If you think that the title of this article is way too melodramatic, then read on to find out the implications of the Obama administration’s latest move to scupper our sovereignty, and to half-murder our naval and marine rights in the process. Beginning Wednesday, Senator John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat is going to hold a series of hearings to convince the Senate why the nation should get LOST, or accept the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea Treaty. He is going to be joined by Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, and Martin Dempsey, in a show of solidarity to suffocate U.S. sovereignty and national rights.
And it’s a direct result of the President’s strong love for all things Chinese and efforts to placate China at all costs. For decades, Beijing flouted LOST while developing its powerful navy, but now, it has remembered that it needs LOST to claim “indisputable sovereignty” over the entire South China Sea. Russia needs LOST to lay inalienable claims to harvest natural resources around the North Pole. And the President is hard put to please and placate his allies of the heart and mind because of the policies put in place by previous presidents of U.S., policies that grant the U.S. Navy command of the seven seas since World War II within the ambit of international conventions and treaties. Policies that have adequately protected and enforced U.S. rights over international waters for over 200 years are about to get LOST. The same damned policies prevent Mr. Barrack Obama from handing over U.S. rights to China or Russia in the international waters. So, now those policies need to get LOST.
The LOST treaty has been around from 1982, but successive Presidents have refused to accept it. Ronald Reagan rejected the treaty outright for it severely affects the rights of the United States of America, as soon as the U.N. proposed it.
The little hidden gems in the LOST treaty, which do not at all relate to navigational rights (placed at the forefront, and made to seem that the treaty is made apparently for that important purpose) actually relate to taxation by the U.N. over natural resources. It would help to transfer billions of funds from the U.S. Treasury to the coffers of the U.N. through taxation and wealth redistribution provisions. It would also prevent U.S. from naval military training exercises without the approval of other nations. It would allow other nations to oppose the presence of U.S. Navy on the grounds that our military vessels are hurting their environment. And taken together it would allow the size of the U.S. Navy to be cut to less than half its present size in military vehicles. If the LOST treaty is accepted, potential cuts would include littoral combat ships, amphibious ships, aircraft carriers, and the numbers of sailors. The fleet can well be reduced to a number we had before 1915, pushing our naval strength and presence back by a century.
Steve Groves, an expert on the treaty told the media, “In addition to needlessly exposing itself to baseless environmental lawsuits … the United States would be required to transfer billions of dollars in oil and gas royalties … to the International Seabed Authority for redistribution to the developing world.”
What? Our ships are already there doing their work with the U.S. Navy and its military might protecting our interests.
We have long been a member of the Arctic Ocean Conference that resolves claims between the five circumpolar states without the need to bring the rest of the world into it.
What’s new except the newfound love for Beijing?
https://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76627.html
https://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/pathetic_pact_for_safety_on_the_JRYvyyY47FPjx0pJOjzI0K?utm_medium=rss&utm_content=Oped%20Columnists
