 |
| Photo credit: Canada Free Press.com |
It is thus
quite surprising that the new USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada) trade
agreement which is to replace NAFTA contains a new chapter (24) on Environment
which was not in the NAFTA agreement. The three Parties recognize Sustainable
Development (SD), the lynchpin of Agenda 21 now morphed into Agenda 2030, as an
essential ingredient without which trade cannot exist. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/agreements/FTA/USMCA/24%20Environment.pdf
Since USMCA dictates
that trade cannot exist without sustainable development and a healthy
environment with strict guidelines, USMCA then must logically follow the 17
U.N. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which are promoted by U.N. and all
its affiliated agencies as follows:
1. No poverty
2. Zero hunger
3. Good health
4. Quality education
5. Gender equality
6. Clean water and sanitation
7. Affordable and clean energy
8. Decent work and economic growth
9. Industry, innovation, and
infrastructure
10. Reduced inequalities
11. Sustainable cities and communities
12. Responsible production and
consumption
13. Climate action
14. Life below water
15. Life on land
16. Peace, justice, and strong
institutions
17. Partnerships for sustainable
development goals (SDGs).
Sustainable
Development and biodiversity are found in the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP),
an agreement which President Trump has denounced. Article 24.15 of USMCA
clearly states that “The Parties recognize the importance of
conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, as well as the
ecosystem services it provides, and their key role in achieving sustainable
development.”
In article 24.18, Sustainable Fisheries Management,
regulating “marine wild capture fishing,” USMCA agreement subordinates the
United States to U.N.’s international authority and its many organizations.
“Each Party shall base its fisheries management system on
the best scientific evidence and on internationally recognized best practices
for fisheries management and conservation as reflected in the relevant
provisions of international instruments aimed at ensuring the sustainable use
and conservation of marine species.” (USMCA, art. 24.18, p. 1)
Sustainable fisheries must abide by the United Nations
Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the United Nations Agreement for the
Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea of December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of
Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, the FAO Code of
Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, and many others. (USMCA, art. 24.18)
A.J. Cameron stated that the “same people in the Obama
Administration who crafted the TPP also crafted USMCA. USMCA back-doors many of
the tenets of the reprehensible trade agreements to which we were told by
politicians that we would not become a member.”
The Brexit vote was based on issues such as the fishing
restrictions placed upon Britain by the European Union. Not only did they
destroy the British fishing industry but also any other industry dependent on
it. The British fishing industry was forced to cede to the fishing industry of
other countries that could not compete with the U.K.
The European Union and 162 countries have joined the Third
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) which was adopted
in 1982 and now called simply The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). There were two
earlier versions of U.N. treaties with rules that seek to control the oceans:
UNCLOS I in 1958 and UNCLOS II in 1960.
President 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 aimed to “regulate economic
activity on, over, and beneath the ocean’s surface.”
“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 by 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.
Treaties must represent U.S. economic and security
interests. According to Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), our economic and navigation
rights are not going to be affected by the fact that the U.S. Senate has not
ratified LOST. He found the loss of national sovereignty and mandatory dispute
resolution included in the 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 in the American Legion Magazine)
The former Democrat Senator and Chairman of the Subcommittee
on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, Mark Begich, supported the
ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). He believed that it provided
rules to handle future underwater minerals, gas, and oil exploration and
shipping on new water routes opened by receding Arctic icepack, all under the
United Nations aegis. The global warming theorists believed that the icepack
melt would be a constant in the future.
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 LOST, “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 ever ratify this treaty.
LOST requires policies that regulate deep-sea mining, rules
and regulations to control and prevent marine pollution, and 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.
President Reagan objected to the Principle of the “Common
Heritage of Mankind,” which instructed that marine resources belong to all
mankind and cannot be exploited by one nation. https://www.heritage.org/commentary/the-law-the-sea
According to Heritage Foundation, the UN “Authority” must
regulate mineral resources by asking companies to pay an application fee and to
reserve an extra site for the “Authority” to “utilize its own mining efforts.”
https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/un-sea-treaty-still-bad-deal-us
A corporation must also pay an annual fee, up to 7 percent
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.
Under LOST, any kind of maritime dispute, fisheries,
environmental protection, navigation, and research must be resolved under this
treaty through mandatory dispute resolution by the U.N. court or tribunal which
limits autonomy. But disputes should be resolved by U.S. courts.
When Congress approves the USMCA agreement, the Law of the
Sea Treaty (LOST) will also be ratified through the back-door, by including it
in the USMCA. Which senator is going the
read this massive bill?
“After less than two years of
negotiations, the USMCA was released early on October 1, 2018 on the USTR
website for the public to read. It runs for 1,809 pages — 1,572 pages for the
treaty chapters, 214 pages for additional annexes, and 23 pages of side
letters.” https://www.thenewamerican.com/print-magazine/item/30541-what-s-wrong-with-the-usmca?vsmaid=1929&vcid=11070
Senators
like Orrin Hatch (R-UT) are eager to pass USMCA trade agreement. But we must
inform our senators that any future “free trade” agreements must be discussed
transparently. Those running for office should be forced to go on record
whether they will support USMCA or oppose it. We must not pass this massive
USMCA trade agreement in order to find out what’s in it as Nancy Pelosi
famously said about the not so Affordable Care Act. There is more than just
“free trade” in this huge USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada) document.
