Once L.O.S.T., It Is Gone Forever. . .
Vol: 128 Issue: 25 Friday, May 25, 2012
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton led a new push to get the Congress to ratify the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, better known by its acronym which is, appropriately enough, L.O.S.T.
Secretary Clinton argued that ratifying the treaty would create jobs, open new paths to oil, gas and other natural resources and bolster national security.
One could make the identical argument about opening up the Green River federal lands, which the GAO recently testified contains more oil than all the proven reserves of the rest of the world combined.
And we wouldn’t have to surrender US sovereignty to the United Nations as part of the asking price.
On Wednesday (05/23/12), Secretary Clinton, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made a rare joint appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to make the case for the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Since the days of the Reagan administration, the US has lived within the rules of the L.O.S.T. Convention voluntarily, but no Senate to this point has been willing to vote to ratify it.
“One hundred and sixty nations have acceded to it, and we say, `To hell with them, we’re not going to participate in that,'” Panetta said. “Then 160 nations are going to determine what happens” and the U.S. is on the sidelines.”
So, if the L.O.S.T. Treaty will improve national security, provide jobs, open paths to oil, blah, blah, blah, then why won’t the Senate ratify it? According to the AP report cited above;
Conservative and tea party Republicans say the treaty would undercut U.S. sovereignty, force a redistribution of wealth and stand in for the Kyoto Protocol on climate change that would allow foreign countries to regulate U.S. energy.
Clinton dismissed the opposition as misguided.
“I am well aware that this treaty does have determined opposition, limited but nevertheless quite vociferous,” she said. “And it’s unfortunate because its opposition based in ideology and mythology, not in facts, evidence or the consequences of our continuing failure to accede to the treaty.”
She suggested that opponents who are wary of any U.N.-based treaty are expressing unfounded fears. “That means the black helicopters are on their way,” Clinton said.
Is that true? Are the opponents of the L.O.S.T. Treaty all paranoid right-wingers? You wouldn’t know from the Senate hearing — only those in favor of ratifying L.O.S.T. were allowed to testify.
In formally rejecting US participation in the L.O.S.T. Treaty, Ronald Reagan declared, “No national interest of the United States can justify handing sovereign control of two-thirds of the Earth’s surface over to the Third World.”
The Nixon administration started the Law of the Sea Treaty negotiations, which continued through the Carter administration. The Reagan administration refused to sign it, as did the elder Bush administration.
On July 28, 1994, a legally-binding agreement amended the treaty, and allegedly addressing all US concerns regarding deep seabed mining, was unanimously adopted by the General Assembly.
The US signed the agreement the next day and later that year President Clinton submitted the agreement and the treaty as a package to the Senate for its advice and consent. The treaty was so flawed that the Senate refused to even allow the treaty to come to the floor for a vote.
James L. Malone, speaking as Reagan’s special representative for Law of the Sea negotiations, delivered testimony in 1995 – after the so-called “fix” negotiated by Clinton — rejecting L.O.S.T. as badly flawed in concept and detail.
Malone said Reagan’s refusal to sign the treaty was based on eight specific objections:
- It is “potentially hostile to American interests” and “sets up yet another complex and troublesome U.N. bureaucracy to administer the oceans.”
- Its provisions give Third World countries “preferential treatment at the expense of American interests and force U.S. mining firms to share their profits and provide free mine sites to a new U.N. agency.”
- The seabed mining provisions were “inadequately corrected” and the “collectivist ideologies of a new repudiated system of global central planning” are “still imbedded in the treaty…”
- The “bankrupt” concepts of the New International Economic Order are still “maintained” in the treaty.
- The U.N. bureaucracy created by the treaty will inevitably “grow” over the years.
- The designation of international waters as the “common heritage of mankind” reflects the “collectivist structure” of the treaty.
- The “dispute resolution” provisions of the treaty are defective. The treaty includes tribunals and panels to resolve disputes.
- Ultimately, it is the U.S. Navy, not a treaty, “that will guarantee American interests.” The U.S. has “protected its navigational interests for over 200 years without a comprehensive law of the sea treaty.”
According to Reagan’s representative, none of these objections had been addressed at the time that President Clinton signed the treaty on behalf of the United States.
Painting in broad strokes, the Law of the Sea Treaty would establish, among other things, a new international legal regime, including an International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and an International Seabed Authority, to govern activities on, over, and under the world’s oceans.
ALL of the world’s oceans — giving the UN governing authority over seven-tenths of the earth’s surface. It would also have the authority to govern ALL of the ocean’s traffic.
That would put the US Navy at sea under UN command. L.O.S.T also features environmental provisions that would provide a back door for the UN to impose environmental rules and regulations, both on the oceans and on dry land.
Provisions of the Treaty give the UN the power to impose international rules and regulations governing economic and industrial activities on the remaining land area of the world in order to combat perceived pollution dangers.
Finally, and most importantly, the treaty provides for imposing taxes against nations and international corporations conducting mining operations on the ocean floor, giving the United Nations an independent source of revenue.
That eliminates America’s only real source of influence at the UN. The United States not only hosts the UN at US expense, but the US pays more than 20% of the UN’s operating budget.
In the past, the Congress has been able to use its control of the purse strings to express its will within the United Nations. The Law of the Sea Treaty takes all that away and makes the United Nations a truly independent global governing authority.
The L.O.S.T. Treaty stipulates that the world’s oceans “shall be reserved for peaceful purposes” and that “any threat or use of force, inconsistent with the United Nations Charter, is prohibited.” What would that mean for the United States Navy?
As written, the Convention would prohibit the US Navy from sending out nuclear submarine patrols, and would limit the surface Navy from operating in international waters without the US’s permission. Senator Jeff Sessions arguing against L.O.S.T. wrote that,
“Under the treaty, the United States could not board a foreign vessel even if it is suspected of carrying weapons of mass destruction. Our warships couldn’t board “unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting that the ship is engaged in piracy … the slave trade … unauthorized broadcasting” or “being without nationality.”
Under the terms of the L.O.S.T. Treaty, whether or not the US Navy could conduct operations at sea or whether the US could drill at sea would be subject to the approval of 162 other countries.
Funding for the massive international regulatory body it would take to oversee L.O.S.T. would come primarily from the United States in the form of international taxes on offshore drilling operations. International royalties would be imposed; an international tribunal would be set up to mediate disputes.
There would be no opportunity for appeal to a US court. We would be forced to abide by the decisions made by our good friends at the UN. And we all know how much they love America.
The antichrist only has seven years in which to operate — not nearly enough time to set up the necessary infrastructure from scratch. So much of the advance work is underway right now.
The UN is not the global government of the antichrist, but it is the model upon which the antichrist will build his own powerbase. And this L.O.S.T. treaty sets a precedent for both the acceptance and expansion of an international governing authority not answerable to the people of the United States.
Why the push to ratify it now? We’ve honored the terms without making ourselves subjects of the UN, which has to this point, prevented the UN from fully implementing the wealth distribution angle which is so obviously the real purpose of the treaty.
If the globalists are going to make their move, they have to make it now, while the socialists have control of the US government. The handwriting on the wall doesn’t look so good for them after November.
Whether they are successful in ratifying this treaty or not, every attempt brings us one step closer to the scenario the Bible predicted for the last days.
“And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.” (Luke 21:28)
Maranatha! The Lord is coming!