By Craig Masters
Next month, the full US Senate will finally have a vote on a treaty that has been “kicked down the road” for more some thirty years. It is considered by all who have read it, including this author, to be the end of United States sovereignty and the beginning of total redistribution of wealth on a global scale. The arguments for and against this fact are based on whether or not one believes that the US and individual freedoms are “fair” or exploit poorer people/nations.
In August of 2006, David A. Ridenour wrote for The National Center for Public Policy Research, “…there are serious flaws in the treaty that – if U.S. ratified the treaty – could place U.S. sovereignty, security and political independence in doubt.”
So why is this treaty, officially named the Third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, news in May of 2012? Because the United Nations’ attempts to date have been unsuccessful at having it ratified by the senate of the United States. Without the U.S. signing on to this creation of a world judicial body governing the oceans and all that impacts them, there is no money to fund this new and huge world bureaucracy.
The purpose of the Law of the Sea Treaty ( LOST) is to establish a comprehensive set of rules governing the oceans. The most recent version is labeled UNCLOS III because versions I and II originally from 1958 and 1960 were considered inadequate by those supporting a new world economic order. Those previous versions, according to the agenda of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, failed to go far enough to establish what were called “fairer” terms of trade and the necessary UN controlled financing for developing nations.
The version of the treaty the United States senate will be considering next month was originally negotiated in the 1970s. It was based on economic principles of the New International Economic Order: the original program for world wealth redistribution. It has been rebuked by every president since, including Bush in 2007 when it passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by a 17-4 vote.
But Obama and Secretary Clinton have worked in support of passage of this treaty by the full senate next month. If successful, the control of literally the entire atmosphere of the world will be under the jurisdiction of a world “court” appointed by the United Nations which will have supreme power over all of the world’s environmental issues: no appeals!
To be clear, Colorado citizens could find themselves paying for an expensive legal dispute over water in the Colorado River if Mexico or North Korea decided they were being impacted by our use of the river water on our farms. After all, water that doesn’t flow into the sea has an impact just like water that does!
There are several provisions of the treaty that have been the focus of U.S. Presidents’ objections since Ronald Regan first labeled it as opposed to free enterprise and economic freedom throughout the world.
The treaty calls for every signatory nation (more than 150 now) to be allowed to share the technology of every other nation. In other words, the US companies which have invested heavily in developing technology to explore or drill or recover sea bed minerals will simply have to give all of their technology to any other nation which has signed the treaty. But without money, much of that new technology would be difficult to employee. Therefore, the LOST also provides for massive wealth transfers in the order of 50% of all revenues derived from the sea!
But giving away our technology and half the revenues from development of resources from the sea may not be the worst problem facing our national security and sovereignty. Article 20: “In the territorial sea, submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag.” Of course “territorial waters” are redefined as economic control zones and permitted to be extended to 200 miles off shore.
Moreover, in disputes before the judicial authority established by this treaty, enforcement responsibilities fall to such bodies as ITLOS, which is comprised of many nations with a history of positions opposed to the interests of the United States. The International Seabed Authority (ISA), created by the the treaty, is comprised of representatives of 36 countries, the majority of which can not be counted on to support U.S. positions. Its membership includes representatives from the Sudan, Malaysia, China, Indonesia, South Africa, Namibia, Nigeria, Kenya, Guyana, Argentina, Russia and Myanmar, among others.
In addition to defense and economy, LOST also allows environmentalists to use the treaty to achieve through these new world institutions those policies and regulations they have never been able to enforce through domestic laws. This is evidenced by a published statement from Greenpeace which said, “The benefits of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea are substantial, including its basic duties for states to protect and preserve the marine environment and to conserve marine living species.”
As an indication of the scope of jurisdiction LOST tribunal will take, Ireland sought ITLOS’s help in forcing the United Kingdom to abandon its planned opening of the Sellafield MOX plant, a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in north-eastern England, arguing that it would contribute to pollution of the North Sea.
If the Senate approves this treaty, Obama has indicated he will sign it immediately. It will then have the governing authority equal to a Constitutional Ammendment and be every bit as difficult to repeal, if not moreso.
The full text of the treaty is exhaustive. Quality and objective summaries are readily available. But, with so much power and money at stake for those who would benefit from passage, it is imperative that readers understand the one point that is not in dispute by supporters and opponents is that the control of the world’s environment and all its resources will be under the jurisdiction of the tribunal of nations under the name of the International Seabed Authority and whoever this group decides to delegate authority. The U.S. Constitution and our Supreme Court will no longer be our final authority in law.
Tags: authority, Colorado, control, environment, International Seabed Authority, LOST, money, month, nation, Obama, Question, security, Senate, support, technology, United Nations, United States, US, use, water
© 2010 - 2013 Northern Colorado Gazette , PO Box 6, Greeley CO 80632 • All Rights Reserved •
|Powered By Zera Communications||Follow us|