The Senate may vote at any time to ratify the decades-old United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). As if surrendering maritime authority to the UN's International Seabed Authority is not bad enough, LOST could also approve the Kyoto Protocol by default.

Follow this link to the original source: "Permission Slip for the Sea"

COMMENTARY:

It seems as though warnings about the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) have become somewhat of a case of "the boy who cried wolf." The treaty was rejected in 1982 under President Ronald Reagan because it did not "satisfy the objectives sought by the United States." The treaty has been a lingering threat in the Senate since it was rejected 25 years ago.

If ratified, LOST would pose a huge threat to the security and economy of the United States. Briefly, LOST would transfer maritime jurisdiction to the UN's International Seabed Authority (ISA), and establish international laws to govern areas that are currently protected by the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard. Furthermore, LOST would also give the ISA the power regulate ocean research and exploration as well as impose quotas for deep-sea mining and oil production. Since 70 percent of Earth's resources are covered by the oceans and other water-ways, relinquishing such control could result in the loss of control over vital undersea resources that have not yet even been discovered.

(Article continues below)



The Law of the Sea Treaty runs to over 200 pages. Within the LOST text are several problematic mandates that would damage the sovereignty of the United States. One mandate includes the continuation of the ISA, which is headquartered in Jamaica. But another lesser-known mandate involves an environmental agenda which could lead to ratifying the highly criticized Kyoto Protocol by default. Article 213 of LOST requires states to adopt "laws and regulations…to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from land-based sources."

The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held a hearing on LOST on October 4. The prepared testimony given by the several witnesses is evidence of the fact that LOST is a real threat, and could be ratified at any time by the Senate. Even statements made by the treaty's supporters are interesting. Consider:

Opponents seem to think that if the U.S. declines to ratify the Law of the Sea, the United States can avoid any multi-lateral responsibilities or entanglements related to the oceans...the Law of the Sea will continue to form the basis of maritime law regardless of whether the U.S. is a party. Consequently, the United States cannot insulate itself from the Convention merely by declining to ratify.

--Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)

In other words, Senator Lugar is arguing that LOST will determine maritime law if the United States refuses to ratify the treaty. This begs the obvious question: if that were the case, why would the Senate have to vote to ratify it at all?

Here is another statement of support for LOST:

The Law of the Sea Convention supports our ability to operate wherever, whenever, and however needed under the authority of widely accepted law.

--Admiral Vern Clark, USN (Ret.) Former Chief of Naval Operations

Notice that Admiral Clark affirms that the United States would be subject to the authority of a "widely accepted law." The law he is referring to is not U.S. law, but the governing body of LOST, the International Seabed Authority. It is this broad acceptance of international law that could trap the U.S. into being forced to accept other agendas such as the aforementioned Kyoto Protocol.

The same day the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee conducted their hearing on LOST, the Oregon Republican Party adopted a resolution to oppose the treaty. Readers who oppose this treaty can contact their Senators and urge them to reject LOST when it comes up for ratification by clicking here.

The United States must maintain control over our territorial waters in order to protect us against foreign threats, as well as for the exploration of off-shore resources (both known and unknown) that may boost our economy and energy needs.