Susanne Posel, Contributor
The UN’s Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) will deliver American sovereignty and seven-tenths of the world’s surface through allocation of oceans and seas to the UN by way of the entanglement of global bureaucracy.
Over three decades ago, then President Ronald Regan rejected LOST, saying “no national interest of the United States could justify handing sovereign control of two-thirds of the Earth’s surface over to the Third World.”
The writers of LOST want to give the UN power to draw oceanic boundaries to impose environmental regulations and restrict business on the high seas.
LOST would give critical US naval and drilling operational decision making and final word to the UN.
On Capitol Hill, supporters of LOST include Senators Richard Lugar (who now heads the Senate Foreign Relations Committee), Chuck Hagel, John Warner, Trent Lot.
The coalition of the US Navy, multinational oil corporations led by Shell and radical environmentalist lawyers are providing advocacy for the UN’s usurpation of our individual rights as an independent nation.
Big oil supports LOST because of its provisional extension of jurisdiction over the continental shelf beyond the current 200-mile limit.
However, LOST requires that royalties of between 1 and 7% be paid to the International Seabed Authority (ISA) on the value of oil and minerals produced from those waters.
Effectively, the UN would regulate offshore and deep-sea production all over the world. The financing would come from American taxpayers. The taxation collected by the ISA would be redirected to the UN.
Larry Bell of Forbes magazine wrote that “as much as 7 percent of U.S. government revenue that is collected from oil and gas companies operating off our coast” and then reallocated by the UN to “poorer, landlocked countries.”
In the name of environmental justice, trillions of dollars would be siphoned from Americans.
Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, believes that “the time has come” for the Senate to ratify LOST. Panetta said about LOST:
Not since we acquired the lands of the American West and Alaska have we had such an opportunity to expand U.S. sovereignty.
The US Navy supports LOST because it supposedly classifies navigational rights and freedoms that would assist the US Navy in key operations; however, there is no need to ratify a treaty that empowers the UN to govern the US Navy to do what they already do. The necessity of an international body to give the US military permission to perform as it normally does is ludicrous.
Still, the US Navy and Joint Chiefs of Staff forcefully repeat to Congressional committees that LOST is crucial to the success of US military operations.
The US Navy contends that LOST will preserve American freedom of transit in dangerous waters, such as the Strait of Hormuz and the South China Sea.
How can we argue that other nations must abide by international rules when we haven’t officially accepted those rules?
For decades, admirals have warned that the US cannot guarantee navigational rights without ratification of LOST through Congress.
In 1995, one admiral wrote:
This may be our last opportunity to ‘lock in’ those critical navigational and overflight rights.
In 2007, a vice chief of Naval Operations stated to a Senate Foreign Relations Committee:
We need to lock in the navigation and overflight rights and high seas freedoms contained in the Convention while we can.
LOST will give the UN jurisdictional claim that may interfere with navigation of the seas by military or commercial ships. The Freedom of Navigation Program provides the US diplomatic protest through the State Department when warships are prohibited from navigating foreign waters. LOST would remove the US Navy’s right to diplomacy by right of global and international governance.
Under LOST, since the UN has no navy, America would be expected to protect the world’s sea lanes and punish piracy by mandate of international law.
The International Tribunal of LOST (ITLOS) would have jurisdiction over “maritime disputes”. This tribunal of 21 members resides in Hamburg. ITLOS’s judgments could be enforced against Americans, but not appealed in US courts.
Maritime disputes would essentially be turned from accidents at sea between ships, to issues of global warming with power to create binding mandates on climate change.
Steven Groves of the Heritage Foundation published a paper that outlines how radical environmentalist lawyers and climate change alarmists could use LOST to file lawsuits to advance man-made climate change agendas.
John Bolton, former UN ambassador, asserts LOST has become more dangerous “with China emerging as a major power, ratifying the treaty now would encourage Sino-American strife, constrain U.S. naval activities and do nothing to resolve China’s expansive maritime territorial claims.”
In 2010, Obama issued an executive order National Policy for the Stewardship of the Ocean, Coasts and Great Lakes that seized total control from states and localities for “conservation, economic activity, user conflict and sustainable use of the ocean, our coasts and the Great Lakes.”
Obama installed a National Ocean Council (NOC), a 27-member group that will implement ocean management plans “in accordance with customary international law, including as reflected in the Law of the Sea Convention.”
NOC is chaired by John Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar, (who supports eugenics, mass sterilization and forced abortions; as well as geo-engineering for the sake of saving the planet) and Nancy Sutley, White House on Environmental Quality.
The NOC also seats Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and a former high-ranking official at the left-wing Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). The EDF is known for supporting draconian declines of commercial fishing ships and leisure fishing to pursue centralized control.
Elisabeth Mann Borgese, co-author of LOST is quoted saying: “He who rules the sea, rules the land.”
LOST gives all-encompassing power and global governance over the world’s water sources in the name of environmental protection.
Susanne Posel is the Chief Editor of Occupy Corporatism. Our alternative news site is dedicated to reporting the news as it actually happens; not as it is spun by the corporately funded mainstream media. You can find us on our Facebook page.