1980s,” calling for redistribution of wealth to the benefit of
third world countries.
President
Ronald Reagan rejected the treaty in 1982 because it demanded technology and
wealth transfer from developed countries to developing nations as well as
adopting regulations and laws to control oceanic pollution. Jurisdictional limits on oceans included a
12-mile territorial sea limit and a 200-mile exclusive economic zone
limit. The treaty would regulate
economic “activity on, over, and beneath the ocean’s surface.”
In
spite of the many pros and cons, in March 2004, the U.S. Senate Foreign
Relations Committee recommended by unanimous vote that the U.S. sign the
treaty.
Sen.
Mike Lee (R-Utah), member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources’
Subcommittee on Water and Power, opposes the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) on several
grounds, including the loss of National sovereignty.
In order to ratify a treaty, the President needs two-thirds majority vote from the Senate. According to Sen. Mike Lee, treaties must represent U.S. economic and security interests. Our economy and navigation rights have not been affected by the fact that we chose to reject the treaty. He finds the loss of National sovereignty and mandatory dispute resolution included in the Law of the Sea treaty quite troubling.
The
International Seabed Authority (“the Authority”) has the power to distribute
“international royalties” to developing and landlocked nations. “So
hypothetically, a U.S. company that has invested hundreds of millions of
dollars in developing clean and safe deep-sea mining machinery would be forced
to give a portion of its profits to countries such as Somalia, Sudan, and Cuba
– all considered to be developing nations by ‘the Authority.’” (Sen. Mike Lee,
R-Utah)
Sen.
Mark Begich, D-Alaska, chairman of the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere,
Fisheries, and Coast Guard, supports the ratification of the Law of the Sea
Treaty (LOST). He believes that this treaty provides rules to handle future
underwater minerals, gas, and oil exploration and shipping on new water routes
opened by receding Arctic icepack. His support is predicated on the premise
that the Arctic icepack melt will be a constant in the future.
According
to Sen. Mark Begich, “The United States is the world’s leading maritime power.
Only by ratifying the treaty can it protect freedom of navigation to advance
our commercial and national security interests, claim extended
continental-shelf areas in the Arctic – an area believed to be twice the size
of California – as other nations are already doing, and use its provisions to
protect the marine environment, manage fisheries and appoint Americans to help
resolve disputes.” (The American Legion Magazine)
According
to the Heritage Foundation, innocent passage through an area is already
protected under “multiple independent treaties, as well as traditional
international maritime law.” Few
countries deny passage to the U.S., given its naval superiority. Under the Law of the Sea Treaty,
“intelligence and submarine maneuvers in territorial waters would be restricted
and regulated.” It is thus not in the national security interest of the United
States to ratify this treaty.
The
treaty requires policies that regulate deep-sea mining, requires rules and
regulations to control and prevent marine pollution, and requires the control
of corporations who cannot bring lawsuits independently. They must depend on
the country of origin to plead their case in front of the United Nations
agency.
“Some
proponents of the treaty believe that it will establish a system of property
rights for mineral extraction in deep sea beds, making the investment in such
ventures more attractive.”
President
Reagan objected to the Principle of the “Common Heritage of Mankind,” which
dictates that marine resources belong to all mankind and cannot be exploited by
one nation.
To
spread the wealth, the UN “Authority” must regulate and exploit mineral
resources by asking companies to pay an application fee of half a million
dollars, recently changed to $250,000, and to reserve an extra site for the
Authority to “utilize its own mining efforts.”
A
corporation must also pay an annual fee of $1 million and up to 7% of its
annual profits and share its mining and navigational technology. Mining permits
are granted or withheld by the “Authority” which is composed of mostly developing
countries. (Heritage Foundation)
Any
kind of maritime dispute, fisheries, environmental protection, navigation, and
research, must be resolved under this treaty through mandatory dispute
resolution by the UN court or tribunal which limits autonomy. Disputes should
be resolved by U.S. courts. (Heritage Foundation)
The
United States provisional participation in the Laws of the Sea treaty expired
in 1998. Should we consider the ratification of another treaty that has the
potential to further chip away at our National sovereignty?
The
GOP has recently passed (January 14, 2012) a resolution exposing United Nations
Agenda 21 as “a comprehensive plan of extreme environmentalism, social
engineering, and global political control that was initiated at the United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED).”
“According
to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy, National
sovereignty is deemed a social injustice.” United Nations treaties and
programs want to force “social justice” through socialist/communist
redistribution of wealth from developed nations like the U.S. to third world
countries.
No comments:
Post a Comment