Like a bad penny that one cannot get rid of, the idea of giving the world’s oceans, some 70% of the globe, to the United Nations is once again before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The “full court press,” led by Committee Chairman John Kerry, heard testimony favoring the idea from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey. Additional hearings are scheduled this month with a favorable vote scheduled, they hope, before July. President Barack Obama would like a full Senate vote before November to avoid the ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty from becoming an election issue but is willing to wait, if need be, until December. Then, while his party retains control of the Senate, quietly force it through before January.
This is not a party issue. Presidents and secretaries of state from both Republican and Democratic Parties have favored this idea. Virtually all administration leaders from either party, and the advocates noted above, are Council on Foreign Relations members, an organization decidedly globalist in philosophy, and thought to be the mother of this idea.
The treaty evolved out of a series of United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea between 1973 and 1982, with the third such convention, known as UNCLOS III, being the most important. It is designed to create government dictating every aspect of the world’s oceans. What began as an effort “to codify certain navigational rights had … morphed into a ‘constitution for the oceans.’ ”
So what does the Law of the Sea Treaty, commonly, and hereafter, referred to as LOST, do? All ocean bordering nations were allowed a total jurisdiction outreach of 12 nautical miles from their shoreline, called Territorial Waters, plus another 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone with sole exploitation rights over all natural resources. All ocean water thereafter was International Water, controlled and managed by organizations created by the treaty but under the oversight of the United Nations. Under this new treaty the United Nations would own and control 70% of the earth’s surface.
Presently nations share fishing rights, treasure hunting or other extraction activities on a first come first serve basis and pay taxes on such gains to their respective countries—every country owns the sea. Under LOST, when ratified by a 2/3rds vote of the U.S. Senate, any wealth extracted from the oceans would be taxed by the United Nations alone. LOST creates the Seabed Authority with power not only to tax and distribute the monies gathered but to manage ocean research, impose production quotas, and create a multinational court to render and enforce its judgments; in short, a world government over seven-tenths of the globe. The United States would be subject to an international government of bureaucrats, none elected, and few would be sensitive to traditions of our republic. Moreover, LOST favors what is known as the New International Economic Order, which all socialists and globalists want—the redistribution of wealth to poorer nations.
Of interest is the fact that the only president to oppose LOST since its inception, also had the least affiliation to the globalist Council on Foreign Relations. President Ronald Reagan very publicly, refused to sign primarily because of the treaties threat to U.S. sovereignty. “He also dismissed the State Department staff that helped negotiate it. And in case anyone didn’t get the message, he sent special envoy Donald Rumsfeld on a globe-trotting mission to explain his opposition and urged other nations to follow suit.” Moreover, in a 1978-radio address entitled “Ocean Mining,” he said, “no national interest of ours could justify handing sovereign control of two-thirds of the Earth’s surface over to the Third World.” His new negotiator, Ambassador James Malone, later explained why Reagan’s vehement opposition to LOST, “The treaty’s provisions were intentionally designed to promote a new world order—a form of global collectivism… that seeks ultimately the redistribution of the world’s wealth through a complex system of manipulative central economic planning and bureaucratic coercion” (Still lost on the Law of the Sea Treaty, Brandenton Herald, Edwin Meese III, June 5, 2012).
So far the Senate, as before has not ratified LOST, but can they withstand the “full court press” to do so now? Twenty-seven Senators have indicated that they will not support ratification. Many more are needed to decisively stop this action. Do you know where your senators are on this issue? All globalists must be removed from power or this “bad penny” will return again and again until the United Nations owns and controls the oceans. U.S. Sovereignty is at stake.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
As other nations extended their territorial sea as far as 200 nautical miles from shore, the need to reach an international agreement that protected traditional navigational freedoms became more intense. Also, as the economic potential of minerals found on the deepest ocean floor attracted commercial interest, this too entered into the intentional debate.
The result of the negotiations of the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea are a 12 miles territorial sea with an improved definition of the right of innocent passage; the right to transit international strait without the restrictions of the innocent passage regime regardless of whether the strait falls within 12 miles of foreign shores; it recognizes national jurisdiction over ocean and seabed resources out to 200 nautical miles; it also provides rules and mechanism to obtain international recognition of jurisdiction over seabed resources far beyond the 200 mile EEZ.
For mineral resources on the deep seabed beyond national jurisdiction, the convention establishes an international organization (one that is not part of the UN and in which the US has a permanent veto over adoption or amendment of its rules, over its distribution of funds and over and amendments to the system - thereby protecting US veto power). The authority is a claims registry that reviews claims in order of submission for commence with a nondiscriminatory checklist of criteria. The success of this organization may be measured by the approval of a full dozen applications for recognition of exclusive rights to large areas of the seabed (and denial of none) and the recent submission of 5 more applications, including ones from the United Kingdom and Belgium.
President Reagan opposed the Law of the Sea Convention as it stood when he took office. n January 29th, 1982, he set six criteria related to deep seabed mining and state that if these six criteria were me he would sign the convention and ask the Senate to give its advice and consent. The US did not accomplish this in 1982, but in 1990 foreign countries came to the US to say they thought Reagan's criteria could be met. They were correct, and in 1994 the Agreement on Implementation of the seabed provisions was opened for signature. This agreement met in full all of Reagan's criteria and represents a great accomplishment due entirely to a steadfast commitment to fulfill Reagan's criteria.
Finally, to address the financial issues of seabed exploitation. The seabed is an international area, not sovereign territory of the United States. The Convention allows the international community to share in a portion of the revenues from the international area, but the 1994 agreement ensures that such sharing is based on land-based royalty systems. It does not preclude flag states from their own revenue sharing systems or taxes. In the area of the extended shelf beyond 200 nautical miles and where the 1958 conventions failed to determine jurisdiction, both the coastal state and the international comity share in the financial benefits in a package deals that extends US control far beyond any previous limit. But the convention also protects our interests by requiring that the international share be collected by the United States and sent through the international authority to the states party to the convention - it does not permit distribution to the United Nations or to non-states (and the US has a permanent veto power to block inappropriate distribution of funds). These provisions are rooted int he initial proposal of the Nixon Administration in 1970 and have the full support of the US oil and gas industry.
The Law of the Sea Convention is not a grand plot to impose world government on the seas. Instead it is a legal agreement to recognize national interests, rights and obligations at sea, to provide a business-friendly environment for development of deep seabed resources, and a protection for national rights and sovereignty.