Why the Senate must reject the Law of the Sea Treaty
Posted by zbigniewmazurak on June 14, 2012
The Senate is now debating a treaty that should’ve been consigned to the dustbin of history forever 30 years ago, when President Reagan refused to sign it.
I’m talking, of course, about the disastrous Law of the Sea Treaty.
The biggest problem with it is that it would cost America sovereignty, which is priceless. Under the treaty, the US would be subject to binding rulings from unconstitutional international courts and agencies on maritime matters. If any foreign country objected to any maritime practices, or any territorial claims, by the US, it could engage in lawfare against the US by filing a complain with an international arbitrage court (filled with anti-American judges), and then, as a treaty party, the US would have to accept whatever ruling that court issues. In other words, LOST’s enforcement mechanisms are stacked from the beginning against the US. More on how the treaty would strip the US of its sovereignty here.
Similarly, the International Seabed Authority would gain arbitrage and regulatory authority over America’s territorial waters, EEZ, and seabed, and decisions would be made in by that agency, where the US would be easily outvoted 35:1.
An equally big problem with the treaty is that it would cost the US Treasury tens of billions of dollars every year, because a part of the royalties the Treasury would collect from the exploitation of undersea resources (e.g. offshore oil drilling) would have to be given, for no benefit at all, to the International Seabed Authority, based in Kingston, Jamaica. This money would then be given to mostly anti-American Third World countries. The US Treasury would lose at least $70 bn in the first fiscal year alone. Furthermore, the US would have to transfer sensitive technologies to these countries.
“the $70 billion in U.S. funds could be used to add $3 billion to eliminate the delayed construction of the SSBN(X), the Ohio-Class Ballistic Missile Submarine Replacement Program and ensure the U.S. can maintain its continuous at-sea deterrence capability; add $12.1 billion to maintain DoD procurement at Fiscal Year 2012 levels allowing our military to continue to modernize its fleet of ships, aircraft and ground vehicles; buy additional F-35 Joint Strike Fighters and completely eliminate the Navy’s strike fighter gap of 240 aircraft at a cost of $31 billion; avoid a three year carrier gap by accelerating the construction of the next Ford-class carrier as begin construction of the next Ford-class carrier at an approximate cost of $11 billion; and add an additional 6 Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense ships at a total cost of $12 billion.“
As the CPAS rightly says:
“During its negotiation, LOST became a vehicle for advancing an agenda promoted by the Soviet Union and so-called “non-aligned movement” during the 1970s, known as the New International Economic Order (NIEO). The NIEO was a classic “united front” effort aimed at undermining the economic and military power of the industrialized West – particularly the United States – in the name of a centrally planned, global redistribution of wealth to the benefit of developing nations.”
Furthermore, LOST is seen by proponents of one world government – a supranational one – as a key step towards creating it, by subjecting 70% of the world’s surface – seas and oceans – to an unaccountable world government.
Moreover, LOST is a backdoor for the Kyoto Protocol, which the Senate has rightly refused to ratify, and is arguably even more radical than Kyoto. For example, its Article #212 requires parties to “adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from or through the atmosphere….”, which would be hugely expensive for businesses and therefore consumers. Furthermore, LOST’s Precautionary Principle, which forbids any action that might harm the environment, would prohibit military activities such as SLBM launches (even for tests). And unaccountable supranational tribunals, stacked against the US, would be the ones defining what is detrimental to the environment. As with any other issue, the US would have to accept binding rulings from tribunals rigged against it. These, as well as non-environment-related, provisions would impose onerous regulations on US businesses and government entities, and would also open them to unlimited alien litigation, which would be decided by international tribunals, NOT American courts. As Thilo Bode, then International Executive Director of Greenpeace, said in 2000:
“Global warming is likely to have a big impact at sea…Solving the environmental problems facing the oceans…is one of the greatest challenges facing humankind…No single action or region can do this alone: it will require comprehensive international cooperation as required by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.”
LOST would give radical environmental NGOs and unfriendly foreign governments, such as those in Europe, both grounds and avenues through which to bring lawsuits against the US – and as a party to LOST, the US would have to obey whatever rulings unaccountable courts and agencies (rigged against the US) issue.
Despite the treaty proponents’ false claims, the problems with the treaty have NOT been fixed, and they can never be fixed absent radical changes to the treaty, namely, abolition of the royalty confiscating provisions, of the International Seabed Authority (where the US can easily be outvoted 35:1), and of international courts’ jurisdiction over maritime matters.
These are the provisions of the treaty Ronald Reagan objected to, and because he opposed them in the 1980s (and also objected to LOST on principle), he would’ve certainly opposed them today. More on these facts here.
That being the case, and in light of his clear statements and diary notes on the subject, and the fact that the provisions that he objected to are STILL in the treaty, it is clear, despite the RINO State Secretaries’ and George “Read My Lips” H.W. Bush’s false claims, Ronald Reagan would’ve never approved of the treaty. It is, in fact, deeply insulting to his memory that these RINOs suggest this. They should apologize and withdraw that claim.
Speaking of them, they have no credibility to speak on foreign affairs in general. Henry Kissinger is the author of the failed “detente” policy of the 1970s, which amounted to appeasement of the Soviet Union while that country was engaged in the largest peacetime military buildup since before WW2 and the US was unilaterally disarming itself. Unverifiable treaties such as SALT-I, SALT-II, and the ABM treaty, which rohibited the US from developing or deploying missile defense systems, were his brainchildren.
George Shultz, as Ronald Reagan’s secretary of state, tried to undermine his policies every step of the way. Ronald Reagan won the Cold War in spite of, not because of, George Shultz. He won because he ignored the advice of Shultz and other soft RINOs at the State Department.
Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, as members of the Bush Admin, were advocates of the failed appeasement policies towards Putinist Russia and Communist China and, most prominently, the failed policy of “democratizing the world”, which they convinced President Bush to adopt as his own and implement in Afghanistan and Iraq. Under these policies, the US did not withdraw its troops from these countries after delivering a smackdown to the Taleban and Saddam Hussein, but stayed on and pursued amorphous nation-building crusades in both of these countries, crusades that cost hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American troops. And let’s not forget that in 2008, Powell endorsed Obama over McCain and that Condoleezza Rice has said earlier this year that she thinks Hillary Clinton is a good Secretary of State.
These five RINO former Secretaries of State also advocated the disastrous New START treaty, which is cutting the US nuclear arsenal down to inadequate levels while allowing Russia to grow its own arsenal (because it’s under treaty limits) and thus amounts to unilateral nuclear disarmament by the US.
So as you consider the arguments over the LOST treaty, ladies and gentlemen, and ponder whom to believe, consider this:
Those five former Secretaries of State are all disgraced former officials, and they have all advocated policies that turned out to be abysmal failures. They have been proven dead wrong, again and again, on many important issues ranging from detente, to Afghanistan and Iraq, to the New START treaty. Some of them, including Shultz, tried to undermine Ronald Reagan’s policies every step of the way.
We conservatives were right about opposing detente, SALT Treaties, the ABM treaty, the New START, and the “democratizing the world” policy.
Now, we conservatives are again at loggerheads with these five former Secretaries of State. It is possible we are right. It is also theoretically possible they are right. You, ladies and gentlemen, have to decide for yourselves whom to believe.
Will you believe those of us who were right to sound the alarm bells about deeply-flawed treaties (SALT-I, SALT-II, ABMT, New START), and about other flawed policies authored by these people, many times before?
Or will you believe those who have been proven dead wrong, again and again, on so many important foreign policy issues?
The choice is up to you.