So Where is the Outrage over Law of the Sea Treaty

[Waitone]

Just gotta ask.  How come no huffing and puffing over the senate's impending ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty?  I can point to numerous initiative the president and congress have sponsored over the last 5 years which are far less damaging and dangerous to US interest than LOST.  Dubai ports fiasco is a case in point.  Indirect danger with Dubai yet LOST would cede control of the oceans to the UN.  Seems the world has done just fine with the US navy ensuring navigation rights to everyone. 

I'm just now coming up to speed on the treaty's provisions and it is scary.  It is sufficiently bothersome to me that I write my senators every couple of days questioning specific provisions. 

[MechAg94]

http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/wm470.cfm

Found this short read on some major provisions.  Strange why Bush would push this, but I guess not so surprising.

[De Selby]

What is it that should outrage me about this treaty? This is a fairly mundane policy dispute-I don't see the enormous stakes at issue for America's future here.

What is so scary, in particular?

Edit: Here's a speech by John Negroponte that seems to do a good overview of the issues:  http://www.state.gov/s/d/2007/92921.htm

Mr. Chairman, I am confident that the Committee will agree that U.S. accession to the Convention is the best way to secure navigational and economic rights related to the law of the sea. I hope I have convinced the Committee that arguments against joining the Convention are completely unfounded, that there are not viable alternatives to joining, and that we cannot just go out and negotiate another treaty, much less one that is more favorable. And we certainly cannot have much influence over development of the law of the sea in the 21st Century from outside the Convention.

[Waitone]

Here is a bibliography of argumentation opposing ratification of the treaty.
http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/LOST/

A number of provisions bother me.  Right at the top of the list is the treaty will give an agency of the UN the right to tax governments and companies.  It will provide the UN a free standing source of revenue completely apart from the dues of its membership.  The idea of an NGO gaining the right to tax sovereign governments and non-political entities is just chilling.

[De Selby]

Right at the top of the list is the treaty will give an agency of the UN the right to tax governments and companies.

John Negroponte's response was:

Myth: The Convention gives the UN its first opportunity to levy taxes.

Reality: Although the Convention was negotiated under UN auspices, it is separate from the UN and its institutions are not UN bodies. Further, there are no taxes of any kind on individuals or corporations or others. Concerning oil/gas production within 200 nautical miles of shore, the United States gets exclusive sovereign rights to seabed resources within the largest such area in the world. There are no finance-related requirements in the EEZ. Concerning oil/gas production beyond 200 nautical miles of shore, the United States is one of a group of countries potentially entitled to extensive continental shelf beyond its EEZ. Countries that benefit from an Extended Continental Shelf have no requirements for the first five years of production at a site; in the sixth year of production, they are to make payments equal to 1% of production, increasing by 1% a year until capped at 7% in the twelfth year of production. If the United States were to pay royalties, it would be because U.S. oil and gas companies are engaged in successful production beyond 200 nautical miles. But if the United States does not become a party, U.S. companies will likely not be willing or able to engage in oil/gas activities in such areas, as I explained earlier.

Concerning mineral activities in the deep seabed, which is beyond U.S. jurisdiction, an interested company would pay an application fee for the administrative expenses of processing the application. Any amount that did not get used for processing the application would be returned to the applicant. The Convention does not set forth any royalty requirements for production; the United States would need to agree to establish any such requirements.

[Waitone]

And from http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=E75713CB-3942-4BA2-8CC9-C2DED7CD8328

Q: Some supporters of the treaty say it contains no mention of a tax at all?
A: They dont call it a tax, thats true. They call it fees or royalties. But the money flows to the International Seabed Authority for the right to go after certain gas and oil and mineral deposits. Theres no question about this. The United Nations Association, which is backing the treaty, has described it as providing the first source of independent revenue for the United Nations.

Q: What's the biggest and most important thing wrong with LOST?
A: The biggest thing wrong with it is that it is yet another United Nations project to give the world body more power, authority and influence over world affairs. There are some, including some former State Department legal advisers, who contend that this treaty has nothing to do with the UN, that it is a separate organization. But the official acronym of the treaty is UNCLOS -- the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The preamble of the treaty makes three mentions to the UN role in shaping it. The treaty has to be carried out -- according to its own language -- in compliance with the UN charter. The idea that the UN -- a notoriously corrupt and incompetent body, which squandered billions in the oil-for-food program with Iraq -- should now have jurisdiction over seven-tenths of the world surface, with money coming from American companies, is ludicrous.

This is why I am puzzled.  Evidently there exists threats to our sovereignty yet little public discussion of the treaty's merit.  The fact that it has been out there for 20+ years and renegotiated several times does not give me a warm of fuzzy feeling.  Senator Lugar shepherding it through the senate also does nothing to poof out my skirt.

[De Selby]

Waitone,

How does regulating oceanbeds more than 200 miles from the coast constitute a threat to US sovereignty??? I'm not sure how that computes.  As Negroponte notes, the only scheme under which money goes to the ISA is if a US company is way out in the ocean, successfully drilling for minerals.

And that authority covers only minerals-nothing else.  So what's the threat to sovereignty?

It's simply untrue to say the treaty gives the ISA "jurisdiction over 7/10ths of the world's surface."  It doesn't give it anything except the power to regulate deep sea mining that isn't within the 200 mile EEZ of any nation. 

[Matthew Carberry]

Why does that need regulation at all?  If you can afford to do it, and you aren't on someone elses territory, have at it.

[Art Eatman]

shootinstudent, absent piracy, why should anybody have any regulatory authority of any sort over private industry efforts in seabed or subseabed mining?  Whose business is it? 

Alternative phrasing:  What the hell does the UN have to do with private efforts offshore?  Permits?  Fees?  Why?  What is the UN gonna do for Chevron or Global Marine or whomever?  Improve the technology?  Offer the protection of the UN Navy?

It's bad enough that governments got greedy and laid claim to 200 miles offshore.  Better they stayed at the three-league (Texas) or three-mile limit as with other states on our coasts.

LOST is nothing but a money grab for the benefit of land-locked nations, with the money coming from the UN if those nations' despots behave properly.  ("Behave properly" means voting against the U.S. in UN issues.)

Art

[Sergeant Bob]

Here's the preamble, or "mission statement" if you will, of the UNCLOS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA

AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
PART XI OF THE CONVENTION

PREAMBLE

The States Parties to this Convention,

Prompted by the desire to settle, in a spirit of mutual understanding and cooperation, all issues relating to the law of the sea and aware of the historic significance of this Convention as an important contribution to the maintenance of peace, justice and progress for all peoples of the world,

Noting that developments since the United Nations Conferences on the Law of the Sea held at Geneva in 1958 and 1960 have accentuated the need for a new and generally acceptable Convention on the law of the sea,

Conscious that the problems of ocean space are closely interrelated and need to be considered as a whole,

Recognizing the desirability of establishing through this Convention, with due regard for the sovereignty of all States, a legal order for the seas and oceans which will facilitate international communication, and will promote the peaceful uses of the seas and oceans, the equitable and efficient utilization of their resources, the conservation of their living resources, and the study, protection and preservation of the marine environment,

Bearing in mind that the achievement of these goals will contribute to the realization of a just and equitable international economic order which takes into account the interests and needs of mankind as a whole and, in particular, the special interests and needs of developing countries, whether coastal or land-locked,

Desiring by this Convention to develop the principles embodied in resolution 2749 (XXV) of 17 December 1970 in which the General Assembly of the United Nations solemnly declared inter alia that the area of the seabed and ocean floor and the subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, as well as its resources, are the common heritage of mankind, the exploration and exploitation of which shall be carried out for the benefit of mankind as a whole, irrespective of the geographical location of States,

Believing that the codification and progressive development of the law of the sea achieved in this Convention will contribute to the strengthening of peace, security, cooperation and friendly relations among all nations in conformity with the principles of justice and equal rights and will promote the economic and social advancement of all peoples of the world, in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations as set forth in the Charter,

Affirming that matters not regulated by this Convention continue to be governed by the rules and principles of general international law,

Have agreed as follows:

Full Text


Skim through some parts of the treaty. You'll begin to believe Karl is still alive,

[De Selby]

Why does that need regulation at all?  If you can afford to do it, and you aren't on someone elses territory, have at it.

So that American companies can be guaranteed access to a particular plot, and won't have to worry about foreign governments depleting it or stepping in to the very same mining/gas extraction zone.  That's why.

[De Selby]

shootinstudent, absent piracy, why should anybody have any regulatory authority of any sort over private industry efforts in seabed or subseabed mining?  Whose business is it? 

One major reason is outlined in Negroponte's speech-to provide the kind of stability and guarantees to private enterprises needed to make drilling and exploration worthwhile.  With the treaty, you get a guaranteed framework for respecting drilling rights after you've done the work to exploit a piece of the ocean.  Without it, what do you have?

LOST is nothing but a money grab for the benefit of land-locked nations, with the money coming from the UN if those nations' despots behave properly.  ("Behave properly" means voting against the U.S. in UN issues.)

Art

Again, I'd read the treaty and the US commentary on it.  It's a good deal for American exploration and mining interests-doesn't have much impact for the average Joe in Rwanda or some other under-developed state, but it's pretty good for America.

[LAK]

Bush is pushing this because he is a globalist like his father and cronies. As are all the WWF stars "contending" the next election. One of the first things Ron Paul would do in office would be to serve the U.N. their eviction notice in N.Y.

------------------------------------------------

http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

[Sergeant Bob]

Bush is pushing this because he is a globalist like his father and cronies. As are all the WWF stars "contending" the next election. One of the first things Ron Paul would do in office would be to serve the U.N. their eviction notice in N.Y.

Are you an Amway salesman?

[brer]

With the exception of the tax, I see this as the UN doing its job.

It is supposed to make treaties that ease conflict between nations.  As shooting student already has said, this will make it far easier to develope a lot of these resources.

[Manedwolf]

So that American companies can be guaranteed access to a particular plot, and won't have to worry about foreign governments depleting it or stepping in to the very same mining/gas extraction zone.  That's why.

That's why we have a navy.

[roo_ster]

The UN has no way to enforce its decisions on bad actors.  In the end, it will come down to the US, UK, or some other rational country's navy to do the heavy lifting while UN kleptocrats lift canapes.

[Matthew Carberry]

So that American companies can be guaranteed access to a particular plot, and won't have to worry about foreign governments depleting it or stepping in to the very same mining/gas extraction zone.  That's why.

That's why we have a navy.

Exactly.

And if someone has the scratch to make it work out that far, more power to them.  If no one owns it, that means whoever can develop it and defend it first gets to use it.

9 times out of 10 that will either be an American company or a big multi-national which is all about free trade so we will benefit without locking ourselves into a treaty that is, at root, about wealth redistribution.

[De Selby]

I have to disagree that the Navy is the best way to regulate seabed mining.  In the first place, US interests can't be sure that the US navy will risk conflict to defend the mining operations of any particular company; in the second, the Navy can't compensate you for monetary damages caused by others.  A legal body that binds every maritime power on the specific issues of mining can-and that's the kind of remedy you need to be available when there are potential business disputes.

Paying out a percentage of a profitable drilling site to provide for that sort of regulation seems to be a pretty good deal-it's certainly more predictable than hoping the Navy will send warships to prevent interference with your operations, and it gives you the ability to extract remedies should there be a dispute, which the Navy does not do.

[Matthew Carberry]

The defense of the company in international waters should first be the responsibility of that company.

A US company that can afford to make deep-sea mining practical will have their defense budgeted, which should be sufficient for defense against non-state actors. 

If an actual foreign navy attempts to "steal" the private property then we're in the same situation we'd be in with this treaty.  Either the USN or a friendly power will intervene or it won't, the UN has no ability to act and there are very few nations that can exert power outside the littorals.

If another private company attempts to interfere what exactly is the UN going to do in terms of enforcing reparations that other existing free trade bodies can't do?

There are existing international treaties that cover almost all of this stuff without restricting our freedom of action nor stealing money for redistribution.

[De Selby]

carebear, the problem in particular is that the international seabed isn't private property, and it's better to regulate  international space by means of a limited forum rather than a general one (from the US perspective, anyway).  The ICJ is a disaster zone for US interests-handing over all disputes over the seabed to a limited forum, where only seabed mining and drilling can be raised and nothing else, is good for business and diplomacy.

In support of this view, most of the information I can find claims that industry representatives are backing the adoption of the treaty-an article with discussion here:  http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2004/0516energy_sandalow.aspx

I don't think internationalism is terribly good for national questions, but for land and activities that are obviously not within any nation's sovereignty, this looks to be a pretty good, limited solution.

[Matthew Carberry]

I'll have to look into more I guess.

But there is no "ownership by humanity in general", that's statist clap-trap.

If it is unowned, once you improve it, and can defend it, you own it.

[LAK]

Bob,

No; Amway doesn't sell guns - very dissappointing.

[longeyes]

When the tough stuff comes up, "the world" and "humanity" are nowhere to be seen.  More often than not it comes back to the U.S. military doing what has to be done. 

The U.S. should worry about other nation's interests when they start worrying about ours.  The global view seems to be that it's okay to screw Uncle Sam because, well, he has way too much anyway and what he's got is ill-gotten.  Our job is not to wake up sharing that view.  We didn't get here by exploiting others but by mastering nature, despite what academia wants its charges to believe.

[Waitone]

Found an interesting article flagging a few warts.
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/global.php?id=1384798

Of particular interest to me is the debate over whether or not LOST can regulate source of pollution on land that end up in the seas.  Seems administration officials are not clear on whether or not LOST actually allows LOST to do so.  My question is why the question.  Does the treaty allow a UN organization to regulate US environmental standards?  Why are we considering the ratification of a treaty when government officials are not sure of the provisions.  He is the passage in question

Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte told the Senate committee that the U.N. body established by the treaty has no jurisdiction over marine pollution disputes involving land-based sources. He said, thats just not covered by the treaty. Negropontes sidekick, State Department Legal Adviser John B. Bellinger III, said, It clearly does not allow regulation over land-based pollution sources. That would stop at the waters edge. But Vitter shot back, &why is there a section entitled pollution from land-based sources? Not only is there a section by that name, Vitter pointed out, but there is a section on enforcement. The section is Article 207, Pollution from land-based sources. Anybody can look it up. But apparently our top officials and lawyers have not. Either that or they are trying to mislead the people about the ramifications of this treaty. In either case, we are sunk if this treaty goes through.

Seems to me one of the big flaps over the Patriot Act I & II was our congressional reps weren't able to read the legislation before it was passed.  I'll simply ignore a whole series of related questions and move on to the LOST flap.  Why the debate over provisions of the treaty.  My naive mind says know what you are buying before you buy it.