Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST)

Discussion in 'World Events' started by madanthonywayne, Nov 2, 2007.

  1. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Bush is at it again. That jackass is pushing for the Senate to ratify the Law of the Seas Treaty (LOST).
    This treaty would hand over control of 2/3 of the earth's area to the UN and grant it, for the first time, the ability to levy taxes and fees! Since the UN governing body created by this treaty has nothing to do with the security council, we would have no veto power over it.

    What the fuck is wrong with Bush. First he pushes for the amnesty bill, now this. It was just voted out of committee with a big majority. It requires a 2/3 majority in the Senate to pass. It just might get it.
    http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iKBSNfKHl996nZO4HBhhpedrdoEwD8SKD6P80
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1909569/posts
    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22586
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,191
    What would make Bush, the Senate, and the House vote for LOST and not for Kyoto?

    It's time we used our Constitutionally sanctioned guns.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,634
    I love the silly language games. No one calls it the "Law of the Sea Treaty" except people who hate it, because they like the acronym. The acronym is LOST, so it must be bad!

    The sad thing is the sheeple that listen to these fear-filled demagogues are apparently swayed by that sort of nonsense.

    The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) would provide us with a way to have our voice heard regarding how to exploit resources under the arctic ice. Without it, all we have is our claim to the exclusive economic zone 200 miles off the coast of Alaska and if we want more we'd need to argue for a pretty significant change in international law (one which we opposed in the past when Iceland asserted that it was extending its territorial waters to a whole 4 miles from its coast). In fact, the 200 mile EEZ only became law because it's what UNCLOS established...and we decided that sounded pretty sweet. In fact, that's happened with a lot of UNCLOS. It's so terrible that we adopted most of its provisions already, under the guise of customary international law. The main difference is that member states don't need to honor their treaty obligations when it comes to dealing with us, since we're not members.

    Then there's the military argument, that it would provide greater clarity regarding where the Navy can go, as right now they rely on customary international law, which changes from country to country from year to year. (In some cases it changes when the other countries see our ships coming.) UNCLOS offers pretty lenient rules between member states.

    And on top of that UNCLOS has maps showing the natural economic zones of various nations based on what we presently know about the sea floor and the continental shelf (some rights to resources near the shelf are allocated back to the nearest nation)....and the U.S. has a tremendously large swathe of it under that regime, larger than any other nation on Earth.

    Sure, it would be nice if we had a veto (and no one else did)...but if we did, then so would Russia, and they claim the whole of the Arctic is theirs. Giving us a veto would just set things up for Russia and the the U.S. to carve the arctic sea floor up as their exclusive property, as nothing short that would ever pass the veto.

    Like it or not, the U.S. isn't steward of the world (nor should anyone trust us to take on that mantle), so we should no more get a veto over everything that happens in the international arena than California should get veto over acts of Congress. Instead we should come to the table, like everyone else, and make our case for the things we want. Unfortunately nobody likes us right now, but the way to fix that is not to continue bullying other nations into submission.

    There are counterarguments against it, but not as if the treaty is the beginning of the end of America as a sovereign nation, the way some make it out to be.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2007
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    The UN can't even control itself, can't even control the terrorists in Lebanon, can't even abide by the oil sanctions against Iraq, can't even get into Iran to inspect for nuclear weapons building, can't even......., well, the UN can't do much of anything.

    And yet they want to try to control the oceans of the world? How?

    Baron Max
     
  8. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,634
    The UN is not a monolithic entity. There aremany specialized international agencies that with varying levelks of UN interaction that work pretty well: UNESCO, UNCITRAL, the IMF and World Bank Group, the WHO, the World Intellectual Property Organization, etc.

    In any event, the International Maritime Organization already fills the role you decry--acting as U.N. watchdog over the international waters of the world--and as parties to the UN Charter, we already are subject to that regime. The IMO has been around since the late-1940s. The new question is really about whether to allow yet another UN agency (though one made up of member states to UNCLOS) administer that treaty and also making ourselves subject to its rulings and dispute settlement mechanism (which would have a more directly binding effect, but only as to matters covered by the treaty itself).

    In that respect, though it works like any other multilateral treaty—the parties enforce its provisions. That they do administer the program with UN funding doesn't change that.
     
  9. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    No, I disagree. The UN is one giant, monolithic entity that sucks money from other nations like a crackwhore sucks..., ...well, you know! ...and provides little or nothing in return ...except to spend more money and publish more bullshit, liberal, self-promoting propaganda bullshit.

    Baron Max
     
  10. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Allowing the UN to directly tax US citizens is a big change. Allowing the UN to regulate pollution in the US is a big change. Allowing the UN to decide when and if we can board enemy vessels or where our military subs/ships can go is a big change.

    And frankly, I don't trust a UN dominated by a bunch of third world countries. Give everyone who has a veto on the security council a veto over this organization and I might consider it.
     
  11. mikenostic Stop pretending you're smart! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,624
    Um, I don't think any of the five veto power wielding, permanent members (U.S., Russia, France, China, UK) on the U.N. Security council are 3rd world countries.
     
  12. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Um, you misunderstood my post. No one gets a veto on this LOST treaty. So majority rules. The majority at the UN is a bunch of third world countries.
     
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Oh, no! The third world might get a say! It's over! Oh, God, it's all over!

    No, seriously, what is this primitivist, king-of-the-hill mentality? I got it, why don't we all move back to the trees!
     
  14. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Oh, no, Tiassa, those backward, poverty-stricken, starving, uneducated, over-populated, heavily-breeding, almost-Stone-Age Third World countries should have a say ....but it should be in proportion to their importance in the present-day world. Which is, of course, virtually nothing. Fuck 'em, let 'em starve while they're fuckin' to produce more of the same!

    Baron Max
     
  15. mountainhare Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,287
    I agree with Baron Max's sentiment.
     
  16. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    The USA should not ratify this treaty.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea
    From the Anti-ratification argument:
    Lack of need: The U.S. already honors almost all the provisions of the treaty. For practical purposes, there is no pressing need to ratify it that outweighs the negatives of the remaining provisions. Any perceived benefit of an improved U.S. image world-wide is likely to be illusory.

    There are several other anti-ratification arguments also cause me to reject this UN idea.
     
  17. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,191
    Have at it. We'll cover your strategic redeployment.

    Life feeds on life.

    All the nicey nicey stuff may float your boat but your dingy isn't very sea-worthy.
     
  18. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,634
    But we are not entitled to all the treaty's benefits. For example,the US has claimed the 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone that the convention provides, but no other country on Earth is obligated to respect that claim, any more than if the US claimed at *all* of the ocean floor belonged to it. Members of the treaty are required to respect the EEZ of *other members*, but not necessarily of non-members. Our claim rests in the notion that customary international law has changed, but that is a tougher argument on which to rest a claim of right. "You agreed to it" is a pretty strong argument.
     
  19. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    We are enforcing the 200 mile border now, without the added burden of pleasing the U.N. paper pushers, as are several other countries.

    " Two Spanish fishermen were injured when their vessel was fired on by a Portuguese patrol boat within Portuguese waters.

    · The Canadian patrol vessel fired at a Spanish boat illegally fishing in an internationally patrolled area in the North Atlantic.

    · A Russian Border Guard ship fired on two Japanese vessels thought to be poaching; one ship was hit, and fishers on board were injured. "

    http://www.uscg.mil/history/h_fisheries.html

    From Wiki Link:
    * The Environment: Some of the Convention's conservation provisions would provide new avenues for non-US environmental organizations to affect domestic US environmental policies by pursuing legal action in both US and international courts.[4] In addition, requirements that nations either harvest their entire allowable catch in certain areas or give the surplus to other nations could result in mandated overfishing.[5]

    I read this section of the UN text. The above is true.

    The UN has made its objective clear.

    Eminent domain: The treaty applies eminent domain to intellectual property giving the UN the power to seize technology and share it with potentially enemy states.

    Economics: Businesses can already exploit resources from the international area; ratifying the treaty would force them to buy licenses for that right and pay taxes on the proceeds.

    No control over funding: The treaty gives a blank check to the UN, funded by the US. The US would have no control over how the money is used.

    We dont need UN permission to protect our EEZ. We need the coast guard.
     
  20. maxg Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    710
  21. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    200 miles is what you get (which we already have without a treaty). If you want more you appeal to this gathering of interested parties and make your case. Maybe they will decide yes, maybe they will decide no.

    What I imagine is this:

    UN LOST panel says... the US already has the largest portion and doesnt need anymore. Mongolia has appealed the US interest and because they are an arctic region (holds up regional map outlining various regions), the panel has decided its them who gets the expanded territory.

    I would rather take my chances with guns vs mongolia.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    And I doubt russia is gonna move its flag/capsule. They have already decided its theirs.
     

Share This Page