Lost

[Tedob1]

Conservative Americans who consider George W. Bush a champion of national sovereignty have been shocked to learn that the president seeks Senate ratification of the UN's Convention on the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). Despite the Senate's refusal thus far to ratify the treaty, it went into effect in 1995, and elements of the vast regulatory apparatus it outlines are already in operation.

When fully implemented, LOST would consummate the largest act of territorial conquest in history, turning seven-tenths of the Earth's surface over to the jurisdiction of the United Nations. It would create a mammoth bureaucracy to regulate exploration of the ocean depths and commercial development of the seabed's riches. The UN would also be empowered to collect royalties on seabed mining, thereby providing the world body with a potentially enormous independent source of revenue to fund its agenda for "global governance."

"...why is it necessary to sign a UN treaty in order to enjoy "economic and resource benefits" from ocean territory we already own and control? If the UN would have no role in regulating the use of oceans within our sphere of influence, how would it be in a position to grant us the "economic and resource benefits..."

Article 170 of LOST describes the "Enterprise," a UN organ that would supervise all scientific, commercial, and military use of "the Area" — all regions of the world's oceans, including the seabed and superadjacent atmosphere, beyond the territorial limits of coastal nations.

Annex 3, Article 13 of the treaty sets out the "Financial terms of contracts" between the UN's Enterprise and private interests seeking to develop seabed resources. Any private firm seeking to conduct mining operations must pay an administrative fee of $500,000, in addition to an annual royalty to $1 million

http://********usout.org/un/articles/lost.htm - March 7, 2005

[The Grunt]

Wow... Talk about giving us world government... I think this is the worst idea ever... Wasn't one of the main ideas of the predecessor of the UN (League of Nations) freedom of the seas?

[Egaladeist]

Hi Grunt,

Here ya go...

http://www.answers.com/topic/united-...law-of-the-sea
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: Definition and Much More From Answers.com

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/leagcov.htm
The Avalon Project : The Covenant of the League of Nations

Eg

[Tedob1]

Egaladeist your links contain very outdated data. the first only talks about 1994 and before and the second talks about 'the league on nations' which has been defunct for more than 50 years.

for more current info google "LOST law of the sea"

this part really disturbs me:

"Article 170 of LOST describes the "Enterprise," a UN organ that would supervise all scientific, commercial, and military use of "the Area" — all regions of the world's oceans, including the seabed and superadjacent atmosphere, beyond the territorial limits of coastal nations."

knowing how the UN is and how they often work in our best interests <not>, how do you think Article 170 would have affected our invasion of afganistan after 911?

[Egaladeist]

Hi Tedob1,

My links were meant to respond to The Grunt's question...

Wasn't one of the main ideas of the predecessor of the UN (League of Nations) freedom of the seas?

so I was looking for info on the League of Nations stand on Freedom of the Seas...it was intentional.

Eg

EDIT: as for your question...I don't think it would have affected the invasion of Afghanistan at all...however...it may have caused a serious conflict with Iraq 2, as the UN opposed the war therefore would have had to question the US's right to free passage to Iraq through UN waters in order to fight a war they disapproved of.

Personally, I think it's a bad idea to give the UN that much liberty and commercial freedom...one negative aspect I can see coming right now is taxing shipping in UN waters rising the costs of everything we purchase that is imported via commercial sea vessels...and what about nucleur subs, do we really want the UN mucking with that?

[RoadClosed]

Who ever sactioned Bush as a champion of national soverighty? He's the democrats best friend, I KEEP saying that. In the "emotion" of the moment he grasped the opportunity to act against the people the west as been bitching about for 40 years but he's ineffective on borders and relations to the United Nations as it pertains to America.

[whatthe]

George must be setting up an new job for himself when his term is up.