U.S. Leaders Support Law of the Sea Treaty

U.S. Leaders Support Law of the Sea Treaty

by Ben Block on January 22, 2009

The United States, the country with the largest exclusive economic zone, may ratify the Law of the Sea treaty. Among many measures, it would set guidelines for U.S. oil companies that seek to mine the Arctic Ocean.

“Newly appointed U.S. leadership is promising to join a longstanding international agreement that oversees ocean resource and pollution disputes.”
“During last week’s Cabinet confirmation hearings, leaders in both the U.S. Senate and the administration of newly elected President Barack Obama conveyed support for the treaty, known as the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention, suggesting an end to decades of dispute over U.S. accession.”

“The agreement also oversees an international tribunal to settle fishing, pollution, and property rights disputes, as well as the International Seabed Authority, a body formed to assign mining rights beyond the EEZs.”

“The Clinton administration renegotiated the treaty in 1994 so it would be more favorable to U.S. interests, yet Congress still failed to support it. If another political fight prevents ratification, other efforts such as international climate negotiations may potentially be at risk, said Caitlyn Antrim, executive director for Rule of Law Committee for the Oceans, an advocate of the Law of the Sea treaty.”

U.S. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush supported the treaty during their tenures, but conservative members of Congress repeatedly blocked its ratification due to concerns that it would limit commerce and allow international bodies to wield greater control over U.S. interests.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: The Risks Outweigh the Benefits

THE LAW OF THE SEA TREATY

PREAMBLE

Read the letter
signed by WWF Chairman Bruce Babbitt and CEO Carter Roberts, who joined with more than 100 representatives of industry, nongovernmental organizations, former government officials, and academics in a letter of support addressed to Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

Supporting the Law of the Sea Treaty
Supporters, including the U.S. military, say the treaty secures American rights over territorial waters (including the mineral resources underwater). Moreover, ratification of the treaty ensures the United States will have a seat at the table when disputes arise or modifications of the treaty are considered.

Opposing the Law of the Sea Treaty
Opponents say the treaty impinges on U.S. national sovereignty and sets up an international bureaucracy which may act in ways counter to American interests.

Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty: A Not-So-Innocent Passage

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA542LawoftheSeaTreaty.html

“Under the U.N. Charter, the Security Council is the principal enforcement body. The United States has a permanent seat on the security council and, as such, has veto powers. Under the Law of the Sea Treaty, enforcement responsibilities fall to such bodies as ITLOS, which, as noted earlier, is unlikely to be favorable to U.S. positions, and the International Seabed Authority (ISA), with a similarly unfavorable composition. The ISA’s executive body, the Council, is composed of representatives of 36 countries, the majority of which can not be counted on to support U.S. positions. Its membership includes representatives from the Sudan, Malaysia, China, Indonesia, South Africa, Namibia, Nigeria, Kenya, Guyana, Argentina, Russia and Myanmar (name given to Burma by its military junta), among others.”

2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Endorsement of US Accession to LOS Convention

Hillary Clinton on her views on the LOS Convention and whether it would be a priority for her as Secretary of State.

Conclusion

Sufficient concerns about the implications for U.S. national security and U.S. environmental policy exist that the United States should be wary of acceding to the Law of the Sea Treaty.

These concerns, in summary, include:

* Article 20 would extend the surfacing requirement to vessels not covered under previous conventions, including those that would otherwise qualify for innocent passage such as unmanned vessels used for mine detection and other purposes.

* The Law of the Sea Treaty would impede the U.S.’s ability to capture international terrorists and confiscate weapons of mass destruction through detention of ships on the high seas. The treaty specifies that the boarding of ship is not justified except when a ship is believed to be engaged in piracy, unauthorized broadcasting, drug trafficking, is obscuring its nationality or shows no nationality. Detention of ships in a manner other than those prescribed in the treaty would subject such actions to the judgment of the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea in Hamburg, Germany.

* Article 88′s stipulation that “the high seas shall be reserved for peaceful purposes” and Article 301′s requirement that parties to the convention refrain from “any threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state” may be used to impede U.S. military operations at sea. The Treaty’s opt-out provisions for military activities would only free the U.S. from the requirement to participate in a specific dispute resolution process, not dispute resolution itself.

* The marine conservation provisions of the treaty could be used by activists to achieve through international institutions that which they haven’t been able to achieve through domestic legislation.

* The conservation provisions may give environmental organizations a new avenue to pursue environmental lawsuits in U.S. courts.

* The conservation provisions may provide the means for forcing the U.S. to adopt the Kyoto Protocol or similar emissions-control schemes – schemes the U.S. has rejected.

The North American Union 1of2: Stepping stone to UN world government


The North American Union 2of2: Stepping stone to UN world government

URGENT: Hillary Clinton Signs UN Small Arms Treaty

U.S. agrees to timetable for UN Gun Ban
The United Nations and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are moving forward with their plan to confiscate your guns.

The United States joined 152 other countries in support of the Arms Trade Treaty Resolution, which establishes the dates for the 2012 UN conference intended to attack American sovereignty by stripping Americans of the right to keep and bear arms.
Working groups of anti-gun countries will begin scripting language for the conference this year, creating a blueprint for other countries when they meet at the full conference.

While we’re all watching the gulf: Hillary signs UN Small Arms Treaty
URGENT: Hillary Clinton Signs UN Small Arms Treaty

U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade

Reuters) – The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.
The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush’s administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, “operates under the rules of consensus decision-making.”
“Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly,” Clinton said in a written statement.
While praising the Obama administration’s decision to overturn the Bush-era policy and to proceed with negotiations to regulate conventional arms sales, some groups criticized the U.S. insistence that decisions on the treaty be unanimous.
“The shift in position by the world’s biggest arms exporter is a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to prevent irresponsible arms transfers,” Amnesty International and Oxfam International said in a joint statement.
However, they said insisting that decisions on the treaty be made by consensus “could fatally weaken a final deal.”

“Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause,” said Oxfam International’s policy adviser Debbie Hillier.

The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.
Supporters say it would give worldwide coverage to close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market.
Nations would remain in charge of their arms export control arrangements but would be legally obliged to assess each export against criteria agreed under the treaty. Governments would have to authorize transfers in writing and in advance.
The main opponent of the treaty in the past was the U.S. Bush administration, which said national controls were better. Last year, the United States accounted for more than two-thirds of some $55.2 billion in global arms transfer deals.
Arms exporters China, Russia and Israel abstained last year in a U.N. vote on the issue.
The proposed treaty is opposed by conservative U.S. think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, which said last month that it would not restrict the access of “dictators and terrorists” to arms but would be used to reduce the ability of democracies such as Israel to defend their people.
The U.S. lobbying group the National Rifle Association has also opposed the treaty.
A resolution before the U.N. General Assembly is sponsored by seven nations including major arms exporter Britain. It calls for preparatory meetings in 2010 and 2011 for a conference to negotiate a treaty in 2012.
(Editing by Eric Beech)

Hillary Clinton signed the small arms treaty with the U.N.
OBAMA FINDS LEGAL WAY AROUND THE 2ND AMENDMENT AND USES IT.

I agree! The UN “Small Arms Treaty” is an unacceptable infringment on my right to keep and bear arms!

!!! Please sign the petition !!!

CLICK HERE