|
The United Nations itself is discussed here. This
page is specifically about The Law of the Sea Treaty, also known (for good reason) as LOST. Obama's Ambitious U.N. Treaty Agenda. With Al Franken replacing Norm Coleman, Senate Democrats have another vote for the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty, and there are strong indications that they intend to bring this controversial document up for a vote within days or weeks. Those who favor the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) believe that U.S. security lies in passing a treaty and hiring more lawyers to defend America before an international tribunal, rather than building more ships for the Navy and Coast Guard. Somali Pirates: An Excuse to Ratify LOST? Our globalist-minded policy elites have the solution [for piracy], of course: more empowerment of the United Nations. If you haven't already heard of the LOST prescription for piracy, you soon will. Ratification of the UN Law Of the Sea Treaty is a "top priority" for the new Obama administration, according to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Senate Moves Toward Ratification of U.N.'s 'Law of the Sea Treaty'. The Senate is gearing up to ratify a Nixon-era U.N. treaty meant to create universal laws to govern the seas — a treaty critics say will create a massive U.N. bureaucracy that could even claim powers over American waterways. LOST — the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, also called the Law of the Sea Treaty — regulates all things oceanic, from fishing rights, navigation lanes and environmental concerns to what lies beneath: the seabed's oil and mineral wealth that companies hope to explore and exploit in coming years. Last Stand for American Sovereignty. The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), now being pushed by the Bush Administration for a quick vote, is already starting to get rave reviews from the press, with the Sacramento Bee saying that protecting the oceans of the world could be Bush's "legacy." The message to Bush is that he should go out as a liberal and he may salvage some of his reputation. But he will lose what is left of his conservative base. Despite the title, this is on topic. The Politically Incorrect Black American Hero. Even without the Law of the Sea Treaty, which is also known by the acronym LOST, [Carl] Olson points out that "the State of Alaska has absolutely no say or standing whatsoever with regard to ocean boundaries or resources. The U.S. Department of State claims 100% authority in these matters for the United States, with no power for states, including advisory and co-equal status." However, "Under LOST, the problem gets one step worse with authority thrown over to the unaccountable and opaque United Nations," he points out. They Just Don't Get LOST. This year [2007] a Democratic majority took power on Capitol Hill. But new leadership has done nothing to address an old problem: Lawmakers racing to pass bills they haven't actually read. ... Consider the Law of the Sea Treaty. President Reagan first scuttled LOST back in 1982 because it would've hurt American sovereignty. But President Clinton brought it back in the 1990s, and the treaty's been floating around Capitol Hill ever since. Permission Slip for the Sea. In his 2004 State of the Union Address, President Bush said, "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country." Members of both parties and both houses of Congress applauded. But if the Senate votes to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea — known as the Law of the Sea Treaty — or its appropriate acronym — LOST — he and his successors are going to need lots of permission slips. LOST justice: I am not a lawyer. But you don't need to be one to recognize a legal train-wreck in the making. And that is what recent events portend if the U.S. Senate agrees to ratify the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (better known as the Law of the Sea Treaty or LOST) in the next few weeks. Law of the Sea Treaty Will Provide Key "Elements" of "World Government". U.S. military backing for LOST is truly ironic because the evidence and history show that the treaty was crafted and primarily pushed by those who not only favor the ICC but also the abolition of national armies and the creation of a U.N. military force to rule the world. In short, U.S. military leaders are supporting a treaty that comes from the same people who want to diminish, even abolish, the power of the U.S. military. Sinister Secrets of the U.N.: Here lies one of the sinister secrets of the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty that the major media are either too lazy or too dishonest to report. It is a "secret," of course, only in the sense that it is kept from the American people by papers like the New York Times. The shocking truth is that the Law of the Sea Treaty, one of several treaties being pushed by State Department Legal Adviser John B. Bellinger III, was largely written by people like Sam Levering, a World Federalist devoted to world government. Sovereignty at Stake: Losing Under a "Lost" Treaty. My husband and I have taught our three children that the people of the United States have a fundamental right to self-determination — that our national sovereignty is critical if we are to remain a free people. How do I explain to them that President Bush wants to sign a treaty that will seriously undermine America's sovereignty and put our security at risk? The Top Five Reasons Why Conservatives Should Oppose the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea: #1: The Treaty Will Undermine U.S. Sovereignty. #2: The Treaty Will Become a Back Door for Environmental Activists. #3: America Should Not Participate in Yet Another U.N. Bureaucracy. #4: American Participation Will Undermine U.S. Military and Intelligence Operations. #5: The U.S. Does Not Need the Convention to Guarantee Navigation Rights. Possibly the Final Push for the Law of the Sea Treaty. [LOST] establishes an International Seabed Authority (ISA) to authorize seabed exploration and mining and collect and distribute the seabed mining royalty. President Reagan strongly objected to the provisions of Part XI, saying that they were unfavorable to America's economy and security. The provisions of the Treaty were not free-market friendly and were designed to favor the economic systems of the Communist states. Why Reagan Would Still Reject the Law of the Sea Treaty. There is an ongoing debate regarding the position of President Ronald Reagan in regard to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, better known as the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). Fortunately, there are multiple sources indicating precisely what Reagan would do if presented with LOST today: He would reject it. Senate panel OKs sea treaty, but fight looms. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee easily approved the Law of the Sea convention yesterday [10/31/2007], brushing back conservatives' objections and setting up a bruising ratification fight on the Senate floor, where Republicans say they can defeat it. Defeat the Law of the Sea Treaty. The "new" treaty was approved Oct. 31 by a 17-4 Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote. What was wrong with LOST 25 years ago is what's wrong with it now — it would undermine American sovereignty and risk national security by putting American efforts to counteract nuclear-weapons proliferation and international terrorism under the control of foreign judges. Walter Cronkite Promotes U.N. Sea Treaty. Dan Rather is making headlines suing his former employer, but Rather's predecessor, Walter Cronkite, is busy promoting world government. Cronkite surfaced as one of the 101 "prominent leaders" signing a letter urging Senate passage of the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty. His CBS affiliation is listed on the letter, making it seem as though the media giant is taking sides in the debate over the pact. This would not be surprising; media coverage has been overwhelmingly pro-treaty. An Establishment Push for the Law of the Sea Treaty. How well I recall the Panama Canal Treaty fight of thirty years ago. The political establishment was adamantly in favor of the Treaty. The people were against it. There were two political consequences of the ratification of the Treaty. Many Democratic Senators insisted they knew better than the people. The first of these was Senator Thomas J. McIntyre (D-NH). "I was elected by the people. I know more than they do. Of course, I am in favor of the Treaty." Well, no. The people knew better than he did. He made that statement in 1977. The following year a co-pilot for Allegheny Airlines, Gordon J. Humphrey, upset McIntyre in the biggest story of that election. McCain's Incoherent New World Order: In his March 26 speech to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council, McCain never mentioned the need to preserve American sovereignty. He could have reassured conservatives by stating his forthright opposition to Senate ratification of the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty, which provides for international control over billions of dollars worth of oil, gas and minerals and undermines American claims to North Pole riches. But he chose not to. Opportunity knocking: defeat the Law of the Sea Treaty. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was a terrible idea when then-President Reagan refused to sign it in 1982 and fired the State Department staff who helped negotiate it. It's an even worse idea today because of the additional dangers it poses. Last Stand for American Sovereignty. The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), now being pushed by the Bush Administration for a quick vote, is already starting to get rave reviews from the press, with the Sacramento Bee saying that protecting the oceans of the world could be Bush's "legacy." The message to Bush is that he should go out as a liberal and he may salvage some of his reputation. But he will lose what is left of his conservative base. The Bush Record on the U.N.: Increased funding of the U.N. (U.S. contributions to the U.N. System from risen from $3.1 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $5.3 billion in fiscal year 2005). Supports ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty. Supported Ban Ki-moon, the South Korean foreign minister, as new U.N. Secretary-General, despite his support for global taxes. Back to The UN Back to the Home page 
|
