The U.S. Navy is joining the political fray again by lobbying for The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). They want it, and they are willing to spend a portion of shrinking budget to lobbyist Trent Lott to get this piece of United Nations despotism passed in the U.S. Senate, which may finally happen after decades of trying. The video below is Senator Jim DeMint on LOST. It’s excellent. I hope you have time to view it.
Former Senator Trent Lott (R-Miss) was firmly against The Law of the Sea Treaty his entire time in Congress, but now lobbies for it because…he gets paid to do so. In his prior life, Lott is on the record saying:
…it would create a “U.N. on steroids” that “would undermine U.S. military operations … and impair navigational rights”…
At that Capitol Hill press conference he said that he had studied the treaty for years, and it would authorize U.S. participation in a “huge new bureaucracy” and that American taxpayers would end up paying 25 percent of the total cost. He noted that, under the provisions, money and resources provided to the treaty organization would be “shared with the rest of the world,” a form of foreign aid.
Note in the video below, Senator Jim DeMint speaks of the support coming from oil companies. According to DeMint, oil companies WILL NOT PAY THE ROYALTIES. U.S. taxpayers will pay the royalties, according to the treaty.
Here are some opinions about why the U.S. Navy has no need for LOST:
Senators Jim Inhofe, Roger Wicker, Jeff Sessions:
The U.S. Navy has been the master of the seven seas since World War II, the pre-eminent maritime force.
It seems odd, then, that Navy leadership has long pressed for what amounts to a redundant international hall pass.
A steady stream of admirals and service chiefs over many years have advocated for the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, or the Law of the Sea Treaty — an accord rejected by President Ronald Reagan in 1982.
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for example, said this treaty “codifies navigational rights and freedoms essential for our global mobility.”…
But the Navy has successfully preserved and protected its navigational rights and freedoms for 200 years without it.
For the treaty to be “essential for our global mobility,” the Navy would have to suffer a devastating decline — either from drastic budget cuts or a major reduction in its mission and capabilities. Ceding any authority to an international body is not only a threat to our sovereignty, it also creates another avenue for other nations to stop U.S. unilateral activity. Read the entire article here.
…On the other hand, one could be forgiven for thinking the U.S. Navy’s 11 supercarriers, 75 nuclear submarines, and 200 other vessels, along with nearly 4,000 aircraft and 340,000 active duty personnel, obviate the need for a document that would merely allow us to do what we already do, and what we are entitled to do, with or without codification by the international community, such as it is. Still, when the U.S. Navy and the Joint Chiefs of Staff repeatedly and forcefully argue that something is crucial to the success of U.S. military operations—as they have in the case of LOST—conservatives usually salute…
Over the years a procession of admirals has warned that the United States cannot guarantee its navigational rights unless it ratifies the treaty. “This may be our last opportunity to ‘lock in’ those critical navigational and overflight rights,” wrote one admiral—in 1995. More than a dozen years later, in 2007, the vice chief of naval operations repeated the same warning to the 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.” With a possible Republican majority returning to the Senate in 2013, LOST is back on the front burner…
The fact of the matter is that the Navy has not only survived but thrived without the supposed benefits of LOST membership. The Continental Congress established the Navy in 1775, and over the ensuing 236 years it has become the greatest maritime force in history. LOST was first adopted at the United Nations in 1982, yet somehow the Navy has managed to protect U.S. maritime interests down to the present day.
On the high seas, the U.S. Navy “locks in” its rights and freedoms—and the rights and freedoms of every other peace-loving, seafaring nation—not by membership in LOST, but by its capacity to sink any ship that would try to deny those rights. When a foreign country makes an excessive jurisdictional claim that interferes with navigation of the seas by military or commercial ships, the United States disputes it through the Freedom of Navigation Program—a combination of diplomatic protest by the State Department and operational assertiveness by the Navy. For example, in 1993 Iran passed a law prohibiting warships from passing through waters it claimed in the Strait of Hormuz without prior authorization. The United States diplomatically protested the law, and our warships transit through Hormuz several times a year without permission from Tehran…
Instead of debating a flawed treaty that was rejected by President Reagan almost 30 years ago, the Senate should endeavor to provide the Navy with the resources it needs to preserve its preeminent position on the world’s oceans. That is the only way to ensure that the Navy can successfully prosecute its mission of protecting navigational rights and freedoms on a global basis.
What is ultimately required to secure customary rights on the high seas are the ships, aircraft, missiles, and sailors of the U.S. Navy. Unfortunately, they face ever more cuts by the Obama administration and its allies in Congress.
Finally, says Hanna, “There is no guarantee that the treaty will remain what it is at the time of ratification. Under its terms, its content can later be changed by an amendment process that does not require the approval of the United States government. This undermines U.S. sovereignty and, to put it bluntly, is unconstitutional.”
As you read about LOST and particularly Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s comment, or watch the video below, touting ocean bed mining and drilling, when this administration has done everything to shutdown mining and offshore drilling – indeed, has stopped it, not just tried, but stopped it – if you’re not repulsed, you are not paying attention.
Egypt, Cuba, Senegal, Sudan, Tunisia, Bahrain, Iraq, Indonesia, Kuwait, Nigeria, Yemen, Cyprus, Congo, Kenya, Somalia, Oman, Botswana, Uganda, Angola, Djibouti, Zimbabwe, Bosnia, Sri Lanka, Viet Nam, Australia, Germany, Sierra Leone, Lebanon, Italy, Austria, Greece, Jordan, Argentina, France, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, China, Algeria, Haiti, Spain, Pakistan, Russia, UK, South Africa, European Union, Switzerland, Chad.
A two-thirds vote in the U.S. Senate is needed for ratification. By my count, three more Republicans voting ‘nay’ may kill the Treaty, but the vote against should be far larger. See a list of Republican Senators and where they stand on the vote here.
Senator Jim DeMint on Details of The Law of the Sea Treaty (video)