The Law of the Sea Treaty - LOST 

Read the complete Law of the Sea Treaty here.

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.

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.

Another way the New International Economic Order has been described is “redistributionist.”

The Law of the Sea Treaty calls for technology transfers and wealth transfers from developed to undeveloped nations. It also requires parties to the treaty to adopt regulations and laws to control pollution of the marine environment. Such provisions were among the reasons President Ronald Reagan rejected the treaty in 1982. As Edwin Meese, U.S. Attorney General under President Reagan, explained recently, “…it was out of step with the concepts of economic liberty and free enterprise that Ronald Reagan was to inspire throughout the world.”

Full Story Here:
Law of the Sea Treaty

Ronald Reagan did NOT support LOST. That should tell any thinking Conservative all they need to know about LOST. Maybe the problem is, a lot of Conservatives don’t know what LOST is, or, maybe they’ve never heard of it.

I get tons of email tips concerning blog posts, and I have floated references to LOST on several occasions, but I never did much more that just put it out there. I assumed that most folks would see the references to LOST and at least do a Google and look it up. Some did, many didn’t.

Far too many never researched LOST and looked into the full ramifications of it’s wordings.

In her article entitled “Why we need the Law of the Sea Treaty (Navy, December 2009), Meg Giles deserves credit for revisiting a politically and legally controversial topic with direct implications for the Navy: whether the U.S. should accede to the vast and deeply flawed UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS�? or “the Convention�?).

But the article – essentially a review of venerable pro-UNCLOS talking points – failed to explore adequately the concerns of many UNCLOS opponents. This should be remedied because Ms. Giles wrote for a Navy audience, and it is precisely the Navy which is most likely to suffer direct harm from U.S. accession to UNCLOS.

Full Story Here:
The UN Law of the Sea Treaty: Threatening to Put the U.S. Navy in a Straitjacket

I would suggest to my readers that they read these articles. More can be found here:

President Bush has demonstrated his willingness to stand alone internationally. Yet for little better reason than go-along, get-along multilateralism, the administration is now pushing the Senate to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty, which was just unanimously voted out of Richard Lugar’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee. At a committee meeting in February, Lugar noted a wide range of support from American interests “for U.S. accession to be completed swiftly.” However, the treaty is a flawed document, and there would be serious costs from accepting it.

The Law of the Sea Treaty originated in the 1970s as part of the United Nations’ redistributionist agenda known as the “New International Economic Order.” The convention covers such issues as fishing and navigation, but the controversy arose mainly over seabed mining. In essence, the Law of the Sea Treaty was designed to transfer wealth and technology from the industrialized states to the Third World.

Full Story Here:
Sink the Law of the Sea Treaty — Cato Institute

So, we know that George W. Bust was a supporter of LOST. Dick Lugar was a strong proponent of LOST, that in and of itself should set off alarm bells.

What really needs to be looked at is this; just WHO still supports LOST? And who is in a position to help make it happen? Or, who could possibly be in that position soon? Say possibly in 2012?

Someone, somewhere once quipped that the debate they would really like to see is between Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and his running mate, Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK). They disagree on global warming, Pakistan, and Arctic drilling. And now we can add at least one more item to that list.

« Read the rest of this post HERE! »