Radio Infocyde 0013 UN Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST)

Radio Infocyde 0013 UN Law of the Sea Treaty

Listen to internet radio with infocyde on Blog Talk Radio

Direct MP3 Download (right click and save)

• Call in Number: (215) 383-5753
• Notes URL: http://infocyde.blogspot.com/2012/05/radio-infocyde-0013-un-law-of-sea.html
• Change: Boiler plate stuff to the back
• Conspiracy Search1: Epigenetical Transgenerational inheritance
• Conspiracy Search2: monsanto corn generational infertility
• The UN Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST)
  • Website: UN LOS Convention Site
  • The Law of the Sea Treaty, formally known as the Third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS III, was adopted in 1982. Its purpose is to establish a comprehensive set of rules governing the oceans and to replace previous U.N. Conventions on the Law of the Sea, one in 1958 (UNCLOS I) and another in 1960 (UNCLOS II), that were believed to be inadequate.
  • 157 Nations have signed, US has Not
  • Negotiated in the 1970s, the treaty was heavily influenced by the "New International Economic Order," a set of economic principles first formally advanced at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). That agenda called for "fairer" terms of trade and development financing for the so-called under-developed and developing nations.
  • Rejected by Reagan in 1982 because The Law of the Sea Treaty calls for technology transfers and wealth transfers from developed to undeveloped nations.
  • Treaty rewitten in 1994 to address some concerns, US bureacrats signed, but not rattified
  • So They waited, 2004 Senate Foreign Relations Committee Recommended Passage, Now Leon and Hillary at it Again
  • The Pro
    • Corporations believe will lead to establishment of mineral rights outside of exlusion zones, deap sea mining/gas exploration
    • Lessons navigational and mineral right ambiguity
  • The Con
    • The "right of innocent passage" is the right of any nation's ships to traverse continuously and expeditiously through the territorial waters of a coastal nation, subject to certain conditions.1 Under the Law of the Sea Treaty, such passage is conditioned on passing in a manner that isn't threatening to "sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence" or the "good order and security" of that nation.
    • Military Movement in 12 mile national and 200 mile economic exclusive zones - Removal of Innocent Passage
    • But Article 20 also adds something completely new: The requirement that "other underwater vehicles" navigate on the surface.12 The surfacing requirement would thus presumably apply to Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs) and Remotely Operated Underwater Vehicles (ROVs), among others (including, presumably, the next generation of such vessels) for the first time.
    • Article 110 of the Law of the Sea Treaty specifies military ships are "not justified in boarding [a foreign ship] unless there is reasonable grounds for suspecting that: (a) the ship is engaged in piracy; (b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade; (c) the ship is engaged in unauthorized broadcasting...; (d) the ship is without nationality or (e) ...the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship." Boarding of ships involved in the illicit drug trade is also permitted.15
      
      Note that boarding of ships engaged in "unauthorized broadcasts" is considered to be justified, but boarding ships carrying terrorists or weapons of mass destruction is not.
    • More "Lawers of the Sea Treaty - International adjudication
    • Weapons Restrictions under the guise of Enviromentalism - Active Sonar
      
      Greenpeace, for example, has said, "The benefits of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea are substantial, including its basic duties for states to protect and preserve the marine environment and to conserve marine living species."35 The Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC), for its part, cited the Law of the Sea Treaty's environmental provisions as an argument in its challenge of the Navy's use of so-called "intense active sonar" several years ago. The NRDC said, in part, "The United Nations Law of the Sea Convention... requires States 'to assess the potential effects... on marine environment'... of systems such as high intensity active sonar, and to take all measures 'necessary to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from any source'...
    • In a great ironic twist, the Law of the Sea Treaty - supported by many in the energy sector - may give environmentalists a blunt instrument to use against the energy industry.
      
      Article 212 of the treaty states, in part, "States shall adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from or through the atmosphere... States, acting especially through competent international organizations... shall endeavor to establish global and regional rules, standards and recommended practices and procedures to prevent, reduce and control pollution."38 This sounds like a directive to impose Kyoto Protocol-style regulations designed to reduce state emissions of greenhouse gases. These gases are emitted through the use of the very products the energy industry sells.
      
      But critics say clauses built into the treaty could directly harm American interests. They say it could force the U.S. to comply with unspecified environmental codes, and that the treaty gives environmental activists the legal standing to sue over river pollution and shut down industry, simply because rivers feed into the sea. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/12/lost-senate-moves-ratification-uns-law-sea-treaty/#ixzz1w1rI7Rxp
      
      Backdoor implementation of the Kyoto Protocol might be advanced by arguing that U.S.'s anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (one-quarter of such emissions world-wide) are warming the planet, causing irreparable harm to coral reefs, home to the world's most biologically-diverse marine ecosystems.
      
      Programme, Greenpeace International Executive Director Thilo Bode noted in 2000: Global warming is likely to have a big impact at sea... Sea levels have risen by an estimated 10-25 centimetres over the last century, and as this continues the waters will cover land and coastal habitats in many countries... Solving the environmental problems facing the oceans... is one of the greatest challenges facing humankind... No single nation or region can do this alone: it will require comprehensive international cooperation as required by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea."39
      
      "You've got an unaccountable tribunal that will surely be stacked with jurists hostile to our interests," said Chris Horner, author of "Red Hot Lies," a book critical of environmentalists. "This would never pass muster if the Senate held an open, public debate about this." Legal experts also warn that the treaty demands aid for landlocked countries that lack the access and technology to mine the deep seas -- and that it might not even benefit the U.S. at all. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/12/lost-senate-moves-ratification-uns-law-sea-treaty/#ixzz1w1s4DeEw
      
      "You have to pay royalties on the value of anything you extract (from the deep seabed), those royalties to be distributed as the new bureaucracy sees fit, primarily to landlocked countries and underdeveloped countries," said Steven Groves, a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. American money would also go to fund the International Seabed Authority, which Groves warned "would have the potential to become the most massive U.N. bureaucracy on the planet." "The whole theory of the treaty is that the world's oceans and everything below them are the common heritage of mankind," said Groves. "Very socialist." Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/12/lost-senate-moves-ratification-uns-law-sea-treaty/#ixzz1w1sHZiFM
      
      Environmental activists also look forward to using LOST Article 207, which directs countries to "adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from land-based sources." Treaty advocates publicly claim the provision is merely hortatory. Yet the mandate already has sparked litigation between Ireland and Britain. Moreover, Citizens for Global Solutions and the World Wildlife Federation argue that the convention will stop Russia from polluting the Arctic. They have yet to explain how LOST would bind Russia but not America. No wonder Bernard H. Oxman of the University of Miami warned LOST backers to shut up about their plans. He explained: "Experienced international lawyers know where many of the sensitive nerve endings of governments are. Where possible, they should try to avoid irritating them." Finally, the United Nations proclaims that LOST is not "a static instrument, but rather a dynamic and evolving body of law that must be vigorously safeguarded and its implementation aggressively advanced." If you like activist judges at the national level, imagine what you will get at the international level.
    • US Would abide while others do not...I.E. China (Spatley Islands)
    • Lawfare vs Hardware
      
      Misguised Attempt to use treaties in place of standing armed forces.
      
      Legions make the law legal
      
      Senate Democrats may not listen to conservative objections to the pact, but they should pay some attention to the views of people like Newton B. Jones of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers. “As recently as 1987,” he points out, “the Navy had 594 ships. At that time, we were not at war. Since then, despite growing threats from around the globe-the Middle East, Korea, China-we have built an average of only six ships a year, while decommissioning 20. The Navy’s fleet is now only 281 ships, less than half its size in 1987.” He goes on to note that “…numerous reports recommend a fleet of 55-75 submarines, but the Navy is building only one a year. Our submarine fleet has shrunk from 100 in 1990 to 53 today. The American Shipbuilding Association estimates that at current rates, China will have twice as many submarines as the United States in only five years.” In fact, the American Shipbuilding Association estimates that, if present trends continue, we will be down to a paltry 180 ships by 2024. Rather than build more ships, which could produce jobs for the Boilermakers union (which endorsed Obama for president) and Americans in general, Obama and Senate liberals would prefer to facilitate the hiring of more international lawyers to handle competing claims for access and resources in the oceans of the world. The treaty comes with a financial price-a global fee or tax payable to a United Nations-sanctioned body. Not coincidentally, Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, wrote the foreword for the book, The International Judge, a favorable treatment of foreign law and foreign judges. Chapter Two, titled, “International Judges: Who Are They and How Do They Get on the Courts?,” examines such topics as “the job market.” Lawyers get on these courts by lobbying for the jobs through the U.N. and getting more treaties passed to create more jobs. This is why groups like the American Society of International Law are in business and draw many top lawyers to their annual conventions.
      
      UNCLOS is a substitute for a strong Navy and was deliberately designed as such. The people who wrote the treaty were World Federalists such as Louis B. Sohn, who co-authored World Peace Through World Law, a blueprint for world government. This international lawyer, who mentored Harold Koh, Obama’s State Department Legal Adviser, sincerely believed that lawyers could help run the world as long as the international bureaucrats had sufficient power and resources through a strengthened United Nations. Sohn, who actually believed in a world army with nuclear weapons maintained by the U.N., saw UNCLOS as a stepping stone on the road to world government. In what could be a preview of the UNCLOS battle, Koh was recently confirmed by a Senate vote of 62-35. If Senate conservatives can line up 35 votes against UNCLOS, they will defeat the pact, because it requires two-thirds, or 67 votes, for approval. However, some of the senators who voted against Koh, such as Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, are solidly in favor of UNCLOS.
• Links
  • UN LOST Site
  • http://www.unlawoftheseatreaty.org/
  • http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/12/lost-senate-moves-ratification-uns-law-sea-treaty/#ixzz1w1rI7Rxp
  • http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA542LawoftheSeaTreaty.html
  • http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/paper-promises-vs-real-costs
  • http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-ambitious-u.n.-treaty-agenda/
• Where to Find Us
  • Radio: www.blogtalkradio.com/infocyde
  • Email: radioinfocyde[at]gmail.com
  • Web: http://infocyde.blogspot.com
  • Facebook: Radio Infocyde