Article

2004-04-13 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by JerseyMike 2004-04-13 16:12|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Excellent. RINO's like Dick Lugar have been trying to hand away our rights for years. It's great that GWB is finally listening to reason. One of the big problems with the so-called Law of the Sea is that it commits us to sharing the benefits of any deep sea initiatives we undertake in the future. My view on this - there is no way any American company is going to undertake such massive project in order to give most of it away to other countries. It's just not going to happen. This way, we get to do what we want beyond the 200 nm economic zone limits - and any country that objects does have the right to fight us on it - which they would anyway, if they were militarily stronger.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-04-13 4:37:18 PM|| 2004-04-13 4:37:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 If the U.S. does not approve the treaty, "we would forfeit our seat at the table of institutions that will make decisions about the use of the oceans, and we would increase the chance that such decisions would be contrary to our interests," Lugar said then.

But if we don't sign on, we're not bound by the treaty, and can tell the UN Ocean Owners Association to go pound sea-salt up their oubiettes.

Posted by mojo 2004-04-13 5:13:42 PM|| 2004-04-13 5:13:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 "For the treaty's supporters, failure to ratify it would mean the U.S. is turning its back on international cooperation.
Harry Scheiber, co-director of the Law of the Sea Institute at the University of California, Berkeley, said the treaty offers a process to prevent conflicts over fishing, ocean transit and military activity on the high seas.
Walking away from the treaty would be "a gratuitous insult" to U.S. allies and trading partners, Scheiber said, rejecting "a global effort of two decades." "

sounds like Kyoto's little brother - hamstringing the US. If Berkley's for it, that's reason enough to pass on it :-)

Posted by Frank G 2004-04-13 6:01:16 PM|| 2004-04-13 6:01:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 I would like to know how this Law of the Sea treaty will impact the Chinese. They are getting frisky unilaterally around the Spratley Islands. Also what about the Straits of Mallucca and other choke points? I need to look into the language of the treaty first before condemn it. But I get wary of all this "feel good" handwavy language without hard facts. Our navy, for example needs to be unhindered on the open seas. This does smell like an underwater rat like Kyoto, at first glance.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2004-04-13 7:04:14 PM|| 2004-04-13 7:04:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Is this the same Law of the Sea treaty that everyone was so hot about back in the '70s when it looked like the rapacious Yankee capitalists were going to use the Glomar Explorer to go around hoovering up magnesium nodules *cough* russki subs * cough* off the bottom of the deep sea floor?

Gosh, that treaty has only been under consideration for a quarter of a century. I'm not sure we should be rushing into it so quickly.

Posted by SteveS 2004-04-13 7:23:43 PM|| 2004-04-13 7:23:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 First of all, who has the authority to GIVE THE UNITED NATIONS sole possession of the oceans of the world? That's what the "Law of the Sea" treaty effectively does. Anything which enhances or expands the control (read "greed") of the United Nations over ANYTHING is, by default, bad for everyone except the United Nations. Frankly, I'm beginning to be even more convinced that the United Nations is an institution that outlived its usefulness about fifteen minutes after it was created, and is a waste of time, effort, manpower, and space. I still think the best way to deal with the United Nations is to exile every single UN employee to the Island of Ascension, blow up the harbor and the airfield, and dare anyone to sail within 500 miles of it.

Posted by Old Patriot 2004-04-13 8:04:51 PM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm] 2004-04-13 8:04:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 From the perspective of the "tragedy of commons" divying up right to the ocean is not a completely bad idea. Also one way to combat global poverty is to issues titles to "unowned" property. In South America, for instance, there are poor people who would be able to reap financial benefits from selling land they own, but they can't because the government has never issued titles to the land so the peasants are stuck squatting on the same valuable land that their ancestors have been squatting on for generations. And I mean squat because the community has no sewage or services and will never be developed because the land has no ownership or "value" without a title.

That said, only a bonehead would think that the UN is a body capable of administering anything larger than a five acre square of land. Talk about their tragedy of commons, they raided their own cafeteria as if they were a Germanic Tribe.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-04-13 9:12:05 PM|| 2004-04-13 9:12:05 PM|| Front Page Top

10:03 B
10:02 B
09:23 muck4doo
01:44 B
01:42 B
01:35 BigEdLB
01:35 OldSpook
00:31 Super Hose
00:24 Super Hose
00:20 Super Hose
00:15 RWV
00:06 Long Hair Republican
23:58 OldeForce
23:55 Frank Martin
23:38 Anonymous4156
23:35 ruprecht
23:27 Gromky
23:23 tu3031
23:18 Barbara Skolaut
23:18 Raj
23:16 Gromky
23:10 JAB
23:07 Barbara Skolaut
23:05 whitecollar redneck