July 17, 2012

The USS John F. KennedyThirty-four Senators have signed a letter pledging to oppose the costly United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which would erode American sovereignty. This effectively ends the treaty’s chances for ratification in 2012, since under the Constitution, treaties must be approved by two thirds of Senators.

“The American people have responded to the educational efforts of Heritage and other institutions concerned about America’s interests in the world and have made clear that the U.S. Senate should not approve LOST,” Heritage Foundation senior vice president David Addington writes. He has more:

The Heritage Foundation and Heritage Action for America have fought steadily for American sovereignty and American naval and maritime rights and against taxation of Americans by international organizations and giveaways of America’s resources to foreign countries.

Heritage Foundation expert Steven Groves has spent years pointing out the dangers of the agreement, commonly known as the Law of the Sea Treaty. He has pointed out that:

  • LOST erodes American sovereignty over the extended continental shelf. Royalties generated by offshore operations–which could total hundreds of billions of dollars–would be handed over to international bureaucrats for redistribution.
  • LOST is unnecessary to secure navigation rights for the U.S. Navy. “The U.S. can best protect its rights by maintaining a strong U.S. Navy, not by acceding to a deeply flawed multilateral treaty,” he explains.
  • LOST is unnecessary to maintain control of offshore energy. Treaty proponents argue that ratifying LOST would give the U.S. valid claims to the extended continental shelf and its energy resources, including in the Arctic. Groves points out that the U.S. can achieve these same aims through bilateral agreements and other mechanisms.
  • LOST would expose the U.S. to lawsuits about climate change. Groves warns that “accession to UNCLOS would unnecessarily expose the United States to baseless and opportunistic international lawsuits, including suits based on the theory of anthropogenic climate change.”

Groves, who is Bernard and Barbara Lomas Senior Research Fellow, also testified last month before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the treaty’s dangers.

What do you think? Have we seen the end of the Law of the Sea Treaty?

Comments (26)

William Bourbonnais - July 17, 2012

thank GOD!

Ben Hartley - July 17, 2012

Have we seen the last of the LOST? No. Senator Lurch… er, Kerry promises to bring it up again after the election.

If your Senator is one of the thirty-four in opposition, you might want to write or eMail them to say “thank you.” It’s good manner, right?

Ben Hartley

catherine wilson - July 17, 2012

Thanks for the vigilence on this matter. It is such a relief to know that 34 Senators have signed the letter opposing LOST. I wrote to Sen. McCain expressing my disappointment at his position on this matter.

John Smith - July 17, 2012

I hope so. This treaty would make becoming a more self-reliant nation much harder.

sebastian galletta - July 17, 2012

As long as we have this President we will not see the end
of this treaty.

MARILYN J. WENDIG - July 17, 2012

Thank you so much for having qualified people on your staff to combat the lack of support from this present administration’s protection of our sovereignty. Thank our good Lord that someone is willing to protect what was once established.

Now, are you also prepared to stop this small arms treaty coming up on the 27th?

Ken Marx - July 17, 2012

We probably haven’t seen the end of this bad treaty. If things go well in the November election, we will be able to stave it off for at least four years. If not, it’ll come back to hit us again and again until it prevails. That’s how the left works. Maybe if we can control both houses and the presidency for eight years or more, the thing will fade away eventually, but I wouldn’t count on it. It will take 40 years of conservative control to undue the last 100 years of liberal and liberal lite control. I’ll be gone, but I hope my grandchildren live to see it.

George and Patricia Russo - July 17, 2012

We have contacted Sen.Ayotte & she & Sen.Portman have filed a bill to protest the TREATY.We can only hope the “34″ DO THEIR JOB!

Bob Nolan - July 17, 2012

The UN will continue to attempt to extract money from the U S in any form they can. We should reduce our support to the UN and consider withdrawing from the organization.

Michael T D’Aessio - July 17, 2012

It seems to me that the U.N. is alwas tying to take over our rights as U.S citizens. I can not see why we are still paying into a entity that is tring to change our way of life.

marie prudhomme - July 17, 2012

I see a vision of each American who loves this country in a ‘Home Alone’ moment screaming for some speck of sanity from those who are in a fevered frenzie to destroy America. With God’s mercy and our determination they won’t win.

Aleks - July 17, 2012

Not yet, we only have 34 true USA citizens in the Senate and 66 un-Americans, close call.

Mike - July 17, 2012

My suspicion is that Obama plans to sign the Treaty by Executive Order during the lame-duck session. That’s the only way he is capable of “governing” because he is incapable of leading even his most staunch supporters in congress.

Tom Trussell - July 18, 2012

I’ll believe it after the vote is verified (Sea Treaty). The dems and people like Senator Kerry will keep trying. We have too many people who hate America representing us in Washington, plus disloyal appointees. Where is a person like Senator McCain, holding back. Unreal for a Navy man, but President Carter gave away the Panama Canal. Who are these people? Tom Trussell

Eric Faul - July 18, 2012

I do hope we have seen the end of the law of the sea treaty

Richard Gaskill - July 18, 2012

Lets hope this is done!.LOST would have tied our hands on the open sea`s,even with Obama cutting our navy,we still have the largest fleets in ,and around the world.The communist will keep trying to bottle us in,there is enough communist way of thinking in our goverment as is that we still have to remove,but stopping LOST is a good start.

Carlton C. Okamoto - July 18, 2012

NEAT that LOST was LOST!! But, it will become an issue again. The success of letting an international agency determine America’s rights is demonstrated by the united nation’s hightailing out of Syria with their tails between their legs while kofi begs and pleads. GO HERITAGE!

Sharon Franzen - July 18, 2012

I believe that the UN no longer represents it’s original purpose and is not the kind of body that American should be supporting. The group consists mostly of dictatorial nations who do not have the same goals as we do. And what about this new position that they’ve bestowed on the leader of Iran. Get our of UN now, no funding and get them out of our coutry.

Bill Broughton - July 18, 2012

there are 4 kinds of UN members. Anti US, one worlders,folks wanting something from us, and us! Nothing the first 3 does that passes the smell test for doing the right thing. There is nothing the UN does that is right that the US doesn’t do unilaterlly. We should get out.

James R Bourg - July 18, 2012

This abdication of our sovereignty to the U.N is insidious!
Of course it will come back around – by virtue of the fact that 99 senators (instead of 34) didn’t oppose it!!
Better wake up, people!

Jeff Fitzgerald - July 18, 2012

The UN had it day and it has come and gone. It is time to ask them to leave, my tax dollars should not be used to perform this type of work. They should be helping in Syria, not trying to plot with our government to take away our guns.

Patrick Griffin - July 18, 2012

No. This has linkage to the environmental Agenda 21,
which is the bigger issue and must be stopped.

Claudia Olson - July 19, 2012

No Treaties of the Sea, Small Arms, No Agenda 21, or ANY other thing that gives up U.S. Sovereignty!! Personally, I think we should tell the U.N. Member nations that we are done financing their outright disrespect of the U.S. and they should pack their things and go home!

Rick O’Brien - July 24, 2012

Good evening, I would like to know why a whole host of past Secretaries of State supported this. There was a good sized oped in WSJ about a month back with I believe six signators signing off on this treaty.

Diane L. Crawford - July 24, 2012

I can’t thank you enough. It is still not understood by me why our Secretary of State and President and any other elected official who would willing vot for this, sign this , keep trying to pass it, when it is obviosly harmful to our country, charges are not brought up against them. I can’t see George Washington standing for this.
Diane Crawford

robert crowley - July 24, 2012

NO we are still in danger of treaty ratification this year both the Law of the Sea and the Arms Control treaty. Senate Rule 30 requires 2/3 of VOTING SENATORS with a quorum of 51 that means 34 are needed Look for lame duck Senate to wait for everyone leaving for the holiday and then assemble enough supporters to exercise Senate Rule 29 putting the Senate in Executive Session and under Rule 30 “consent” get it through

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>