UPDATED 7/16/12: 4 additional senators have joined in opposition to LOST, including Mike Johanns (R-NE), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Rob Portman (R-OH) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA). With 34 senators against the misguided treaty, LOST will not be ratified by the Senate this year.
Strong opposition is rising in the U.S. Senate to the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) that would subjugate American sovereignty to the whims of an international tribunal. To date, 30 Republican senators have signed onto a letter opposing LOST. It takes 67 votes to approve treaties in the Senate, so only 34 votes are needed to ensure defeat of this misguided treaty.
Why is LOST so harmful?
- [*]It would act as a backdoor Kyoto Protocol, forcing us into cap and trade policies that would destroy jobs and harm our economy.[/*][*]It would cost the U.S. trillions of dollars in international royalties to nations including state sponsors of terror like Sudan and “undemocratic, despotic or brutal governments in Belarus, Burma, China or Zimbabwe.”[/*][*]Former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton warned it would embolden China, “constrain U.S. naval activities, and do nothing to resolve China's expansive maritime territorial claims.”[/*][*]Radical environmental groups have lined up in support of LOST.[/*][*]President Ronald Reagan strongly opposed the treaty as a threat to U.S. sovereignty.[/*]
The Honorable Harry Reid
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. Leader,
We understand that Chairman Kerry has renewed his efforts to pursue Senate ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. We are writing to let you know that we believe this Convention reflects political, economic, and ideological assumptions which are inconsistent with American values and sovereignty.
By its current terms, the Law of the Sea Convention encompasses economic and technology interests in the deep sea, redistribution of wealth from developed to undeveloped nations, freedom of navigation in the deep sea and exclusive economic zones which may impact maritime security, and environmental regulation over virtually all sources of pollution.
To effect the treaty’s broad regime of governance, we are particularly concerned that United States sovereignty could be subjugated in many areas to a supranational government that is chartered by the United Nations under the 1982 Convention. Further, we are troubled that compulsory dispute resolution could pertain to public and private activities including law enforcement, maritime security, business operations, and nonmilitary activities performed aboard military vessels.
If this treaty comes to the floor, we will oppose its ratification.
|Liveleak on Facebook|