Law of the Sea Treaty [L.O.S.T.]

Here's one that I hadn't heard of. A UN treaty that seems to be getting a footing with the Bush administration that was originally dumped by Reagan. After reading this article I can see why Reagan thought it a bad idea.

First it will add taxes to those that exploit ocean resources.

In a move without precedent and with ominous implications, the International Seabed Authority would have the power to impose what amounts to taxes on American citizens. The UN has long sought means to generate revenues without having to rely on donations from member states. If the United States were to become a party to LOST, the Treasury would be charged by the ISA for permits and other fees associated with American commercial exploitation of the seabeds.

Then there is the Tribunal, that like the international court in the Hague has no oversite and no appeal process.

The Jamaica-based international organization that we would be supporting in this fashion would have not only the equivalent of an executive and legislature, but also a judiciary, known as the Law of the Sea Tribunal. While there are, theoretically, some limits on the authority of the other two branches of this supranational institution, discretion about the extent of the tribunal's jurisdiction is exclusively in its hands.

The rulings of this sort of international court have already begun to erode U.S. sovereignty. As Judge Robert Bork, Phyllis Schlafly and Jeremy Rabkin, among others, have noted in recent months: American jurisprudence is increasingly reflecting decisions handed down by foreign judges who are neither accountable to nor obliged to comply with this country's rule of law--with negative repercussions for our rights and system of justice.

Particularly worrisome is the fact that the Law of the Sea Tribunal has already indicated its intention to define its jurisdiction broadly. It is predictable that, were the United States to become subject to its edicts, the tribunal would become a preferred venue for non-governmental organizations and unfriendly regimes seeking to use the court's authority to compel changes in U.S. military and civilian policies.

Very bad idea indeed. Let other countries decide what we can and can't do and would again come down to international politics.

This article from the The New American quotes Condoleezza Rice during her confirmation hearing:

Rice declared: "Joining the convention will advance the interests of the United States military. The United States, as the country with the largest coastline and the largest exclusive economic zone, will gain economic and resource benefits from the convention. The convention will not inhibit the United States nor its partners from successfully pursuing the Proliferation Security Initiative. And the United Nations has no decision-making role under the convention in regulating uses of the oceans by any state party to the convention."

They seem to be missing that this treaty, if the US becomes a signatory, would give the UN a huge amount of power over US policy. This in the wake of the food for oil scandal and other obvious corruption scandals the UN is ignoring strikes me as an invitation to be ruled, in part, by an organization that can't be trusted.

The threat to national sovereignty is huge.

The treaty does create new jurisdictions and governing structures with real powers that threaten our national sovereignty. Among other things, LOST establishes an International Seabed Authority (referred to as ISA, or "the Authority"), a new UN agency to control the minerals and other wealth of the sea floor. This also means granting the ISA control over two thirds of the Earth’s surface — no trifling matter. LOST designates this vast, watery commons as "the Area."

Do we really want the corrupt institution of the UN to have control over the oceans?

The Liberty Committee has multiple articles linked discussing opposition to the treaty.

Here is the text of the treaty. Careful it's PDF.