Mr. Obama has said that he will focus on climate change this year and he has employed the services of the master of constitutional circumlocutions, John Podesta, to enact his global vision.
Podesta has long worked with the UN and adheres to the principle of wealth redistribution. He is now working in private on a plan to pass the Law of the Sea Treaty without congressional approval, a plan which has endless potential for wealth redistribution from the U.S. to the U.N.
Podesta wants to cede U.S. sovereignty over her seas to the U.N. and to their authority under international law. The financial costs will be astronomical. It will also potentially put the U.S. under the thumb of the International Court, a court which is no friend to the U.S.
Reuters reported last week that “the United States submitted to the United Nations its vision for a new international climate agreement that is ‘built to last,’ outlining what it thinks should be the main elements of a climate deal to be agreed upon in Paris in 2015.” Over 190 countries, many of them dictatorships, agree that they must have “a patchwork of national contributions to curb emissions that would blur the 20-year-old distinction between the obligations of rich and poor nations.”
It will be costly for the U.S., a “rich” nation.
The U.S. wants an agreement that is “nimble” so they don’t need “consensus-based support.”
The U.S. and the other nations want to “set new targets to drive down their emissions after the year 2020, and hold countries like the United States, Japan and nations of the EU to the same legal requirements of China, India and other fast-growing developing countries.”
Many of these countries will not sign on to this agreement, leaving us with nothing to gain.
The U.S. wants the pact to conform with the “global goal”, which is a socialist model. “Unlike the 1997 Kyoto protocol, in which the agreed treaty required ratification by Congress, the 2015 would instead rely on countries’ domestic authorities to enforce their contributions,” the report states.
Obama will act like a dictator, use his pen and phone, and ignore Congress. Congress has repeatedly voted this treaty down because of its serious repercussions financially and its negative impact on our sovereignty.
Obama is working in secret: “The Obama administration has also quietly launched an interagency process to prepare a national goal to kick in after 2020, according to the publication Climatewire.”
There has always been an informal law of the sea which allows for the innocent passage of one nation’s ships through another nation’s territorial waters. Lost, the Law of the Sea Treaty, formalizes the “right of innocent passage.” There have been conditions that prevent it from limiting the sovereignty and security of the nations that sign on to the pact.
LOST, formally known as the Third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS III, was adopted in 1982. It was negotiated as UNCLOS I and II in the ’60′s and 70′s. Reagan refused to sign UNCLOS III because he saw it as a threat to liberty.
In the ’90′s, Clinton signed a supplementary agreement on deep seabed mining which was more acceptable to the U.S. and which modified some of the more objectionable clauses in UNCLSO III. UNCLOS III, with a Bush approval, received Senate confirmation and was signed in 2004. It is now being renegotiated.
The new treaty is a threat to U.S. sovereignty and economic interests because it is based on a failed socialist model:
- The treaty is reliant on the economic beliefs held by the U.N. The treaty seeks “fairer” terms of trade and development financing for the so-called under-developed and developing nations. In other words, it seeks redistribution.
- The treaty requires parties to the treaty adopt regulations and laws to control pollution of the marine environment. These are the ideas that Ronald Reagan rejected as contrary to U.S. values of freedom.
- The treaty also establishes specific jurisdictional limits on the ocean area that countries may claim, including a 12-mile territorial sea limit and a 200-mile exclusive economic zone limit. The biggest problem is the clause that requires the U.S. to provide just compensation to the rest of the world. Remember, we are talking about socialists and redistribution here. The UNCLOS members could extend that distance to 350 miles if they so choose.
- Critical nations to this treaty will not sign it. China, for one, has no intention of abiding by the treaty.
- There are no provisions for intervention against ships that are operated by terrorists or carrying weapons of mass destruction.
- It puts an international authority over the treaty implementation and over any disagreements. An international tribunal, ITCLOS, in Hamburg, Germany will make decisions about our rights, even our right to seize a vessel, including those carrying weapons of mass destruction. If we do not comply, we face criminal penalties. The U.S. along with other nations would be forced to document the seizure in detail, compromising sensitive military operations. The treaty asserts that resources are the common “heritage of mankind” and “all rights in resources are vested in mankind as a whole, on whose behalf the Authority [the tribunal] shall act.” They will regulate us into oblivion.
- Mining profits will be adjusted to manage competition to keep it from becoming too competitive, true to socialist values.
- The U.S. does NOT have a veto power over the international tribunal.
Hillary Clinton has dismissed any arguments against LOST as mythology.
Donald Rumsfeld spoke against the redistribution mechanism which seems to have no limits. Rumsfeld said that the U.N. has a poor management record and he did not want to entrust our interests to their international tribunal. The Navy has done fine without it, he said, adding that the treaty cannot counterbalance the few benefits.
Steve Groves of Heritage stated that he is skeptical, not based on ideology or mythology, but on facts. He said UNCLOS will affect our sovereignty by subjecting us to an international tribunal over which there is no appeal. It will require us to pay an incalculable amount of royalty revenue to an international body that will redistribute these funds from Kingston, Jamaica. In addition, we will have to seek permission to mine the seabed from a council of countries that includes Sudan.
Groves talked about the Founding Fathers not wanting us to be taxed from afar nor wanting us subjected to foreign tribunals for pretended offenses.
Groves pointed to the facts. He said the Navy has protected our maritime interests and has never been denied access despite failure to join UNCLOS. Failure to join UNCLOS would not limit us. We currently have full jurisdiction over our continental shelf through treaties with Mexico and Russia.
There is no way to know what the royalty revenues will be and the treaty is an open-ended commitment to landlocked and underdeveloped nations. Environmental activists and academics will launch lawsuits with the tribunal to which we must accede, Groves added. U.S. experience with tribunals has been negative.
He further said that proponents claim there are no costs. The proponents facts are based on mythology said Groves.