America’s Sovereignty Is At Risk: The Law Of Sea Treaty May Still Pass

Liberals have been trying to bind America with the Law of Sea Treaty since Reagan was in office, and conservatives who care about our country’s sovereignty have been fighting it the whole time. In all fairness, the treaty has been improved over time. This is why you’ve seen the National Association of Manufacturers, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Navy get on board. However, when this country is considering signing on to a far reaching, high impact treaty like the LOST, you have to consider the all of the possible consequences.

As: Jim DeMint notes, there are rather significant downsides to LOST.

* It would act as a backdoor Kyoto Protocol, forcing us into cap and trade policies that would destroy jobs and harm our economy.

* It would cost the U.S. trillions of dollars in international royalties to nations, including state sponsors of terror like Sudan and “undemocratic, despotic or brutal governments in Belarus, Burma, China or Zimbabwe.”

* Former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton warned it would embolden China, “constrain U.S. naval activities, and do nothing to resolve China’s expansive maritime territorial claims.”

* Radical environmental groups have lined up in support of LOST.

* President Ronald Reagan strongly opposed the treaty as a threat to U.S. sovereignty.

Of those five reasons, the first two are by far the most significant. Here’s: DeMint explaining how the United States: could be forced to adopt Cap and Trade via LOST.

LOST compels states to “adopt laws and regulations” to “implement applicable international rules and standards established through competent international organizations or diplomatic conference to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from land-based sources.” In short, this means if an international body established any guidelines regarding energy emissions or climate change, the United States could be sued for failing to abide by it.

International organizations such as the United Nations already treat carbon as a pollutant. Because of this, LOST acts as a “backdoor” Kyoto Protocol.

LOST dictates that disputes, environmental or otherwise, be settled by a five-member arbitration panel. That panel would be made up of two representatives each from the parties involved in the dispute and one deciding vote. If the two parties cannot agree on the critical fifth arbiter, the deciding vote would be appointed by the U.N. secretary-general.

Imagine if the United States got into a dispute with France or Cuba. We should not trust a U.N.-appointed judge to be an intermediary between the United States and other nations.

If we sign onto LOST it’s not a question of “if” this will happen, the only question will be “when.” LOST would also force American companies to: funnel trillions of dollars that go into the American Treasury today to other nations around the globe.

If the U.S. joined LOST, it would be required to pay “international royalties” beginning in the sixth year of production at each exploration site on the (extended continental shelf). Starting in year six, it would pay 1% of the total production to the authority. Thereafter, the royalty rate increases in increments of 1 percentage point per year until year 12, when it reaches 7%. The royalty rate remains at 7% until production ceases. In sum, starting in the 12th year of production, about :½ of the revenue that would otherwise go to the U.S. Treasury would instead be sent to the authority.

So who would benefit from this American largesse? The final say regarding distribution of Article 82 royalties is the “assembly,” a body made up of more than 160 countries. The United States would be powerless in the assembly, where it has only a single vote, to prevent the transfer of royalties to repugnant regimes. The assembly may vote to distribute royalties to undemocratic, despotic or brutal governments in Belarus, Burma, China or Zimbabwe–all members of LOST.

Perhaps the funds will go to regimes that are merely corrupt. Thirteen of the world’s 20 most corrupt nations according to Transparency International are parties to LOST. Even Cuba and Sudan, both considered state sponsors of terrorism, could receive these “international royalties.”

Those who favor U.S. accession to LOST must ask themselves why the United States should siphon off wealth from its own continental shelf for the benefit of foreign countries that cannot or will not spend the necessary resources to develop their own continental shelves. Instead of diverting U.S. revenues to such dubious purposes, the Treasury should retain any wealth derived from the U.S. ECS for the benefit of the American people.

When America is running a masssive deficit, how in the world can it make sense to send our tax dollars to nations like China, especially when we’re borrowing money from in the first place? Additionally, if Burma, Zimbabwe, and other Third World hellholes want American help developing their continental shelves, let them give an American company a percentage of the profits in exchange for their aid instead of being funded by the American taxpayers.

Without a question, this treaty should be rejected. In fact, it shouldn’t get a single Republican vote. Unfortunately,: only 30 Republicans in the Senate: have been willing to sign on to a letter opposing the Law of Sea Treaty. If your senator isn’t on this list, pick up the phone,: call him: , and ask him to publicly commit to opposing LOST.

  • Jon Kyl
  • Jim Inhofe
  • Roy Blunt
  • Pat Roberts
  • David Vitter
  • Ron Johnson
  • John Cornyn
  • Jim DeMint
  • Tom Coburn
  • John Boozman
  • Rand Paul
  • Jim Risch
  • Mike Lee
  • Jeff Sessions
  • Mike Crapo
  • Orrin Hatch
  • John Barrasso
  • Richard Shelby
  • John Thune
  • Richard Burr
  • Saxby Chambliss
  • Dan Coats
  • John Hoeven
  • Roger Wicker
  • Marco Rubio
  • Jim Moran
  • Dean Heller
  • Pat Toomey
  • Chuck Grassley
  • Mitch McConnell

Leave a Comment

Permalinks


Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!

Send this to a friend