By Rich Kozlovich
Since I have been following the Law of the Sea Treaty for years, and have been linking articles about it and making comments about it, I have more than the normal amount memories about this treaty. I am fascinated at who is for this thing and how the worm keeps turning. I wonder how these generals got to be generals. I wonder if the only generals and admirals that got promoted to those jobs were "politically correct" and how many colonels who were not remained colonels. Make no mistake about it. In the military it is go along to get along....and promoted. The military and academia have a great deal in common. PhD’s don't become PhD’s if they are rocks in the current....that is why everything that they say must be questioned to the n’th degree.
The next article was the inspiration for what appears here today. I decided that a little history would be helpful. My number one rule for understanding everything is, 'tell me the history and I will give you the answer.' Here is some history.
Battling for the hearts and minds of American generals
When top military officers march out in lockstep to support an administration agenda point, those with an opposing view tend to be suspicious. During 2010 Senate hearings on the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) grilled then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, looking for an honest assessment behind the party line.
No surprise, then, that much of a Thursday hearing on the UN Law of the Sea Convention featuring a row of top military brass centered on whether the general officers who testified really meant what they were saying. Twice, members of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations asked the panel of six four-stars from the Navy, Coast Guard, and Army, to say exactly that….
“I’m looking right now at 24 stars, and that’s very impressive,” he said. “But I’m looking at a letter that is signed by 33 stars. And these guys are all retired.”
The letter Inhofe mentioned, signed by nine retired officers including former Marine Corps Commandant Carl Mundy and former Chief of Naval Operations Thomas Hayward, urged the committee to reconsider signing the treaty on the grounds that the U.S. would lose much more in terms of sovereign authority and purview than its stood to gain in navigational provisions......
“Well, it’s the Law of the Jungle, or it’s the Law of the Sea . . . .” That’s the stark contrast presented by legendary leftist icon Bob Dylan in a recent song. It is exactly how globalists want to frame the debate on the disastrous Law of the Sea Treaty, now pending in the U.S. Senate for the second year in a row. Liberals desperately want the dumbed-down denizens of America to see the issue as a clear choice between the primitive violence inspired by national self-interest (“the Law of the Jungle”) and a more civilized cooperation for the common good of all mankind (“the Law of the Sea”).
But the REAL choice confronting those 100 Senators in 2005 is between the survival of the United States as a sovereign nation and the enthronement of the United Nations as a de facto world government.
The return of piracy to the high seas demonstrates the limits of international law. The "international community" might agree that it is wrong to seize ships for ransom, but a few thugs with guns in Somalia beg to differ. Paper guarantees can do nothing to stop ocean hijackings.
Yet a Democratic administration and Congress are expected to take early action on the Law of the Sea Treaty, the ultimate in paper guarantees. A complex amalgam of ocean-related provisions joined together in one massive agreement, the LOST was first concocted decades ago. Blocked and then renegotiated, the treaty recently won support from a curious coalition ranging from environmental activists to profit-seeking oil companies. …. Environmentalist activists also look forward with anticipation to using LOST Article 207, which directs countries to "adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from land-based sources." When questioned, treaty advocates claim the provision is merely hortatory, without effect. Yet it already has occasioned litigation between Ireland and Great Britain….. In fact, in a private email mistakenly sent to me, one LOST lobbyist warned his colleagues that it would be difficult as a result to allay "conservative fears" of the treaty being "some kind of green Trojan Horse."……. Finally, the UN's own Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea proclaims that LOST is not "a static instrument, but rather a dynamic and evolving body of law that must be vigorously safeguarded and its implementation aggressively advanced." If you like activist judges at the national level, imagine what you will get at the international level.
Before the Senate rushes to bind the U.S. through the Law of the Sea Treaty, members should consider the trade-off they are being asked to make. The convention offers paper benefits but imposes real costs. It's a deal only a pirate could love.
White House LOST at Sea - TCS DailyBy Pejman Yousefzadeh
…….As Carrie Donovan points out, the Treaty allows for the regulation of intelligence and submarine activities even when they are conducted in territorial waters. Additionally, the Treaty's mandatory dispute resolution provisions under the auspices of the United Nations naturally raise sovereignty questions and the fact that the United Nations is hardly a model international institution does little to raise one's confidence in placing jurisdiction on maritime issues in the hands of the U.N….. So why is the Bush Administration pushing for passage of this treaty? Deputy Secretaries Negroponte and England list the following as one rationale in their editorial:……
……..The Law of the Sea Treaty remains flawed. It does little to advance American interests when it comes to freedom of navigation, it could prove environmentally harmful, it restricts American military and intelligence naval operations and it calls for technology transfers that could run afoul of intellectual property laws and be dangerous to boot. President Reagan was right to reject calls to sign the Treaty in 1982. The Bush Administration should reverse course and refuse to push for the enactment of the Treaty in the present day.
LOST created the International Seabed Authority, which member nations agree will have complete jurisdiction over all the oceans and
virtually everything that flows into them, including the power to tax and control everything that sails on them or is conducted in or beneath them. Furthermore, at last week's hearing in the Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. David Vitter, R-La., proved, by reading from a section entitled "Pollution for Land-Based Sources," that U.N. authority under the LOST will not stop at the water's edge.
(I know some think that I don’t have a life, but I have been following this treaty for years. This is one of the most profound treaties that the Senate will ever take up. Yet, when I bring it up to people they look at me as if they are completely lost. Almost no one knows anything about it! The potential to the pesticide application industry is frightening!!!!!!!! Although this article is filled with nuances, the issue regarding the pesticide application industries is cited here. This along with the Montreal Protocol and the Kyoto protocols will give U.N. authority over every chemical used in the world. If you think that this isn’t the ultimate goal take a look at the Clean Water Act of 2007. Exclusive: Henry Lamb warns most Americans have caved to government control of our land . RK
)
“In urging ratification, former President Bill Clinton described LOST as “a far reaching environmental accord” that would “harmonize” U.S. laws to “prevent, reduce and control pollution” in the “best practical means.” But Article 213 requires nations to adopt “laws and regulations…to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from land-based sources.” Thus, LOST could become a means of enforcing another agreement we never ratified: the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. Al Gore – call your office.”
The fingerprints of the U.N. are all over this treaty. That is why it’s officially called the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. But because the U.N. has such a bad reputation, supporters of the treaty have been trying to obscure the U.N.’s role. For example, State Department Legal Adviser John Bellinger III has been claiming that it’s a “myth” to suggest that the treaty sets up any U.N. institutions or is part of the global U.N. bureaucracy. But this is the same John Bellinger who told the Senate Committee on September 27 that the treaty has nothing to do with regulating pollution from land-based sources. Vitter exploded that lie by citing actual provisions from the treaty authorizing regulation of land-based sources of pollution in accordance with international agreements. These give international lawyers an opportunity to sue the U.S. and implement the unratified global warming treaty.
"LOST: Backdoor Kyoto" -
"There are many serious objections to LOST, but one of the chief is that it provides a backdoor route to implementing UN environmental treaties, including the Kyoto protocol." (Myron Ebell, Cooler Heads Blog)
More Here
One of the leading sources of anti-Americanism relates to America's supposed arrogance in failing to sign or ratify international treaties that the rest of the world endorses. This particular complaint arises from a failure to understand the role of treaties in the US Constitution and is not confined to the left. In most countries, treaties are ratified by a vote of Parliament or by an executive decision. They then supposedly have the force of law, but few countries have means of citizen enforcement of such law, which is why they can be safely ignored when convenient. Thus, the western European nations are mostly quite happily failing to get anywhere near on target for their Kyoto Protocol commitments, with a couple of nations resting on the laurels of structural changes made before Kyoto was signed. …………….. The US Constitution, say(s) ……….treaties trump national law, having the same status as the Constitution. This means that activists can take the US Government to court and have national law quashed on the basis of a treaty commitment. Judges can also instruct the Federal Government to take steps to meet treaty commitments ………………….The current treaty up for debate is the Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST. Most of the rest of the world has ratified the treaty, but the US stood fast against it during Ronald Reagan's presidency. Owing to claims that the treaty has now been "fixed," it is up for debate again. …………In particular, provisions relating to environmental impacts on the oceans are an open invitation for environmental groups to sue to the detriment of the United States as a whole. It is sad that the United States gets blamed for failing to play along with the rest of the world on such treaties. The main reason why it does not is because, as in Kyoto's case, other nations don't play by the rules of the game, whereas the US is forced to. If we are to free the world from the curse of meaningless platitudes masquerading as international agreements, the US model for dealing with treaties should be held up as the example, to follow, not a reason for criticism.
Both Kyoto and LOST purport to regulate Parties’ land-based pollution, and as such also provides a vehicle for far-reaching unconstitutional regulatory regimes. Unlike Kyoto, however, LOST has a Tribunal, one which made clear in an early ruling that it will decide its own scope and jurisdiction for Parties subject to its authority, ad hoc. This Tribunal would have authority over Americans and their economy, and would be unaccountable under our laws or limited by our Constitution………As such it represents attainment of the environmentalists’ long-sought goal of inserting the global judiciary into our energy supply mix (The underlying goal of LOST?) LOST’s Preamble asserts that we aspire to “realization of a just and equitable international economic order which takes into account the interests and needs of mankind as a whole and, in particular, the special interests and needs of developing countries, whether coastal or land-locked.”
(At this point I would like to restate the obvious. The combination of the Montreal Protocol, the Kyoto Accords and LOST will turn absolute control of all the chemicals in the world to the United Nations. Furthermore, LOST will give the U.N. the authority to impose Montreal and Kyoto whether ratified or not. RK )
“One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them: One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.”
Senate Republicans may sink Bush's U.N. Treaty
By Cliff Kincaid Can the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty not only be delayed but defeated outright in the Senate? That's the question that conservatives are delightfully pondering as a remarkable series of events has put the pact, supported by the Bush Administration and the liberal leadership in the Senate, in serious jeopardy...
Law of the Sea Treaty sails ahead
Senate panel overwhelmingly passes measure empowering U.N. The United Nations' Law of the Sea Treaty, a wide-ranging measure critics say will grant the U.N. control of the 70 percent of the planet under its oceans, is now headed to the full Senate for ratification……..Other critics fear the treaty will be used as a back-door to implement policies against global warming without any accountability to the American people. Parts of the treaty, they say, mandate international regulation of U.S. economic and industrial activities on land. With that in mind, critics of the treaty believe so-called greenhouse gases could be viewed as ocean pollutants………For instance,
Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte testified the U.N. body established by the treaty has "no jurisdiction over marine pollution disputes involving land-based sources."
"Why is there a section entitled pollution from land-based sources?" questioned Vitter.
"We will decide that. We consider that within our sovereign prerogative," said Negroponte.
"Where does the treaty say that we decide that and an arbitral body does not decide that?" questioned Vitter.
Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England answered: "My understanding – and I'll ask my lawyer behind me – that that's in the treaty that we make that determination and that's not subject to review by anyone else."
"It's not in the treaty because I point to Article 298 1b where it simply says disputes concerning military activities are not subject to dispute resolution," explained Vitter. "But it doesn't say who decides what is and what is not a military activity." England conceded the point. "We say it is up to us, but nobody else in the world says it is up to us," Vitter said.
“One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them: One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.”
Last Friday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 17-4 to surrender U.S. sovereignty to Third World countries and the corrupt United Nations! …….The Law of the Sea Treaty was largely written by World Federalists devoted to world government, under the auspices of peace advocacy. They were moved by the horrors of World War II to embrace world government; but some of the world federalist groups were infiltrated or manipulated by communists sympathetic to the Soviet Union…….The ISA maintains the right to adopt "appropriate rules, regulations, and procedures for ... the prevention, reduction and control of pollution and other hazards to the marine environment," which would undoubtedly mean imposing the Kyoto Protocol on the American economy at the earliest opportunity.
Final Thoughts - Convention on the Law of the Seas means that the Montreal Protocol, Kyoto Accords, International Criminal Court, Convention on Biological Diversity will be imposed whether they have been agreed to or not and will use the “President's Council on Sustainable Development to consolidate the administrative power of federal agencies in the implementation of the U.N.'s LOST Agenda.” It is interesting to note that the agency with oversight, The International Seabed Authority, is permitted to amend LOST without anyone’s consent. In short they can determine their own jurisdiction. What pesticides will be left after that? For that matter….what will be left? As one prominent socialist once said…”if we control the seas we will control the land”.
“Doubtless, many of you are saying, it could never happen here, our constitution protects us. Don't be so sure. Let me read a brief section from the US Constitution itself, Article VI: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
XXX
