Thread: LOST is a Loss for the United States

LOST is a Loss for the United States
by Jeffrey Gayner

The Halloween vote by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in favor of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOST) represents an attempt to trick the American people into accepting a fatally flawed agreement. This complex international treaty, if adopted, would directly threaten American sovereign rights on the high seas and will transfer American wealth to a new rouge international organization.

The stealth campaign in the Senate to have LOST ratified with little debate or discussion wants to ignore many of the major problems with the treaty. Instead the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had only two hearings on it and only allowed two witnesses who were critical of LOST (two out of eleven total witnesses). No other Senate committee has held any hearings in this session of Congress on the broad military, economic and environmental implications of LOST. Never has a major international treaty received such superficial critical attention by the Senate.

As the most powerful and important sea-faring nation in the world, the United States has the most to lose and the least to gain from this agreement. At present American rights at sea are effectively guaranteed by a combination of existing treaties and agreements backed up by American military power. LOST would transfer jurisdiction of the seas over to a new United Nations entity that would be self-governing without an American veto power over its actions.

The United States wisely resisted joining either the International Criminal Court or the Kyoto Protocol on climate change because both agreements failed to guarantee existing American rights or fair treatment of our vital interests. Instead those treaties, like LOST, set up international rogue entities that could either curtail the rights Americans presently enjoy under the U.S. Constitution or required the United States to make exorbitant sacrifices compared to other countries.

LOST would take the United States into similar uncharted territory. For example, the United States has historically done more to protect freedom of the seas than any other nation in history, largely through exercise of real or potential military power at sea. Under LOST oceans are specifically reserved for “peaceful purposesâ€

The good news is I have gotten emails FROM my a-political friends. These four people have NEVER been interested in anything political. They are actually emailing me to let me know about the end to US sovereignty if LOST passes. I have sent them my calling list. (it contains all the names and at least 2 phone numbers for all 100 Senators). I have the feeling there are going to be a larger number of calls against this than there ever was with any of the immigration legislation we have stopped. My only question is this. If the Senate sends us all the huge middle finger and passes this atrocity, is there anything that WE THE PEOPLE can do to overturn their decision?

Who is pushing this, the Dems or the Repubs?

and IF this passes... can it be overturned with a new President?

If so, there still is hope if Ron Paul, or Tancredo gets elected... I mean, I think NAFTA can be overturned, so I am sure a treaty can too..

does anybody know for sure?

Originally Posted by BrightNail

Who is pushing this, the Dems or the Repubs?

and IF this passes... can it be overturned with a new President?

If so, there still is hope if Ron Paul, or Tancredo gets elected... I mean, I think NAFTA can be overturned, so I am sure a treaty can too..

does anybody know for sure?

This is what I found:

Treaty Termination

The Constitution is silent about how treaties might be terminated. The breaking off of two treaties during the Jimmy Carter administration stirred controversy. In 1978, the president terminated the U.S. defense treaty with Taiwan, in order to facilitate the establishment of diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. Also in 1978, the new Panama Canal treaties replaced three previous treaties with Panama. In one case, the president acted unilaterally; in the second, he terminated treaties in accordance with actions taken by Congress. But clearly it seems that the right to terminate belongs to the executive, the sole branch of government that communicates with foreign governments. Only once has Congress terminated a treaty by a joint resolution; that was a mutual defense treaty with France, from which, in 1798, Congress declared the United States "freed and exonerated." In that case, breaking the treaty almost amounted to an act of war; indeed, two days later Congress authorized hostilities against France, which were only narrowly averted.

now this is scary:

Executive Agreements, Treaty Termination, Status as Law

Executive Agreements

In addition to treaties, which may not enter into force and become binding on the United States without the advice and consent of the Senate, there are other types of international agreements concluded by the executive branch and not submitted to the Senate. These are classified in the United States as executive agreements, not as treaties, a distinction that has only domestic significance. International law regards each mode of international agreement as binding, whatever its designation under domestic law.

The difficulty in obtaining a two-thirds vote was one of the motivating forces behind the vast increase in executive agreements after World War II. In 1952, for instance, the United States signed 14 treaties and 291 executive agreements. This was a larger number of executive agreements than had been reached during the entire century of 1789 to 1889. Executive agreements continue to grow at a rapid rate. The United States is currently a party to nearly nine hundred treaties and more than five thousand executive agreements.

The growth in executive agreements is also attributable to the sheer volume of business and contacts between the United States and other countries, coupled with the already heavy workload of the Senate. Many international agreements are of relatively minor importance and would needlessly overburden the Senate if they were submitted to it as treaties for advice and consent. Another factor has been the passage of legislation authorizing the executive branch to conclude international agreements in certain fields, such as foreign aid, agriculture, and trade. Treaties have also been approved implicitly authorizing further agreements between the parties. According to a 1984 study by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, "88.3 percent of international agreements reached between 1946 and 1972 were based at least partly on statutory authority; 6.2 percent were treaties, and 5.5 percent were based solely on executive authority."

all of the above are from:

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/his ... eaties.htm