Alaska’s most powerful politicians support the Law of the Sea. The reason cited is that ratification of the treaty would give Alaskans ‘a seat at the table’. Whose table though? And to whom will we be obligated? The answer: to the despots in the UN, many of whom don’t care much for the US and some of whom really hate us. We’ll need the UN’s permission to among other things, explore and drill for oil outside our EEZ (exclusive economic zone) generally in the area beyond 200 miles off shore. And because inland waters ultimately empty into the ocean, the treaty will affect more than just the ‘Sea’. This treaty involves a multi-national bureaucracy within the UN designed to control resource development all over the world. If the treaty is ratified, customary law, agreements, proclamations and bi-lateral treaties would all be replaced with new powers handed to the United Nations. In essence a huge bureaucracy consisting largely of anti-American players funded mostly by American dollars and ultimately designed to poke a stick in the eye of Americans. Here’s a bit of history on the Law of the Sea.
In its current form, the Law of the Sea consists of 17 parts, containing 320 articles and 9 annexes, governing ocean space, boundaries, environmental control, marine research, economic and commercial activities, transfer of technology and royalties, and the settlement of disputes relating to ocean matters.
The first two of three conventions on the LOST were held in 1956 and 1960 in Geneva, Switzerland. The third convention was held in New York starting in 1973 and concluding in 1982. The international treaty became enforceable in November, 1994, one year after the sixtieth state, Guyana, ratified the treaty. 162 countries have ratified LOST.
Although the US helped construct and already follows most of the treaty's provisions, the Senate has never ratified it. In past administrations, the main obstacles to ratification have been the provisions in Part XI, (articles 133 through 191) which define the 'area' subject to international jurisdiction, and Part VI, (article 82) which describes royalty distribution. During his term, President Reagan sternly objected to its ratification and pointed out the conflict between Globalism and free market principles. If we were to sign on, any disputes would theoretically be resolved at an international tribunal headquartered in Hamburg, Germany or through binding arbitration between us and many of our enemies!
LOST is sometimes called the ‘Zombie treaty’ because it keeps surfacing after being killed in the Senate. Treaty ratification requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate and the President’s signature. The Obama administration has once again revived it and although the Senate still hasn’t actually voted, supporters are apparently just one vote short of the 67 needed for ratification.
America’s generosity has always been far superior to that of any other country. We have given untold sums of aid to those in need. But the UN wants us to sign a treaty mandating that Americans give more, potentially sending trillions of dollars to ‘less developed’ countries, some of whom are known state sponsors of terrorism! And it’s not just the UN wanting us to do so! We already finance the UN's operating budget at 22% and its peace-keeping budget at 27%. That's not enough though! Ask Murkowski, Treadwell, Begich and their buddies John Kerry and Mr. Obama!
Ratifying the treaty would also greatly degrade America’s defense capability. The security of our allies throughout the world would be compromised. Access to ocean or maritime areas presently used and protected by the US Navy could be lost as sovereignty is lost to the UN. Why then do some high level Naval commanders favor LOST? They are administration appointed! America must not submit to the power of the despots within the United Nations.
Any Alaska specific concerns will not be decided favorably for Alaska or the US in general when addressed in a UN managed kangaroo court. Bi-lateral treaties and negotiated agreements with our neighboring countries are all that is needed to manage fisheries, maritime travel, resource exploration and development and to resolve territorial issues. We do not need a 'seat at the table' of the UN to resolve disputes between Russian and us.
What about the pro-ratification argument by some multi-national oil developers? We must realize who the shareholders of multi-national oil companies are. Free market principles quickly dissolve when mixed with Global influence. Oil developers are gambling that the UN bureaucracy known as the ISA, (International Seabed Authority) will allow permitting more easily than does the EPA. A better solution would be to abolish both the EPA and the UN. Oil companies lose profit with every drop of oil spilled and thus have no motivation to develop irresponsibly. They are and would continue to be largely self regulating. However, limited oversight could still be applied where necessary to guard against gross negligence. In any case, development at the expense of our country's sovereignty need not be part of the argument but surely needs to be recognized as such.
When you analyze treaties such as the 'Law of the Sea' and the 'small arms treaty' or proposals and policies found in 'Agenda 21′, you find a common thread binding them together: The United Nations' Globalism! Our elected representatives must be ignorant, corrupted by special interests, or they're being manipulated by anti-American globalists from whom they expect to personally gain at the expense of American sovereignty!
Sept 6, 2013