This is part two in a ten part series on Dangerous U.N. Schemes Barack Obama Could Buy Into. This article is written by Sonlit Knight of A Newt One.
The so-called Law of the Sea Treaty is just another United Nations scheme to undermine the United States. Like all of these UN boondoggles, it’s a really good deal for other countries, at our expense.
Selling out our National Security to the UN.
According to an article from the National Center for Public Policy Research, published in August of 2006, the (appropriately initialed) L.O.S.T treaty poses serious potential threats to the Sovereignty and National Security of the United States.
The treaty establishes {}… specific jurisdictional limits on the ocean area that countries may claim, including a 12-mile territorial sea limit and a 200-mile exclusive economic zone limit. …{}
{}….
One of the concerns raised by critics of the Law of the Sea Treaty is that it could be used to sharply limit U.S. military operations. Among the examples they cite is Article 20, which stipulates: “In the territorial sea, submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag.”…{}
Would this treaty hamstring us from reacting to the presence of an un-friendly Nation’s craft until it was too close for us to be adequately defended?
Relying on a loosely defined concept of the ‘’right of innocent passage’’, the treaty would require all American “underwater vehicles’’ to surface if they were further than 12 miles (approximately line of sight on a clear day).
Imagine that. Chinese or Iranian ships could presumably sit 12.5 miles off our coast, unmolested and observe our military maneuvers even unto watching where our subs surface. Further, the stated goal of the treaty- to preserve “innocent passage” would actually be undermined by forcing specialized underwater mine-sweeping craft to surface. Let me put it plainly- Iranian ships could set mines 13 miles off our coast and this treaty would forbid us from detecting them!
Economic and Environmental impact.
A Heritage Foundation expose detailed some of the troubling potential economic and Environmental concerns that the treaty carries.
{}…. The Treaty still requires adherence to policies that regulate deep-sea mining, as well as forcing participants to adopt laws and regulations to control and prevent marine pollution. Additionally, under the Treaty, a corporation cannot bring suit, but must rely upon its country of origin to address the corporation’s concerns before the U.N. agency….{}
As you may be aware, Deep Sea drilling is most effective from 0-50 miles off shore. Curtailing drilling, as well as mandating regulations that non-signatures would not be bound to could actually further our inability to tap our own off shore oil resources while allowing China to continue to exploit the same.
The treaty creates a UN Bureaucracy called the “Seabed Authority” that would, after a $250,000 application fee, subject US companies to pay Millions of dollars in fees and profits to the UN, provide a ‘’bonus site’’ for the “Authority’s” exclusive use and even share technology. The authority would be controlled mostly by third world nations that would benefit from our money and technology while giving little in return. This UN Bureaucracy would, no doubt, be every bit as effective and efficient as the Oil for Food program.
Further, disputes involving maritime vessels’ research, navigation etc, would be subject to “Mandatory dispute resolution”. How often do you think America would win in that tribunal?
New World Order?
I pride myself on being a level-headed guy, not prone to Conspiracies and outlandish interpretations. However, there is something deeply troubling about having the Blue hats of the UN in charge of 70% of the planet.
One cannot even begin to count the ways that this could be used to put the United States at a disadvantage. I’ll try a few.
- American Naval Exercises would be subject to UN approval.
- American Companies would be put at an enormous disadvantage by disproportionate taxes and regulations. “Spreading the wealth” on a global scale.
- Disproportionate control by countries hostile to our own could make it far easier for them to influence American policy and elections. Don’t believe me? Consider this- Crude oil, now at less than $45 a barrel, was at $147 just 5 months ago.
- “Innocent passage” rules could hamper American anti-drug and anti-terrorism sweeps.
- Since the Tribunal could have subpoena power, unfriendly nations could create ‘’incidents’’ in order to fish for American technology and National Security secrets. Add frivolously awarded “damages” to this and you have just created the 21st century pirate. A pirate that cannot be challenged or prosecuted.
Would these manifestations lead us all the way to a one world government? That might be a bit of a stretch. Would they lead to a weakened and competitively disadvantaged America? Certainly.
Effect on the World’s poor
This brings us to a hidden result of such changes- one not so readily apparent to the naked eye. You see, the United States is not only the most benevolent Country on earth, (that is, the most willing to help the poor) but it is the most advanced (that is, the most able to help them). Transferring American wealth to third world nations (many with enmity towards the United States will not benefit the world’s poor. It will harm them.
Malnutrition and disease are not caused by a lack of food, water and medicine. They are caused by a lack of compassion, a lack of logistics and infrastructure and the cold and of oppressive, fanatical Islam, Communism and Totalitarianism. Attempting to aid the poor through global socialism will only succeed in worsening the problem many fold.
Human Rights and Religious freedom.
Reducing America’s stature as the World’s lone remaining military and economic super power, reduces our ability to leverage our strength to bring to bear positive change, expand human rights and democracy, free the oppressed and expand religious freedom. Giving the most leverage to the worst respecters of the Environment, human rights and freedom of religion is truly a foolish thing to do.
Competition.
Lessening global competition through the collectivist policies that L.O.S.T brings, discourages competition and free markets and, as a result, advances in food, medicine and technology suffer.
In th
e 1980’s, President Ronald Reagan rejected this collectivist nonsense. In the 90’s, it was slapped down by a Republican controlled Senate. The fragile Republican Senate minority should adopt, as a hallmark issue, preventing the adoption of this treaty.
Time will tell if they are up to the task.
~SonlitKnight
ANewtOne.com
Photo Credit:
Ten Dangerous U.N. Schemes Obama Could Buy Into
Part One: Obama and Kyoto II: A Wealth Redistributionist’s Dream, America’s Nightmare by Duane Lester of All American Blogger
Part Two: L.O.S.T. get LOST! by Sonlit Knight of A Newt One
Part Three: What Will a President Obama Likely Do With the U.N. Responsibility to Protect Doctrine? by Gray Rinehart of The GrayMan Writes.
Part Four: Why We Should Not Join the United Nations’ Alliance of Civilizations by Mr. Websmith of Mr. Websmith.
