National Ocean Council - UN wants Water Control

[FrankRep]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/stories/US_News/cs-tna2505-full.jpg (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/801)


National Ocean Council (http://www.infowars.com/national-ocean-council/)


Infowars.com (http://www.infowars.com/)
July 28, 2010


Thirty states will be encroached upon by Obama’s Executive Order establishing the National Ocean Council for control over America’s oceans, coastlines and the Great Lakes. Under this new council, states’ coastal jurisdictions will be subject to the United Nations’ Law Of Sea Treaty (LOST) in this UN Agenda 21 program. America’a oceans and coastlines will be broken into 9 regions that include the North East, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, the Gulf Coast, West Coast, the Great Lakes, Alaska, the Pacific Islands (including Hawaii) and the Caribbean.

Because of the decades of difficulty that the collectivists have had trying to ratify the Law Of Sea Treaty (LOST), Obama is sneaking it in through the back door, by way of this Executive Order establishing the Council. Because LOST is a treaty, Obama’s Executive Order is not Constitutional as treaty ratification requires 2/3 approval from the Senate. Michael Shaw said that the Agenda 21 Convention on Biodiversity treaty of 1992 failed to pass Congress so it was executed through soft law and administratively on local levels, and Obama’s Executive Order is a similar soft law tactic to enact the LOST treaty.

In fact, our Constitutional form of government is being completely destroyed because buried in the CLEAR Act (HR 3534) there is a provision for a new council to oversee the outer continental shelf- it appears that this Regional Outer Shelf Council will be part of the National Ocean Council. This means that if Congress makes the CLEAR Act into law, then the implementation of the UN Law Of Sea Treaty, as part of the National Ocean Council’s agenda, will be “ratified” in a convoluted and stealth manner, in full opposition to the Constitution and its intent.(1)

The excuse for this extreme action is because of the emergency in the Gulf of Mexico. Obama and Congress have always had the legal and military power to force BP Oil to take all necessary action to stop the gusher and clean the oil spew. While there is evidence that the problems in the Gulf have been a result of collusion and planned incompetence, it begs the question, why in world should America’s oceans and resources be controlled by Obama appointees?

NATIONAL OCEAN COUNCIL MEMBERS:

John Holdren, Obama’s science and technology advisor, is the co-chairman of this new council. He is also a depopulation enthusiast and advocates sterilization by way of using infertility drugs in water and food as well as forced abortions which he describes in his book “Ecoscience”.(2)

Ken Salazar, Secretary of theDepartment of Interior, and its subagency, MMS (Minerals Management Service) has authority over offshore drilling and responsibility for enforcing spill prevention measures.(3) The Department of Interior’s BLM (Bureau of Land Management) is the entity that controls federally managed land extending across 30% of America in 11 western states. Last week, Congressman Louie Gohmert said that Ken Salazar personally prevented drilling on land in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado, thereby also preventing energy independence. In addition, the federal lands have been grossly mismanaged and present fire dangers. The federal government is $3.7 billion in arrears for maintenance of the federally managed lands.

US Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, by way of the US Forestry Service and US Fish & Wildlife Service, has been complicit in the decline of our country’s food independence. For example, US Fish & Wildlife (along with the Department of Commerce) shut the water off in California using Endangered Species Act; it was later proven that partially treated sewage was the primary culprit in killing the salmon and delta smelt that was previously blamed on farmers. This is phony environmentalism. The US Forestry Service has also misused the Endangered Species Act to limit farmers and ranchers. Remember that the USDA co-owns the Terminator Gene patent with Monsanto that makes seeds sterile.

Lisa Jackson is the EPA administrator who has threatened to impose 18,000 pages of new regulations to curb global warmingwhich is based on lies,claiming that carbon dioxide is a danger to human health.(4)

Department of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano: it is unclear how these two federal appointees will enhance environmental ’sustainability’ over oceans and coasts. Traditionally, national security threats (like the War on Terror) have been used by the federal government to take control of resources. For example, many years ago when the interstate highway systems were first being built, the Feds got in on the action by claiming that they were building a defense highway system, and they encroached into an area that belonged to the states. Interestingly, there were no overhead structures on highways originally because of the Feds’ claim that large missiles would be transported on these “defense” highway systems.

Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, a leading globalist, is likely to plunge our country into international entanglements and subjugation, based on her past performance; an example is her support of the UN Small Arms Treaty, which is contrary to the Constitution.

Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Department of Commerce Secretary Gary Locke are logical choices for this destructive council as some of the planned funding for this program will come from permits and leases (oil drilling leases, for example). These agencies will limit America’s energy independence.

The full list is footnoted at the end of this article.(5)

THE SMOKING GUN:

Agenda 21 Sustainable Development is the overarching blueprint for depopulation and total control, and the National Ocean Council is clearly an Agenda 21 program:

The National Ocean Council is headed by John Holdren, an avowed eugenicist which is selective breeding through brutal means like forced abortion.

The National Ocean Council’s own report (Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning, pg. 8) incorporates a section of the 1992 Rio Declaration which is an original Agenda 21 document!

In fact, the report says that it will be guided by the Rio Declaration in cases “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.” (pg. 8) This means that regulations will be imposed even if the science is not understood or if the science is based on global warming manipulated data.(6)

The 3 primary tools of Agenda 21’s phony environmentalism are global warming, water shortages and the Endangered Species Act; the National Ocean Council intends to exploit all of these tools to their full extent.

The National Ocean Council’s main objective is to sink American sovereignty through the United Nations Law Of Sea Treaty (LOST) with the intended result of domination by the UN over our coasts and the Great Lakes. LOST originated in the 1970s as a wealth redistribution plan to benefit Third World countries. LOST sets rules for commercial activity beneath the high seas and establishes new international bureaucracies and a tribunal to interpret and apply rules to sea activity. And LOST can proceed with those rules, even against US objections! LOST threatens to complicate deep sea mining. LOST sets a precedent that US rights are dependent upon the approval of international entities. LOST also extends to ocean flowing rivers. (7)

REGIONALISM:

Michael Shaw pointed out that non-elected councils are increasingly expanding their jurisdiction through air quality boards, water quality boards, sewer systems, transportation districts, metropolitan planning, etc. to gain control over resources. Often, large corporations and financial interests form Public- Private Partnerships with the government within these councils.

Breaking areas into regions and placing authority with non-elected councils is a Communist trick used to hijack resources, thereby usurping local and state power by re-zoning the areas that do have Constitutional authority. Appointed bureaucrats are untouchable because their jobs are not dependent upon serving the voting population. And they are usually inaccessible to the public and do not have to face those who are affected by their “insider” decisions. When state and local governments become corrupt, the public is able to confront them eye to eye, but distant bureaucrats can avoid accountability. Regionalism is used as a psychological tactic to intimidate state legislatures into creating the system for a new political and economic order. (8)

Obama’s Executive Order that has created the 9 new regions amounts to re-zoning, and his appointed bureaucrats are answerable only to him. In David Horton’s testimony in 1978 on regionalism, he said that the State of Indiana made this declaration, “Neither the states nor Congress have ever granted authority to any branch or agency of the federal government to exercise regional control over the states.” Horton further stated that Congress holds alllegislative power that is granted in the Constitution, as opposed to Executive Orders that are not legislative. Therefore, Obama’s Executive Order for re-zoning and appointing a governing body to usurp state and local power is Constitutionally invalid. (9)

The public must become aware of state sovereignty and the Tenth Amendment to demand that state and local governments assert these Constitutional laws and principles.

COASTAL AND MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING REPORT:

This is a general overview of the new National Ocean Council’s goals based on its32-page report that uses indirect language and acronyms in order to confuse the public and local lawmakers. Depopulation advocates, globalists and collectivists, like John Holdren, faced opposition a few decades ago when they clearly expressed their objectives, so now documents are written in complicated and clouded language to fool those they wish to control. (10)

This report states that the Council’s jurisdiction will extend from the continental shelf to the coast AND additional inland areas will be involved. The National Ocean Council identifies “partners” as members of each regional planning body that will include federal, state, local and tribal authorities, with a top-down hierarchy of control.

The intentions of the Council are stated on page 8 of the report that include implementing LOST and other international treaties. The report also states that the Council’s plans shall be implemented by Executive Orders, in addition to federal and state laws. This section mentions ‘global climate change’ which is a new term substituted for ‘man made global warming’ after manipulated data and lies were exposed in numerous global warming scandals. ‘Climate change’ is blamed for sea level rise and acidification of oceans; evidence exists that these are global warming deceptions. (11)

The stated goals of the Council include regulating investments, collaborating with unidentified international agencies, controlling public access to oceans and “protecting” ecosystems. This means that commerce and trade will be controlled by the Council, the UN will gain power over American oceans and the Great Lakes through UN subagencies, public access will be limited and the Endangered Species Act will be unleashed, with heavy regulations. Incidentally, the Endangered Species Act is based on 5 international treaties. It has never had a successful result: of the 60 species that have been de-listed, not a single species was saved as a result of any restrictions stemming from the Endangered Species Act! (12)

The targeted areas for Endangered Species Act regulations are the the Great Lakes, the Gulf Coast, Chesapeake Bay, Puget Sound, South Florida and the San Francisco Bay (the Bay Delta is where the irrigation water for farmers was was cut off using the Endangered Species Act, causing food shortages, an increase in food imports and massive economic devastation).

While this report does not clearly outline how the National Ocean Council’s schemes will be financed, regulatory permits for all activity on the water and mining (oil) leases will play a part, along with tax increases. The report does indicate that grants and assistance programs will be available so that state, local and tribal authorities will support the Council’s “efforts”. In other words, the Council will try to buy off the state and local governments to “collectively use” them for a base of support and influence.(pg. 28) Strings are always attached to federal money. The federal government and the Council are reliant on state and local governments for implementation through state and local legal authority, which means that state and local authorities hold the power to implement or refuse the Council’s directives, especially under the Tenth Amendment.

However, the report does state that disputes will be settled by consensus, if consensus fails, then the decisions will ultimately be made by the President. He is Commander in Chief of the Navy and has the power of the military behind him. Further, the report indicates that legislative changes and more Executive Orders may be necessary to achieve control.

An important point is made on page 5, which states, “Strong partnerships among Federal, State, tribal and local authorities, and regional governance structures would be essential to a truly forward-looking, comprehensive CMSP effort.” This means that the states, local governments and tribes have power. Our collectivist government needs the consent of the state, local and tribal authorities, to implement this scheme, otherwise, the feds wouldn’t bother to include these Constitutional authorities. If the state, local and tribal authorities are aware of, and willing to act on their Constitutional authority, then they can limit this federal power grab through the Tenth Amendment.

The report further states that signing onto the Council’s plan would be an “express commitment by the partners to act in accordance with the plan…” (pg. 20) Therefore, it is imperative that all of the states be aware of the Council’s intended usurpation and carefully protect their Constitutional jurisdictions and sovereignty. There are 30 states that will be affected by this new council. (pg. 12)

The Council’s strategy plan will go into effect immediately, fully developing Agenda 21 objectives and undue UN influence within 5 years. Interestingly, one article said that if state, local and tribal authorities choose not to participate in in writing the plans, the plans would be written without them. Therefore, it bears repeating that state and local governments must protect their Constitutional authority when dealing with the Council. The Constitutional authority that states and local governments have can only be taken if the power is given away.

SAVING OUR COUNTRY:

If your freedom is important to you, the most effective action that you can take is to e-mail this article and Michael Shaw’s “Understanding Agenda 21 Sustainable Development” booklet to all of your State Legislators, County Commissioners/ Superintendents and City Council members.

Here is the the link for the Agenda 21 downloadable booklet:

http://www.freedomadvocates.org/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,127/Itemid,81/

Tell all of your friends, co-workers and neighbors about Agenda 21 Sustainable Development and how it is destroying our country. The National Ocean Council is detrimental on so many levels and the time to act is now. If state and local officials refuse to stand up against this federal incursion, they must be thrown out of office in favor of representatives who support the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment.

For more information about local action, visit www.FreedomAdvocates.org.

Visit www.MorphCity.com for a special video presentation on July 30th for an interview with a local official who upheld the Constitution against encroachment by the federal government.

Sources:

1. http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/realityzone/UFNCLEARactSec6.html

2. http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

3. http://www.boemre.gov/aboutmms/FedOffshoreLands.htm

4. http://www.morphcity.com/home/72-epa-takes-a-giant-leap-into-tyranny

5. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/07/19/meet-national-ocean-council

6. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/091209-Interim-CMSP-Framework-Task-Force.pdf

http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/

7. http://www.cei.org/pdf/5352.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea

8. http://www.newswithviews.com/iserbyt/iserbyt13.htm

9. http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/regionalism/horton.htm

10.http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/091209-Interim-CMSP-Framework-Task-Force.pdf

11.http://www.morphcity.com/agenda-21/environment/global-warming

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

http://nov55.com/acd.html

12.http://www.newswithviews.com/Coffman/mike2.htm


SOURCE:
http://www.infowars.com/national-ocean-council/

[FrankRep]

Although the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) would threaten American sovereignty by giving the UN control of the oceans, ratification of the treaty is still a top priority of the Obama administration. by William F. Jasper


http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/stories/US_News/cs-tna2505-full.jpg



LOST: Law of the Sea Treaty (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/801)


William F. Jasper | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
19 February 2009


The United States Senate may vote very soon on one of the most far-reaching and dangerous treaties our government has ever considered for ratification: the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (also known as the Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST). The treaty, which has simmered on the back burners of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for decades, would give the United Nations control and jurisdiction over the world's oceans, nearly three-quarters of the surface of our planet.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), oceans cover 71 percent of the Earth's surface and contain 97 percent of the planet's water. The agency also notes, "one of every six jobs in the United States is marine-related and over one-third of the U.S. Gross National Product originates in coastal areas." Of course, the oceans are important not only for our commercial transportation, recreation, food production and energy production, but also for our national security; our navy's unhindered access to the ocean seas is crucial to our defense at home and the protection of our interests abroad.

The Law of the Sea Treaty would jeopardize all of this by subjecting America to the rules and jurisdiction of UN bodies and the incessant harassment of lawsuits by foreign nations and activist non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The LOST proponents snort in derision at these concerns, insisting that the treaty merely codifies customary international maritime law already in effect, and actually strengthens American sovereignty. "One of the most common criticisms of the treaty is that ratification will lead to the largest transfer of sovereignty and wealth in US history," says the United Nations Association of the USA (UNA-USA) in its "fact sheet" on LOST. "Instead," asserts the UNA-USA, "the treaty strengthens and extends U.S. sovereignty over vast amounts of ocean territory and resources."

However, when we look closely at what the authors of the Law of the Sea Treaty say in various international fora and publications, and when we examine the admissions and boasts of the UN's officials and legal experts, we find that they have baited a very big trap. Their public assurances notwithstanding, they have designed and birthed a monster that they intend will do far more than they openly concede when seeking state ratification. Here's what the UN's Division of Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea (DOALOS) had to say at the official celebration of the "25th Anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea" on October 17, 2007:

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ... is perhaps one of the most significant but less recognized 20th century accomplishments in the arena of international law.... Its scope is vast: it covers all ocean space, with all its uses, including navigation and overflight; all uses of all its resources, living and non-living, on the high seas, on the ocean floor and beneath, on the continental shelf and in the territorial seas; the protection of the marine environment; and basic law and order.... The Convention is widely recognised by the international community as the legal framework within which all activities in the oceans and the seas must be carried out.

Please note that DOALOS, the UN agency in charge of administering LOST, claims the convention covers "all ocean space," including everything on, in, under, and above the oceans. Note also the heavy use of the adjective "all," as in "all uses," "all resources," "all activities." But wait; as we shall see, the claims go even far beyond this to include global regulations that will override domestic laws covering not only coastal waters and shorelines, but also human activities in rivers and inland waterways, and land-based activities that may be claimed — no matter how far-fetched — to be harming the marine environment.

Moreover, LOST may confer upon the UN, for the first time, the ability to tax Americans directly, without congressional approval.

Many Americans have experienced firsthand just how burdensome U.S. regulation of our own waterways, including wetlands regulations, can be. But how about international regulations of our waterways? What national interest can be served by subjecting ourselves to the regulatory ministrations and taxing authority of UN bureaucrats and judges and the litigational ploys of foreign dictators and anti-American NGOs? Obviously, none. Nonetheless, Senate ratification of LOST is a "top priority" for the new Obama administration.

At her January 13 hearings for confirmation as Secretary of State, then-Senator Hillary Clinton was asked by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), a LOST supporter: "If confirmed, do you intend to make ratification of the Convention your top treaty priority at State?" Sen. Clinton responded: "The President-Elect and I both supported ratification of the Law of the Sea Convention as senators.... If confirmed, its ratification will be one of my top treaty priorities at State, and the new administration will work with the Senate to secure approval."

The LOST Boys ... and Girls

The new administration will be well packed with LOST boys and girls. Vice President Joseph Biden, for instance, was a longtime Senate champion of the Law of the Sea. He will be presiding over the Senate in the 11th Congress. President Obama's recently confirmed ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, served as understudy in the Clinton administration, first to Anthony Lake, and then to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, both of whom were (and are) LOST enthusiasts. For the past several years, Rice has worked at the liberal-left Brookings Institution under the tutelage of Clinton's former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott. This is the same Strobe Talbott who approvingly predicted in his 1992 Time magazine essay, "The Birth of the Global Nation," that someday "nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority." LOST would be a very important part of the emerging global authority Talbott envisions. So it is not surprising that this same Strobe Talbott, a foreign-policy adviser to Barack Obama and Susan Rice's Brookings boss and mentor, is one of the "101 prominent Americans" who signed a letter to Senate leaders in 2007 urging approval of LOST.

Leon Panetta, President Obama's choice to head the CIA, is also a major LOST promoter. Until recently, Panetta served as co-chair of the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, one of the main organizations pushing the convention.

The new Democrat-controlled Senate is the friendliest environment the LOST proponents have ever faced, but it is the Republicans who are causing the most worry. On January 9, just a week and a half before handing over the White House to Barack Obama, President Bush issued National Security Presidential Directive 66 (NSPD-66) on "Arctic Region Policy." The executive order (also labeled Homeland Security Presidential Directive 25, HSPD-25), which brims with environmental shibboleths, declares:

The Senate should act favorably on U.S. accession to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea promptly, to protect and advance U.S. interests, including with respect to the Arctic. Joining will serve the national security interests of the United States, including the maritime mobility of our Armed Forces worldwide. It will secure U.S. sovereign rights over extensive marine areas, including the valuable natural resources they contain. Accession will promote U.S. interests in the environmental health of the oceans. And it will give the United States a seat at the table when the rights that are vital to our interests are debated and interpreted.

In addition to the citation above, NSPD-66/HSPD-25 specifically endorses LOST four more times. The Bush executive order may not have been prominently featured in the major media (indeed, it seems few Americans are even aware it was issued), but the message certainly reached Republicans in the Senate. For the umpteenth time, and now as one of its last acts in office, the Bush administration was signaling its strong support for LOST.

Many of President Bush's staunchest supporters, as well as many of his harshest Democratic opponents, were shocked when, on November 27, 2001, Ambassador Sichan Siv, U.S. Representative on the UN Economic and Social Council, made the following statement in the UN General Assembly: "The United States has long accepted the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea as embodying international law concerning traditional uses of the oceans.... I am pleased to inform you that the Administration of President George W. Bush supports accession of the United States to the Convention."

On December 17, 2004, President Bush issued a report entitled the "U.S. Ocean Action Plan: The Bush Administration's Response to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy." This presidential response stated that "as a matter of national security, economic self-interest, and international leadership, the Bush Administration is strongly committed to U.S. accession to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Administration urges Congress to provide advice and consent to this treaty as early as possible in the 109th Congress."

President Bush's unstinting support for LOST, along with endorsements from his top State Department officials (Secretaries Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, and Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte) and military appointees (General Richard Myers, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Admiral Vern Clark, former chief of Naval Operations), has been used by treaty advocates to undercut Republican and conservative opposition to the globalist scheme for UN control of the oceans.

Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) is now the most senior Republican in the U.S. Senate and one of the most ardent supporters of the Convention on the Law of the Sea. Although usually described by liberal media commentators as "moderate," Sen. Lugar is an avid internationalist and promoter of the United Nations. He has been instrumental in stacking the deck in favor of LOST at committee hearings, allowing pro-treaty witnesses to outnumber anti-treaty witnesses by three or four to one.

LOST: Spawn of the UN

The product of nearly a decade of negotiations at UNCLOS conferences, the treaty was finalized in 1982. However, the world's most politically and economically powerful state, namely, the United States of America, which also happens to be the greatest naval power, refused to ratify the treaty. President Ronald Reagan opposed it for a number of reasons, though the one feature of the document that has received almost exclusive attention as being unacceptable, then as now, is the International Seabed Authority (ISA). The ISA is the UN entity that claims authority over all seabed resources as "the common heritage of mankind." LOST declares that companies intending to mine the ocean floor must obtain permits from and pay royalties and fees to ISA, which then, supposedly, will distribute the proceeds equitably to all mankind. (And we know from vast experience that UN bureaucracies are famous for honesty, efficiency, and transparency, right?)

President Bill Clinton negotiated a few minor changes in the convention, declared that its defects had been remedied, and signed it. However, the Senate did not ratify it, as is required by the Constitution for a treaty to enter into force. Although hearings have been held several times over the years, the full Senate has yet to vote on it. The UN declared LOST to be in force in 1994, after it had been acceded to by 60 nations. There are now 157 nations on board, the United States being the main holdout.

Sovereignty Sellout

In his April 8, 2004 testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, William J. Middendorf II, a former secretary of the Navy and former ambassador to the Netherlands and the Organization of American States, identified "loss of sovereignty" as the most important problem with the Law of the Sea Treaty.

Ambassador Middendorf warned:

Traditionally, treaties, with only narrow exceptions, have been defined as formal agreements between and among sovereign states that help define their relations to each other as sovereign states. They are inherently political agreements. The option to change such relations and the concomitant power to discontinue adhering to the terms of a treaty is solely the prerogative of the sovereign. First and foremost, the Convention represents a departure from that tradition. It establishes institutions with executive and judicial powers that in some instances are compulsory.

Part XV of the convention, notes Middendorf, "establishes dispute settlement procedures that are quasi-judicial and mandatory. Once drawn into this dispute settlement process, it will be very difficult for the U.S. to extricate itself from it."

Advocates for LOST contend that fears of loss of sovereignty are utterly ridiculous. Professor John Norton Moore, a negotiator on LOST and one of the main guns called upon repeatedly to testify in favor of the treaty, had this to say at a conference on LOST at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in New York on March 28, 2008:

What's the principal argument we heard initially out of the opponents? This was going to remove the sovereignty of the United States. They cannot point to an ounce of removal of sovereignty for the United States.... There is no loss of U.S. sovereignty whatsoever.

Prof. Moore knows better. In the area of pollution control alone, the treaty presents serious threats to national sovereignty, creating, in essence, a global Environmental Protection Agency. Some of the most extreme environmental activists have announced their intention to use LOST as a back door to force global regulations, such as the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, on the United States.

Consider LOST's Article 194, which says: "States shall take ... all measures consistent with this Convention that are necessary to prevent, reduce and control pollution from any source ... and they shall endeavor to harmonize their policies in this connection."

Article 194 goes on to say that the measures taken shall be designed "to minimize to the fullest possible extent" pollution "from land-based sources" as well as "from or through the atmosphere."

Article 213 says: "States shall ... adopt laws and regulations and take other measures necessary 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." (Emphasis added.)

As previously noted, legal activists are eagerly anticipating the havoc they would be able to inflict on the U.S. constitutional system and the potential for building world government through these and other provisions of the Law of the Sea Treaty.

William C.G. Burns, an environmental law professor and global-warming alarmist, contends LOST "may prove to be one of the primary battlegrounds for climate change issues in the future." He notes that "the potential impacts of rising sea surface temperatures, rising sea levels, and changes in ocean pH as a consequence of rising levels of carbon dioxide in sea water" could "give rise to actions under the Convention's marine pollution provisions."

This a golden opportunity for environmental activists. "While very few of the drafters [of LOST] may have contemplated that it would one day become a mechanism to confront climate change," Burns says, "it clearly may play this role in the future."

Extrapolating from current and recent past experience, it should not take too much imagination to visualize the horrors this would unleash. Lawyers from Greenpeace, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the World Wildlife Fund (to name but a few) would keep every court in the land (as well as every international tribunal) flooded with perpetual litigation aimed at every productive enterprise. Forget about drilling any new oil or gas wells, building any new refineries or power plants, or opening any new mines. Farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, processors, transporters — virtually everyone who does anything on land, air, or sea is a potential target.

One of LOST's most avid proponents is University of Miami Law Professor Bernard H. Oxman, who served on the convention's drafting committee and has sat as a judge ad hoc of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Writing in 1996 in the European Journal of International Law, Prof. Oxman acknowledged that the convention's text was definitely lacking in the crisp, clear meaning its adherents often ascribed to it. "Like many complex bodies of written law," he wrote, "it is amply endowed with indeterminate principles, mind-numbing cross-references, institutional redundancies, exasperating opacity and inelegant drafting, not to mention a potpourri of provisions."

The UN's Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea insists LOST is not "a static instrument, but rather a dynamic and evolving body of law." This mind-numbing, "dynamic and evolving" mélange of "indeterminate principles" and "exasperating opacity" is causing elation amongst those who would undermine our constitutional foundations and, at the same time, inspiring dread amongst those who contemplate the havoc that subversive lawyers and activist judges could inflict on our republic.

University of Virginia School of Law Professor John Norton Moore, a supporter of the treaty, calls it "one of the most important law-defining international conventions of the Twentieth Century."

"This is quite an assertion," Ambassador Middendorf says of Moore's statement. "In fact, it is the most troubling aspect of the Convention." Middendorf continues:

Unacknowledged in the language about fostering the rule of law in international relations is the reality that in this particular case it entails subordinating the powers of the participating states to the dictates of an international authority.... The Convention is a vehicle for transferring these essential powers from the participating states to the international authority established by the treaty itself. It represents the establishment of the rule of law over sovereign states more than it is establishing a rule of law made by them.

Doug Bandow, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, warns that "LOST could be treated as self-enforcing, that is, found to create obligations enforceable by U.S. courts." In Medellin v. Texas, he notes, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a challenge to a criminal conviction for failure to fulfill the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The majority ruled that the consular treaty does not constitute "directly enforceable federal law."

Bandow, who was a special assistant to President Reagan and served as deputy representative to the third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea, says:

Treaty advocates make the same claim for LOST. However, Annex III, Article 21(2) states that LOST tribunal decisions "shall be enforceable in the territory of each State Party." And in Medellin, Justice John Paul Stevens contrasted the Vienna Convention with LOST, which he opined did "incorporate international judgments into international law."

"The issue isn't going to be settled," says Bandow, "until a suit is filed under LOST, if the U.S. is foolish enough to ratify the Treaty."

Ratification would be foolish indeed. The treaty proponents have offered no pressing exigencies to justify the claim that U.S. ratification of LOST is "urgently" needed, or that any supposed benefits outweigh the evident dangers we would be inviting. Contrary to the claims of proponents, failure to adopt the treaty will not harm the operations of our navy or our commercial shipping.

On the other hand, ratification would almost certainly lead to actions that would be very harmful to our naval and commercial operations. Critics predicted chaos at our failure to ratify LOST in 1982. They were wrong; the United States has functioned quite well without it. No nation has had the will or the wherewithal to challenge our use of the seas. And if they had, the UN and LOST would not have helped.

Americans must let their senators know in no uncertain terms that LOST was unacceptable in 1982 and nothing has changed to make it acceptable now.

For more on how the internationalist Council on Foreign Relations is serving as the key player among the global-governance organizations promoting LOST, click here (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/800).


SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/801

[FrankRep]

2009: Obama, Clinton, Senate Poised to Give the UN Control of Everything About the Oceans by Ratifying the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST)
http://www.jbs.org/index.php/freedom-campaign/4437


Law of the Sea Treaty: Through Rose-colored Goggles?
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/australia-mainmenu-34/1779

Administration Pushes Dangerous Law of the Sea Treaty
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/foreign-policy/278-administration-pushes-dangerous-law-of-the-sea-treaty

Who Wants the U.S. to Get LOST?
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/800


The Law Of The Sea Treaty - What Is It?
YouTube - The Law Of The Sea Treaty - what is it ? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p-_m_clmZ4)

[FrankRep]

CFR Pushes Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST); exploits Gulf Oil Spill


Law of Sea Implications for Gulf Spill (http://www.cfr.org/publication/22585/law_of_sea_implications_for_gulf_spill.html)


Interviewee:
Caitlyn Antrim, Executive Director, Rule of Law Committee for the Oceans

Interviewer:
Toni Johnson, staff writer

Council on Foreign Relations
July 2, 2010


The expanding environmental and economic toll of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill could focus attention on the need to clarify the rules for dealing with pollution that exceeds territorial boundaries. Caitlyn Antrim, an expert on ocean governance, says the Law of the Sea Treaty (http://www.cfr.org/publication/16396/united_nations_convention_on_the_law_of_the_sea.ht ml) covers many of the issues raised by the spill, and even though the United States has not acceded to the treaty, it has agreed to abide by it. But she says many of the guidelines required by the treaty, which are necessary to address the liability and pollution issues among affected countries for this type of spill, have not been written. She notes that the Gulf oil spill should be used as an opportunity to craft regional standards for oil and gas exploration. "Given the possibility that [these activities] could not only occur in the U.S. shelf, but on the shelves of our neighboring countries, it seems like this should be a call for us to engage in that negotiation of standards, both with regards to the Gulf of Mexico and with regard to the Arctic, which are the two areas that have the greatest potential for offshore oil and gas development," she said.


You've written about how the Law of the Sea Treaty would apply to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Can you discuss the major issues in this case?


The international law for activities of the ocean that might engender marine environmental pollution are covered under Part 12 of the Law of the Sea Convention and this respects the major divisions of national authority that are implicit in the various zones of authority. Within the territorial sea, the coastal state has complete sovereignty within the two-hundred-mile exclusive economic zone. The state has responsibility over marine living resources and activities on the deep seabed and activities beyond two hundred miles that are still part of the extended continental shelf fall under the regulatory activity of the coastal state.

So all these activities that we're talking about now do fall under coastal state control, in this case the United States. Even though the United States is not party to the convention, since President Reagan, we have said we will abide by the rules that fall there. So it is something that is important to the United States to understand and observe.


How might the Law of the Sea's liability provisions apply in this case?


In the 1970s, we were very aware of the dangers of environmental pollution from ships. It was of particular concern to us because we depend so much on the import of oil that freedom of navigation was one of our important objectives in the convention and we had to find a way to balance it with controls over marine environmental pollution. The rules that govern responsibility and liability for pollution from vessels are much more detailed than those that deal with environmental pollution from land or from operations within the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf.

Pollution from the BP well in the Gulf would be subject to bilateral diplomacy between the U.S. and Cuba, between the U.S. and Mexico. It would be up to the United States to decide what needs to be done, and to work out bilaterally any responsibilities, say if oil started coming up on Cuban shores or, in the case of when the oil spill was in Mexican waters.

The convention provides a framework for dealing with environmental pollution, but it doesn't set the rules and it calls for those to be negotiated bilaterally, regionally, or globally. And that's where it stands now. For the most part, we have not yet negotiated those international treaties and conventions to deal with this issue.


This past weekend at the G8/G20 meeting in Canada, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev called for new international rules for offshore drilling that would address this type of accident. What is deficient in current international treaties that would make these new rules necessary?


What is deficient is a binding set, or even a satisfactory set of guidelines for behavior and operation of offshore activities. It could be particularly important in the Arctic, where Russia and Norway have been engaging in offshore oil and gas development and where the U.S. has been engaging in near-shore [development] and looking at deeper-water exploration.

While we have, through the International Maritime Organization, a set of guidelines regarding the design of shipping to pass through the Arctic, we have no guidelines that can be used for all countries [that say] these are the minimum standards by which offshore oil and gas will be conducted. And without those standards, the Law of the Sea Convention has very little actual impact on reducing the chance of environmental pollution from activities on the continental shelf.

With Russia's focus on the Arctic, it provides excellent opportunity for the United States, Russia, Canada, Norway, and Greenland to set up those rules and possibly to involve, through the Arctic Council, to involve the native people organizations of the Arctic in a comprehensive regional look at how to set standards for governing the development of offshore oil and gas.


Can you talk a little more about the environmental and legal implications for exploring in the Arctic? There just seems to be a number of unanticipated consequences from the melting of the ice cap.


The melting of the ice cap provides access for development and, in particular, the development of oil and gas offshore and the passage of shipping along the coast of Russia and the United States and through the Northeast and Northwest Passages. From the pollution standpoint, oil and gas is, at least in the near term, probably the major environmental consideration [in the Arctic]. We have guidelines on ship design and other regulations that establish international norms with regard to marine environmental pollution and we have rules regarding the enforcement by flag states, port states and coastal states. On oil and gas development, it's less so.

In the cold waters of the Arctic, it's very hard to predict what a spill would do. Working in waters that are near the freezing point, a great depth, and having possible surface temperatures far below freezing makes a challenge for cleanup that would be much more difficult than in the warm waters of the Gulf, and would be one that we are currently ill prepared to deal with. So avoiding a spill becomes more important in the Arctic. It really does need that set of standards and constant monitoring and enforcement of standards by the national governments to be sure that we can avoid a spill. Or if one does take place that response comes very quickly.

For Russia's offshore reservoirs, many of them extend under land or under shallower water and they have a broad shelf, so they may be drilling in many cases at six hundred meters. For the U.S. and Canada, you may be hitting much deeper water. So, the techniques and the problems that are faced will vary from country to country. But it's a good time to come together and regionally define the regime for activities of exploitation of continental shelf, so that all countries know ahead of time what's expected of them. So that investors know what's expected of them and they know what the rules are and that they'll be carefully enforced.

A problem with the Gulf is that we had rules that weren't always enforced, weren't always monitored, and it leaves companies with a sense of, ‘where do we put our priority?'


Is the Law of the Sea Treaty enough of a mechanism for governing mineral exploitation of the seabed?


The Law of the Sea Convention makes it clear that the national governments are responsible both for issuing their national laws and for negotiating international guidelines and standards [for their continental shelf]. But there is no penalty for not doing that. It's a responsibility, but you can't take the United States to court internationally for having not done this. But given the possibility that [these activities] could not only occur in the U.S. shelf, but on the shelves of our neighboring countries, it seems like this should be a call for us to engage in that negotiation of standards, both with regards to the Gulf of Mexico and with regard to the Arctic, which are the two areas that have the greatest potential for offshore oil and gas development and which we have neighbors who could engage in activities themselves.


What are the chances of the Law of the Sea being ratified by Congress? And what obstacles remain?


There is sufficient support in the Senate to approve the Law of the Sea Convention once it goes to the floor of the Senate. However, its prospects depend upon priorities in the Senate that are determined by the Majority Leader with strong input from the president. The [Senate] majority leader and the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee have indicated their support, provided that President Obama gives it his support and priority as well.

If the president asks the majority leader to make approval of the convention a high priority for the current Congress and asks both Democratic and Republican supporters inside and outside the Senate to work together for approval, then it will be done, taking into account other high priority legislation and the politics of the midterm primaries and election. On the other hand, if the president fails to make this request, nothing will happen.


SOURCE:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/22585/law_of_sea_implications_for_gulf_spill.html