Michelle Malkin » The push for the Law of the Sea Treaty

The push for the Law of the Sea Treaty

By Michelle Malkin • October 2, 2007 11:25 AM

I’ve gotten many e-mails about the Senate’s push for the Law of the Sea Treaty. Frank Gaffney has followed the issue and wrote about it here in 2004, calling it a “very Kerry treaty.” He has a piece out today in the Washington Times with the lowdown on the latest fight:

If Americans have learned anything about the United Nations over the last 50 years, it is that this “world body” is, at best, riddled with corruption and incompetence. At worst, its bureaucracy, agencies and members are overwhelmingly hostile to the United States and other freedom-loving nations, most especially Israel.

So why on earth would the United States Senate possibly consider putting the U.N. on steroids by assenting to its control of seven-tenths of the world’s surface?

Such a step would seem especially improbable given such well-documented fiascoes as: the U.N.-administered Iraq Oil-for-Food program; investigations and cover-ups of corrupt practices at the organization’s highest levels; child sex-slave operations and rape squads run by U.N. peacekeepers; and the absurd, yet relentless, assault on alleged Israeli abuses of human rights by majorities led by despotic regimes in Iran, Cuba, Syria and Libya.

Nonetheless, the predictable effect of U.S. accession to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea — better known as the Law of the Sea Treaty (or LOST) — would be to transform the U.N. from a nuisance and laughingstock into a world government: The United States would confer upon a U.N. agency called the International Seabed Authority (IA) the right to dictate what is done on, in and under the world’s oceans. Doing so, America would become party to surrender of immense resources of the seas and what lies beneath them to the dictates of unaccountable, nontransparent multinational organizations, tribunals and bureaucrats.

This does not sound good.

Looks like the Bush administration is deluded or clueless on the issue, or both. Gaffney continues:

In the case of LOST, such a supranational arrangement is particularly enabled by the treaty’s sweeping environmental obligations. State parties promise to “protect and preserve the marine environment.” Since ashore activities — from air pollution to runoff that makes its way into a given nation’s internal waters — can ultimately affect the oceans, however, the U.N.’s big power grab would also allow it to exercise authority over land-based actions of heretofore sovereign nations.

Unfortunately, the Senate has been misled on this point by the Bush administration. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte claimed in testimony before the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee last Thursday that the treaty has “no jurisdiction over marine pollution disputes involving land-based sources.” He insisted, “That’s just not covered by the treaty.” Worse yet, State Department Legal Adviser John Bellinger, said, “[LOST] clearly does not allow regulation over land-based pollution sources. That would stop at the water’s edge.”

Guess who’ll end up paying:

…Scarcely more appetizing is LOST’s empowering of a U.N. agency to impose what amount to international taxes. To provide such an entity with a self-financing mechanism and the authority to distribute the ocean’s wealth in ways that suit the majority of its members and its international bureaucracy is a formula for unaccountability and corruption on an unprecedented scale.

To date, the full malevolent potential of the Law of the Sea Treaty has been more in prospect than in evidence. If the United States accedes to LOST, however, it is predictable that the treaty’s agencies will: wield their powers in ways that will prove very harmful to American interests; intensify the web of sovereignty-sapping obligations and regulations promulgated by this and other U.N. entities; and advance inexorably the emergence of supranational world government.

Twenty-five years ago, President Ronald Reagan declined to submit our sovereignty to the United Nations and rejected the Law of the Sea Treaty. If anything, there are even more compelling reasons today to prevent the U.N.’s big power grab.

I’m with Reagan.

Posted in: United Nations

Send to a Friend
Printer Friendly

comments (39)

trackbacks (5)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

#1

On October 2nd, 2007 at 11:36 am, MissMarciLyn said:

Unbelievable….

But how prophetic is it that the acronym spells “LOST”….
#2

On October 2nd, 2007 at 11:47 am, Milwaukee Mike said:

I always thought the “law of the sea” referred to when and if it was right to cannibalize those stranded with you when lost at sea.

It seems that perhaps we would be offering up ourselves as the main course if we jump in this boat?
#3

On October 2nd, 2007 at 11:56 am, ThackerAgency said:

Again, while I am completely against anything concerning a ‘new world order’ or ‘one world government’, there’s little we can do about it.

I open the Bible and see it written and watch it happen. I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything, but it does say that the world will be under one government (a bad thing).

I wish the US would act more like an imperialist country. Instead of using the authority our military gives our political agents, we give our authority away to everyone else.

The world will be worse off for any ‘world governing body’. Corruption will be the norm.
#4

On October 2nd, 2007 at 11:58 am, momwrites72 said:

It just goes to show that the U.N. does NOT have our best interests at heart, never has, never will. When did we become so complacent in our fight for right?

Can anyone say New World Order?
#5

On October 2nd, 2007 at 11:59 am, ajmontana said:

I was glad to see Michelle and Bryan drinking Cream Soda out of a bottle, it’s totally obvious that America has been attacked again since 9/11 the water in Washington has been poisoned and turned our representatives brains into bear mush.
#6

On October 2nd, 2007 at 11:59 am, Kevin K. said:

The Law of the Sea treaty was a bad treaty when it was written, and it still is. It needs to have a stake put through it. (I was going to say “its heart”, but there isn’t one in the treaty.)
#7

On October 2nd, 2007 at 11:59 am, Boomer said:

From every thing I have been able to read the ratification of this treaty would be a disaster to our sovereignty and economy. It would be as stupid as signing on to the Kyoto treaty hurting the industrialized world and giving developing countries (i.e. China and India) a free pass in polluting the planet. Just say NO!
#8

On October 2nd, 2007 at 12:00 pm, deepdiver said:

What the H**L is wrong with our president and the GOP? How does this stuff even get this far? Makes a patriotic guy just sort of want to give up and not care anymore. I would be really easy to get rid of the computer, newspaper and television.
#9

On October 2nd, 2007 at 12:02 pm, momwrites72 said:

On October 2nd, 2007 at 11:56 am, ThackerAgency said:

Again, while I am completely against anything concerning a ‘new world order’ or ‘one world government’, there’s little we can do about it.

Yes, I agree. Prophecy is only being fulfilled, and once that happens, we’re all screwed, and yet, it seems our political leaders want to speed it up as fast as they can. Hmmm…
#10

On October 2nd, 2007 at 12:03 pm, puhiawa said:

Idiocy. Not only is the UN corrupt, it is anti-American. Bush is delivering America to our enemies.
#11

On October 2nd, 2007 at 12:04 pm, 30 pcs of silver said:

For your viewing pleasure…
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2007/sept07/07-09-26.html

I couldn’t have said it any better.
#12

On October 2nd, 2007 at 12:20 pm, WORK949 said:

Was it or was it not President Bush #41 (a RINO if ever there was one) who touted and introduced us to the term “New World Order”, a mantra which was quickly picked up by the Clinton Administration via the semper-beneficient NAFTA, and is bravely being carried forward by the current Bush (#43) Administration, via Open Borders and, now at long last, this L.O.S.T. abomination.

Not that it will change anything that is about to happen to us, but I believe our so-called elected officials (read: Rich Ruling Class) have it in their not-too-intelligent heads to inexorably and relentlessly push policies upon us that are specifically designed to subjugate this nation to a one-world government, with no borders, real or virtual. (Oddly, that’s also what the World of Islam has in mind for us. What a coincidence. I wonder which entity will get to the buffet table first.)

That this wonderful, beautiful oasis in the tortured history of mankind called the United States of America gets swallowed up, digested and shredded under the auspices of the U.N., or whatever entity ends up governing the “New World Order” seems not to give these politicians pause for even a second thought. They just seem to be able to keep pressing on, at the front door or at the back door.

What’s happened to us?

My parents, now dead, who survived the Great Depression and World War II, are very fortunate not to have to witness the non-stop attempted destruction of that for which they sacrificed so much of their youth to preserve for us. They would both be horrified beyond words to witness what is now transpiring.
#13

On October 2nd, 2007 at 12:22 pm, Dandapani said:

All is “LOST”! This Nation needs to wake up before the former statement becomes true!
#14

On October 2nd, 2007 at 12:22 pm, purplepeep said:

Just seing the terms “UN” and “law” in the same sentence brings on projectile vomiting.

Things like this makes me wish we had a national referendum voting option simce we the people - unlike many of our “leaders’ - are able to use our God-given common sense.
#15

On October 2nd, 2007 at 12:27 pm, Alphonse said:

Looks like the Bush administration is deluded or clueless on the issue, or both.

Or slick. Bush is a global business/investor person, not a patriot. One need only look to his record on the import of cheap labor from Mexico and from around the world.
#16

On October 2nd, 2007 at 12:29 pm, 30 pcs of silver said:

Work949, I couldn’t agree more and nothing we say or do seems to matter. We write and call our elected officials and all we get in return are non-response responses. Where’s the reciprocity?
#17

On October 2nd, 2007 at 12:29 pm, StandardDeviation said:

If the current administration is brain dead enough to ratify this treaty, hopefully our future president will be smart enough to ignore it.

It’s not like the U.N. actually bothers to enforce its regulations.
#18

On October 2nd, 2007 at 12:31 pm, MrScribbler said:

Somehow, we have to get past engaging in rational discussion among people who, by and large, agree with us and start putting pressure on both the Democrats and George Bush and his acolytes, all of whom are united in throwing open our borders, spreading socialism and ceding control of the country to foreigners.

It’s time for a peaceful but firm revolution that holds politicians’ feet to the fire and returns control of our country to its citizens.
#19

On October 2nd, 2007 at 12:32 pm, ACHefty said:

Is there any reason left why we should continue our “membership” in this pathetic “organization” known as the “United” “Nations”? Any more reasons we should send “funding” to “membership” at Turtle Bay?

Click here for more of my take….
#20

On October 2nd, 2007 at 12:33 pm, purplepeep said:

WORK949 said:
this wonderful, beautiful oasis in the tortured history of mankind called the United States of America”

To be replaced by “Oceania” if some politicians have their way.
#21

On October 2nd, 2007 at 12:49 pm, James Felix said:

It’s not like the U.N. actually bothers to enforce its regulations.

And, in this case, it’s hard to see how it could possibly enforce any “law of the sea” without the active cooperation of the US Navy. Not since the sinking of the Spanish Armada has one nation been so utterly dominant on the oceans.

Then again, that dominance does us no good if we voluntarily go along with this crap, something I’m more than a little afraid we’ll do.
#22

On October 2nd, 2007 at 12:51 pm, Caitriona3 said:

First, we should pull out of the UN (saving ourselves both headaches and the national budget) and then we need to reclaim our territory in New York and tell the UN to move itself to somewhere else. I am all for international cooperation, NOT international surrender. There is no cooperating with countries that hate our guts, and those who view our treasury as the world’s ATM.
#23

On October 2nd, 2007 at 12:52 pm, Brian72 said:

I have a much better “Law of the Sea” idea. How about the arrangement we have now, the U.S. Navy, Coast Guard and allied naval forces are the “Sheriff of the Seas”?

If you want to engage in nefarious activities that threaten the commercial sea lanes, odds are that the U.S. Navy will find you and deal with it, as they have for 200 years. Barbary Pirates anyone? The Shores of Tripoli? The Gulf of Sidra, Quaddaffi’s line of death? Thomas Jefferson did not have 12 Carrier Battle Groups at his command.

The operating principle of our Navy has always been Freedom of the Sea, which sounds a lot better to me than a U.N. administered “Law of the Sea”, and funded by international tax schemes. I wonder who will be taxed the most aggressively, and who will secure “victimhood exemptions”? Think Castro or Chavez will have to pony up the cash? Putin, or Ahminthemoodforjihad?

What about the fictional nation of Palestine?
What will be imposed upon the Isreali Navy?

Will Kim Jong Mentally-Ill have to pay maritime taxes on any of his black-market enterprises, which rely on sea smuggling and counterfiet U.S. currency? Could he manipulate this structure to injure his southern enemy, the free, democratic and incredibly prosperous king of commercial shipping, South Korea? How could he get at Japan’s maritime economy?

Will Red China manipulate the U.N. power structure behind this treaty to pressure, intimidate and isolate free Taiwan? How about another maritime powerhouse, Singapore? the Phillipines? Australia?

How would this treaty affect the security arrangements in the Persian Gulf, the most strategically and economically important stretch of water in the world today?

What about the Suez Canal, the Panama Canal, and other strategic waterways around the world?

In the coming dispute over rights to the Arctic seabed, where will the U.N. come down, in favor of Imperial Russia’s new Czar Putin conquering new territories for the Motherland, or the free people of Alaska and Canada?

Just a few of the many questions I have about this. We the people need answers, and quick, before it’s too late to stop the Supra-Transnational protection racket. Think Admiral Anthony Soprano, U.N. International Seabed Authority.
#24

On October 2nd, 2007 at 12:55 pm, jferg49 said:

Since the beginning of this country… sea power has been an important issue…without it, we would have been fodder for the Germans and the Japanese..many a sailor and marine are lying at the bottom of the ocean, due to battles won and lost…we should NEVER give up our ability to control the sea lanes…our commerce demands it and our continued freedom insists upon it…
#25

On October 2nd, 2007 at 1:17 pm, Leatherneck said:

I can only guess what the U.N. will do with all that money, and no over site.
#26

On October 2nd, 2007 at 1:23 pm, AlohaGuy said:

Brian72, I think it’s their intent to shut our Navy down.
#27

On October 2nd, 2007 at 1:33 pm, pressto said:

Is this the same President Bush that appointed Mr. Bolton to the UN???? I think maybe we have an Alien in the whitehouse now.
#28

On October 2nd, 2007 at 1:42 pm, Brian72 said:

On October 2nd, 2007 at 1:23 pm, AlohaGuy said:

Brian72, I think it’s their intent to shut our Navy down.

You are probably right about that, but they can’t if we don’t let them. After all, the U.S. Coast Guard is the world’s fourth largest navy all by itself, and we have them surrounded already!

Naval blockade on Turtle Bay today!
#29

On October 2nd, 2007 at 1:44 pm, windbag said:

Bush has not only lost his mind, he’s stopped looking for it.
#30

On October 2nd, 2007 at 2:05 pm, James Felix said:

Thomas Jefferson did not have 12 Carrier Battle Groups at his command.

Oh, if only he had….
#31

On October 2nd, 2007 at 2:22 pm, CommentGuy said:

Another blog has a good read on this

In the past, writers on international law acknowledged that states could not be expected to submit the most sensitive political questions–those most vital to national security–to international arbitration. Most of the world seems to have abandoned this view, but most nations no longer make great efforts to provide for their own defense. So, even as the United States has substantially reduced the scale of its naval forces, since the peak years of the Reagan build-up we have acquired a larger and larger share of the world’s naval capacity. Others have shrunk their forces further and faster.

In past centuries, rules about the conduct of ships at sea emerged from agreements among major naval powers, and there were always a number of naval powers engaged in challenging, enforcing, and accommodating agreed-upon standards. Now, when the United States (by some estimates) actually deploys a majority of the world’s naval capacity, we are told that our security requires us to participate with 150 other states in electing international judges to determine, in the last analysis, what rules our Navy must accept.

To find this convincing, one must be awed by the moral authority of the U.N. majority. To think that way means that we seek consensus at almost any price. Why do we claim to be independent, why do we invest so many billions in defense capacities, if we are prepared to go along with an international consensus, articulated (and -readjusted) by international jurists? The Senate should think long and hard before making the U.S. Navy answer to the U.N version of the Law of the Sea.
#32

On October 2nd, 2007 at 3:41 pm, dadog said:

#27 Presto…I think you’re right….It amazes me on how on some issues he is just way off.
#33

On October 2nd, 2007 at 6:23 pm, michiganmom said:

Get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US!
#34

On October 2nd, 2007 at 6:43 pm, gayle said:

michiganmom; well said!

Bush has been taken over, possessed, something not of this world.

Perhaps he’s made a pact with…..should I dare say it? You know what I’m talking about.
#35

On October 2nd, 2007 at 6:47 pm, walterc said:

Stock up on food, water and ammo, the End of Days approacheth.
#36

On October 2nd, 2007 at 6:48 pm, Ombre Rose said:

On October 2nd, 2007 at 12:02 pm, momwrites72 said:

On October 2nd, 2007 at 11:56 am, ThackerAgency said:

Again, while I am completely against anything concerning a ‘new world order’ or ‘one world government’, there’s little we can do about it.

Yes, I agree. Prophecy is only being fulfilled, and once that happens, we’re all screwed, and yet, it seems our political leaders want to speed it up as fast as they can. Hmmm…

Isn’t it simply AMAZING, nobody is working harder to fulfill prophecy than LIBERALS, who claim they don’t believe it.
#37

On October 2nd, 2007 at 6:57 pm, Ombre Rose said:

On October 2nd, 2007 at 12:22 pm, purplepeep said:
Just seing the terms “UN” and “law” in the same sentence brings on projectile vomiting.

Things like this makes me wish we had a national referendum voting option simce we the people - unlike many of our “leaders’ - are able to use our God-given common sense.

Isn’t a national referendum supposed to be the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT of “WE THE PEOPLE”????????
ESPECIALLY on something with the power to SUBJUGATE a FREE PEOPLE???????????
#38

On October 2nd, 2007 at 7:00 pm, Ombre Rose said:

On October 2nd, 2007 at 1:17 pm, Leatherneck said:
I can only guess what the U.N. will do with all that money, and no over site.

It doesn’t take a GUESS to know that America will STILL REMAIN their FIRST TARGET.
#39

On October 2nd, 2007 at 10:12 pm, yodleman said:

It amazes me that we still pander to the U.N. What amazes me more is that we bankroll all the nonsense