L.O.S.T.

It would seem that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, also called the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), has not died an unlamented natural death within the hallowed halls of the US Congress. Once again Congress is seriously considering ratifying this insult to America, thus surrendering yet another portion of our national sovereignty to the UN, apparently because they don’t know what else to do. (They might try declaring an extended congressional recess until we can elect a whole new congress, or at least let this nation fix its own problems without their esteemed “assistance”, but that’s a bit much to ask I suppose.) The Law of the Sea Treaty originated as part of the United Nations' agenda known as the "New International Economic Order" (which is a means for the UN bureaucrats to take over the world). The convention covers such issues as fishing and navigation, but the controversy arose over seabed mining. In essence, the treaty was designed to transfer wealth and technology from the industrialized nations to the Third World. It applies "eminent domain" to give the UN the power to seize technology and share it with anyone who might request it, including potential enemy states. Our new Vice-president, Joe Biden, who has never seen a binding treaty he didn't like, is leading the ratification efforts in the Senate.

Anyway, LOST is the international agreement that resulted from the third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), which took place from 1973 through 1982. It defines the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world's oceans, and establishes guidelines for the management of marine resources. To date 157 nations and the EU have joined in the Convention. It’s now generally regarded as international law on maritime issues. As it presently stands, the UN has no direct role in the implementation of the Convention. But… there is a role played by UN auxiliary organizations such as the International Maritime Organization, the International Whaling Commission, and the International Seabed Authority. The UNCLOS replaces the older “freedom of the seas” concept that dates from the 17th century and has served the world quite well since that time. National rights were limited to a specified distance from their coastline, usually three miles according to the 'cannon shot' rule. All waters beyond that were considered international waters, open to use by all nations but belonging to none. During the 20th century some nations expressed an understandable desire to extend their national maritime claims to include mineral resources, to protect national fisheries, and to enforce assorted pollution regulations. This has led to claims of “territorial waters” ranging from the original three miles to upwards of two hundred or more miles by different nations, such as President Truman’s 1945 extension of United States control of the sea to include the natural resources on our continental shelf, and Libya’s not so smart military claim to the entire Gulf of Sidra. There are some parts of LOST that I could logically support, as it would simplify many parts of international law, standardize national maritime boundries, put a serious crimp in the activities of pollutors, and seriously reduce overfishing. There are however a number of flies in the ointment so to speak. The issue of varying claims of territorial waters was raised in 1967 and in 1973 at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. In an attempt to reduce groups of nations dominating the negotiations, the conference used a consensus process rather than majority vote. With more than 160 nations participating, the conference lasted until 1982, once again proving the theory that an international committee has plenty of heads but no brains!

Some of the conservation provisions would provide for non-U.S. environmental organizations to affect our domestic environmental policies by pursuing legal action in both US and international courts. What this means is that if some foreign entity decided that farm runoff in Idaho was polluting the Columbia River, and due to that rivers connection with the Pacific Ocean, an International Court could legally order John Q. Farmer in Idaho to refrain from using the creek running through his back pasture, for any purpose. In addition, there is a requirement that nations either harvest their entire allowable fisheries catch in certain areas or give the surplus to other nations. With this, if the US decided to limit salmon fishing to preserve the species, any outside nation would have the legal right to enter US waters with the intent of catching whatever is left. This obviously could result in UN mandated overfishing, and the end of our shrinking salmon runs.

This also requires UN licensing of ocean users, the fees and taxes thus levied on economic activities in the ocean areas by the ISA would be, in effect, a form of 'taxation without representation'. Like so many other UN activities, no nation would have any say in establishing those fees and taxes, even though their citizens would be indirectly taxed through business and governmental activities. The treaty would also require all ocean vessels, including unmanned submarines used for mine detection and clearing, to exercise the right of innocent passage, which means they must navigate on the surface “showing their flag” in any territorial waters (that’s going to make naval counter-mine warfare somewhat difficult). Yet another choice tid-bit of the navigational clause (which goes to show just how silly this thing really is) effects the rights of passage of aircraft (civil or military) flying over the Earths oceans. By logical extension that can also be interperted to include spacecraft orbiting the earth, which could put a real dent in the future of space exploration!

Two decades ago President Reagan refused to sign the treaty. The then Ambassador to the UN Jeane Kirkpatrick, testified that United States ratification of the treaty “Viewed from the perspective of U.S. interests and Reagan Administration principles, it was a bad bargain," and that "its ratification will diminish our capacity for self-government, including, ultimately, our capacity for self-defense." U.S. leadership caused the Europeans and even the Russians stayed out, and eventually a good number of countries acknowledged the treaty's flaws. Still, treaties attract diplomats somewhat like lights attract moths. The first Bush and the Clinton administrations tried to "fix" the treaty with a revised agreement. Washington then signed, leading to ratifications from other countries. GOP gains in Congress, however, dissuaded the Clinton administration from pushing for ratification. Now of course Obama has stepped in where Bill Clinton feared to tread, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stating that ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty would be a priority for her. I still don’t advocate our withdrawal from the UN, as our Security Council veto authority is one of the few effective limitations to international insanity. But somebody is going to have to explain to a lot of congressmen that the American people aren’t going to give up our national rights to a string of greedy third world countries that really aren’t big enough to play on the first string, or at least not yet.

You can read the complete Law of the Sea Treaty at: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm