Home › Forums › Refining Community › Refinery News › L.O.S.T. Alert – Oil Industry needs solid resistance
This topic contains 1 reply, has 2 voices, and was last updated by Charles Randall 15 years, 4 months ago.
November 3, 2007 at 11:41 am #3893
Senate Committee Approves Treaty, But With Sharp Increase in Opposition
The National Center for Public Policy Research ^ | October 31, 2007
Posted on 10/31/2007 7:15:20 PM PDT by Delacon
[size=-1]Statement of David A. Ridenour, Vice President, The National Center for Public Policy Research on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote on the Law of the Sea Treaty this morning:
The more people learn about the Law of the Sea Treaty, the less they like it. [size=-1]That’s the message from this morning’s vote of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. [size=-1]Although the Committee voted to send the treaty to the full Senate for consideration, there was a marked increase in opposition to it from just three years ago. In 2004, it was approved 19-0. This morning there were four nay votes.
[size=-1]The tide is turning against the Law of the Sea Treaty. The full Republican Senate leadership opposes it as well as presidential candidates Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, Senator Fred Thompson, Governor Mike Huckabee, Rep. Tom Tancredo, Rep. Ron Paul and Rep. Duncan Hunter.
[size=-1]This explains why its supporters – including Senators Joseph Biden (D-DE) and Richard Lugar (R-IN) – are in a rush to push it through before their colleagues can be alerted to the treaty’s fatal flaws. They rejected a very reasonable request this morning by Senator David Vitter to delay the Committee vote for one week to allow additional expert testimony from those with concerns about the treaty. Senator Vitter wished to correct the nearly 6 to one imbalance in favor of treaty proponents during the Committee’s hearings.
[size=-1]So desperate was Chairman Joe Biden for an affirmative vote for the treaty that he misrepresented both the treaty and President Ronald Reagan’s position on it during the Committee’s meeting today. Biden asserted that President Reagan’s only objection to the treaty was the deep seabed mining provisions and that these provisions have been corrected.
[size=-1]Not a single word of the Law of the Sea Treaty has been amended since Ronald Reagan was president nor were these provisions his only objections. As President Reagan noted in his diary on June 29, 1982, “Decided in NSC meeting – will not sign ‘Law of the Sea Treaty’ even without deep seabed mining provisions.”
[size=-1]It seems the only person Mr. Biden can quote correctly is Neil Kinnock, from whom he lifted a speech during a previous presidential run in 1987.
[size=-1]The treaty is a bad deal for the U.S. because it would…
[size=-1]* Complicate our efforts to apprehend terrorists or weapons of mass destruction by subjecting our actions to review by an International Tribunal that is unlikely to render decisions favorable to the U.S.
[size=-1]* Make our ships more vulnerable to terrorists or rough states by extending surfacing requirements for unmanned underwater vehicles used to detect mines when our ships exercise their rights of innocent passage through the territorial sea of another nation.
[size=-1]* Threaten the U.S.’s ability to set its own environmental standards. The treaty requires us to “adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from land-based sources” and shall endeavor to “harmonize” it regulations. As Greenpeace notes, “”The benefits of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea are substantial, including its basic duties for states to protect and preserve the marine environment and to conserve marine living species.”
[size=-1]* Give control of a substantial portion of the ocean to a U.N.-style body, the International Seabed Authority (ISA), that will likely be less accountable than the U.N. The ISA was established to be self-financing, deriving revenue not only royalties. The U.S. will have even less leverage in pushing for transparency and accountability than it does with the U.N. as threats to withhold contributions will be less meaningful.
[size=-1]* The treaty permits amendments without requiring nations to re-ratify it – even if the changes are substantial. This not only is a blank check, but a stunning abdication of the Senate’s advice and consent responsibilities. [/blockquote]
[size=-1]This goes against Ronald Reagan’s advice, “trust, but verify.”
[size=-1]For more information, contact The National Center for Public Policy Research at (202)543-4110 or visit http://www.unlawoftheseatreaty.org.
November 3, 2007 at 12:00 pm #7193
This LOST Alert is one that all Oil companies should get behind because of the threats it contains to their future existence and cost.This thing has been trying to get into law since 1982 & none of wording has really changed since Regan was president & stamped it out. This time its trying to pass via stealth mode – with extra shove from Kyoto supporters who have failing program.
If there was ever a time to kick Energy Lobbyists into high gear & focus on a bill, this would be it (think about UN being able to give offshore development to whomever it wants &/ or tax them). It would be a good time for individuals so inclined to call or write their representatives on this as well (my first two drafts burst into flames before I finished them). For those not up-to-speed on the issue, think in terms of Global Warming/Kyoto in stealth mode or UN on Steroids (able tax, control seabed resources, governance ect) and here is take on the main points to remember about LOST:
1. LOST threatens U. S. sovereignty. Not just a little or around the edges, but fundamentally. Once the U. S. became a party to the treaty, any number of issues could be adjudicated by a LOST tribunal. It is not clear what the limits are on the issues that could be taken up by LOST. Jurisdiction over anything that affects the oceans directly or indirectly could be asserted. The majority of members of the tribunal adjudicating any particular issue are almost certainly going to be hostile to U. S. interests. Tribunal decisions cannot be appealed. Unlike every other country in the world, those decisions could be enforced in U. S. federal courts against the federal government.
2. LOST would be a big step toward United Nations global governance. The treaty’s reach extends far beyond international issues and disagreements into nations’ internal policies on a wide array of issues. The treaty’s structure is designed to replace national decision making with UN decision making on these issues.
3. For the first time, the United Nations would have international taxing authority through LOST. Enough said.
4. LOST would accomplish backdoor implementation of the Kyoto Protocol and far beyond. A claim before a LOST tribunal that industrial CO2 emissions are leading to increasing acidification of the oceans and thereby threatening the world’s marine ecological resources would almost certainly be decided in the affirmative. Other nations could decide how to respond to such a decision. In the U. S., a private party, such as an environmental pressure group, could file suit in federal court to force the federal government to implement the tribunal’s decision. This is because in the U. S., ratified treaties have the same status as the Constitution. This is not true of any other country.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.