Is the L.O.S.T. treaty good for us?

Question

The L.O.S.T. treaty gives UN control of the high seas and allows them to levy "fees" for it's use
It is being voted on in the senate very soon.
Is this good or bad for the USA?

I think it is bad news for USA and it's soveriegnty and we should want no part of it.
Globalists in our government seem to think otherwise.

Answer 1

If this mess is passed, we will be closer to the All Is LOST stage. If you put the Untied Nutjobs in charge of the oceans, all you will get is Officialized Piracy, kind of like what the UN Sleazekeepers inflicted on Bosnia and Kurdistan and Lebanon and all the other places where their corruption and cowardice ran amuck. Why not just put Captain Hook in charge of the oceans instead? At least he is honest about being a pirate.

Answer 2

The Law of the Sea Treaty ("Treaty") was conceived in 1982 by the United Nations (U.N.) as a method for governing activities on, over, and beneath the ocean's surface. It focuses primarily on navigational and transit issues. The Treaty also contains provisions on the regulation of deep-sea mining and the redistribution of wealth to underdeveloped countries--as well as sections regarding marine trade, pollution, research, and dispute resolution. The Bush Administration has expressed interest in joining the International Seabed Authority and has urged the U.S. Senate to ratify the Treaty. However, many of former President Ronald Reagan's original objections to the Treaty--while modified--still hold true today, and many of the possible national security advantages are already in place.

Answer 3

It would establish rules governing the uses of the of the world's oceans – treating waters more than 200 nautical miles off coasts as the purview of a new international U.N. bureaucracy, the International Seabed Authority

The ISA would have the authority to set production controls for ocean mining, drilling and fishing, regulate ocean exploration, issue permits and settle disputes in its own new "court."

Companies seeking to mine or fish would be required to apply for a permit, paying a royalty fee

Critics also point out the new U.N. agency would have the right to compete directly with private companies in those profit-making activities.

The U.S. would have only one vote of 140 – and no veto power as it has on the U.N. Security Council.

The Bush administration claims the initiative for reintroduction of the treaty comes from the military, which likes the 12-mile territorial limits it places on national claims to waters. Yet, critics point out international law already protects non-aggressive passage, including non-wartime activities of military ships.

One of the main authors of LOST not only admired Karl Marx but was an ardent advocate of the Marxist-oriented New International Economic Order. Elisabeth Mann Borgese, a socialist who ran the World Federalists of Canada, played a critical role in crafting and promoting LOST, as WND reported in 2005.

Borgese was hailed by her U.N. supporters as the "Mother of the Oceans" or "First Lady of the Oceans." She died in 2002.

In the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing last week, Bush administration officials were repeatedly embarrassed by tough questioning from Sen. David Vitter, R-La., who is leading the opposition to ratification.

For instance, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte testified the U.N. body established by the treaty has "no jurisdiction over marine pollution disputes involving land-based sources."

"Why is there a section entitled pollution from land-based sources?" questioned Vitter.

Vitter also questioned who decides what is considered military activity under the treaty.

"We will decide that. We consider that within our sovereign prerogative," said Negroponte.

"Where does the treaty say that we decide that and an arbitral body does not decide that?" questioned Vitter.

Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England answered: "My understanding – and I'll ask my lawyer behind me – that that's in the treaty that we make that determination and that's not subject to review by anyone else."

"It's not in the treaty because I point to Article 298 1b where it simply says disputes concerning military activities are not subject to dispute resolution," explained Vitter. "But it doesn't say who decides what is and what is not a military activity."

England conceded the point.

"We say it is up to us, but nobody else in the world says it is up to us," Said Vitter said.

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said the United States had special military and commercial interests as the globe's only superpower, interests that the treaty did not take into account. He said many of the concerns over loss of national sovereignty that surfaced in the recent debate over immigration reform were surfacing once again in the Law of the Sea debate.

What do you think?

Answer 4

Why put the US under the UN?