When U.S. Senators Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio), both vice presidential hopefuls, recently declared their opposition to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, they virtually guaranteed that it would be dead on arrival if it were sent to the Senate. A group of 34 senators, including Ayotte and Portman and led by Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), is now on the record promising to vote against UNCLOS, which is enough to make getting the two-thirds majority necessary for ratification impossible.

UNCLOS was first negotiated 30 years ago. But back then, U.S. President Ronald Reagan objected to it because, he argued, it would jeopardize U.S. national and business interests, most notably with respect to seabed mining. A major renegotiation in 1994 addressed his concerns, and the United States signed. Now, the U.S. Navy and business community are among UNCLOS’ strongest supporters. So, too, was the George W. Bush administration, which tried to get the treaty ratified in 2007 but failed due to Republican opposition in the Senate.

Today’s opponents, including Ayotte, DeMint, and Portman, focus on two issues. First, they argue, the treaty is an unacceptable encroachment on U.S. sovereignty…Yet sovereignty is not a problem: During the 1994 renegotiation, the United States ensured that it would have a veto over how the ISA distributes funds if it ever ratified the treaty. As written, UNCLOS would actually increase the United States’ economic and resource jurisdiction…

The opponents’ second claim is that the treaty would prevent the U.S. Navy from undertaking unilateral action, such as collecting intelligence in the Asia-Pacific region…According to Admiral Samuel Locklear, commander of U.S. Pacific Command, however, “The convention in no way restricts our ability or legal right to conduct military activities in the maritime domain.” On the contrary, as U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta put it, U.S. accession to the convention “secures our freedom of navigation and overflight rights as bedrock treaty law…”

Protecting national sovereignty is a legitimate aim…for the goal to have any meaning, it must be framed so that it can be met…Those who object to the treaty have defined sovereignty in such ideological terms that they will never be satisfied. By their reckoning, the United States can never be party to an international organization, even if it has veto status in it…

Republicans hate and fear Obama more than bogeyman China. The Obama administration via Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that the United States believes that all maritime territorial disputes in the South China Sea must be resolved multilaterally and in accordance with international law. That’s sufficient reason for Republican opposition.



  1. Glenn E. says:

    It sounds as if the Republicans are doing the right thing (for a change). Even if it’s for the wrong reasons. Which causes me to wonder if this treaty will just sail thru, with their blessing, once a Republican president is installed? Because their only main objection to it now, is that they don’t want Obama and Hillary to get the credit for it.

    • dusanmal says:

      Where did you get “the main objection”? The main objection is power grab by UN and theft of individual rights. Power grab of the type Left loves and Right hates: collective good over individual right. Just for domestic aspect no one who could get in any political position (never mind Presidency) on the Right could even attempt to propose it back. Equivalent of “carbon tax”, gun control, …
      And what “credit” for Hilary & Obama?! For surrendering US national rights and grabbing internally water control from the local level? This is on par with “credit” for health care.

      • Ah_Yea says:

        Dusanmal, again, gets it right. Good Job!

        Notice again, Eideard, the psychopath, has to turn it into another hate screed.

      • Mextli: ABO says:

        Now, now, we are citizens of the world. We didn’t build this country by ourselves you know.

        • deowll says:

          If I recall right the UN would own/ have sovereignty over international waters, the sea floor and the air.

          If you know jack about how the UN operates the odds against that being more than a completely idiotic idea approximates certainty. The UN makes the GSA look like an efficiently run operation operating in the best interest of the public.

        • msbpodcast says:

          No there were some people here first …

          They took to us,
          and we took to them.
          And what do you thing we took?

          Oil from Canada
          Gold from Mexico
          Geese from the neighbor’s back yard (boom boom)
          Corn from the Indians
          Tobacco from the Indians
          Dakota from the Indians
          New Jersey from the Indians
          New Hampshire from the Indians
          New England from the Indians,
          Indonesia from the Indonesians (Yes, Veteran’s Day…)

          – Firesign Theater

  2. Not Respassing says:

    Be wary of anything promoted by the UN. Guaranteed to be a world-wide kloosterfooken.

  3. msbpodcast says:

    The Repubes aren’t going to vote for anything the UN wants on principle.

    I can just see the US government issuing “letter de marque” basically declaring all US shipping as privateers and enemies of whatever state they’d feel like.

    Might as well put up banners between the masts which read Open Fire on ME!.

    Messing with China would result in the immediate cessation of shipments to Wal*Mart, this nation’s grocery stores, shoe and textile manufacturers and grind the electronics industries to a halt as parts, components, subassemblies and entire products would no longer be accessible.

    This is totally imbecilic.

  4. bobbo, the international citizen of finance, history, and informed self interest says:

    “Senate Republicans want US shipping classed as privateers” /// Maybe so but this idea is not hooked to the OP or its links.

    My first view of this issue. So–the USA want multi-lateralism in order to check China the big power in the area from having too much influence? THEN I suppose those against UnClog want to preserve single party hegemony so that the USA can over power the UN in other areas of interest–as mentioned the sea bed minerals development.

    I laughed at the good one by Mextli: “We didn’t build this country by ourselves you know.” Which is VERY true but I think by all account we have paid back in full multiple times over.

    So….. what is the appropriate role of Super Power No’s 1 and 2 in a world of lesser powers? How to best maximinze OUR OWN position? IE==when to go multi-lateral and when to go it on our own?

    I do hope our good Congress Creeps look at our future with a bit of pragmatism and avoid Anti-Obama kneejerk behavior. So far, its Anti-Obama Kneejerk behavior all the way down. Don’t know if this subject is the first and only exception to this observation. Would be nice if it were.

    Same as it always was, the death spiral of consuming self interest/power over country.

    • Supreme Ultrahuman (I see the comment system is still designed for retards.) says:

      Going Anti-Obama will be the right choice 99.4327% of the time.

      • msbpodcast says:

        If you’re going to quote numbers, you’re going to have to give your methodology for arriving at those numbers.

        No “I just pulled ’em out of my ignurt asshole” is not adequate.

  5. NewformatSux says:

    Now if we can undo the International Criminal Court and WTO.

  6. NewformatSux says:

    How about we just get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US.

    They put Iran on the Human Rights Council.

    • msbpodcast says:

      That’ll i>never happen.

      Its too useful to keep the idiots here and hooking them on useless water projects like dams, selling them superannuated military hardware, hotel projects, disaster relief (wink, wink) and crap like that.

      Never heard the doctrine: “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.” Well, welcome to New York City gentlemen. Home of the United Nations.

      So Iran is on the Human Rights council. So what? That means less than nothing.

      You want to know what these prestigious posts, prizes, medals and awards are actually worth?

      The Nobel committee gave a Peace Prize to O’Mama for fuck’s sake…

      • Supreme Ultrahuman (I see the comment system is still designed for retards.) says:

        Good point.

  7. AdmFubar says:

    american business downs want anything of the likes as fairness to the customers.. soo they will force the republicans and the democrates, and anyone else who is for this “treaty” and make sure they (big business) will always have control.

  8. Supreme Ultrahuman (I see the comment system is still designed for retards.) says:

    The US surrenders no sovereignty to anyone. No one else matters. The entire human race is irrelevant without the US.

    If the US ever falls, it would be immoral not to destroy the Earth.

    • msbpodcast says:

      Speaking as a citizen of one of the countries which make up the remaining six billion, six hundred and ninety four million people to your paltry three hundred and six million US citizens, (6,694,000,000 vs 306,000,000 or 21.875 times as many people) Fuck You!!!!

      You’re futures looks as rosy as your corn’s.

      • Supreme Ultrahuman (I see the comment system is still designed for retards.) says:

        Feed corn crop is looking poor, sweet corn is fine.

        When the other six billion, six hundred and ninety four million people driving 4x4s and living in big houses kept at 72 degrees year round my analysis would change,. Even in AmericaTheGreatestOfNations the people that live in cities and use mass transit don’t matter.

        You have to look past day to day nonsense and focus on what the end goal of evolution is.

        Maybe we need to realize that Homo Sapiens is no longer the top of the pyramid, maybe it’s Homo Americanis 4×4.

  9. bobbo, the international citizen of finance, history, and informed self interest says:

    Supreme Ultrahuman (I see the comment system is still designed for retards.) says:
    8/10/2012 at 7:05 pm

    Going Anti-Obama will be the right choice 99.4327% of the time. //// While fully respecting Mpods critique, even if true the statistic is ONLY true for the 1% Criminal Class currently running the USA and World Bank and Bildenberg Interests. For the rest of us, the % is about the same, just in reverse.

    Ain’t it great the way Political Math works?

    Just Remember:

    RICH = CRIMINAL
    COMPLIED WITH ALL LAWS = TAX CHEAT
    and after 30 years = SO ENTITLED, NOT EVEN HIDDEN ANYMORE.

    OH—- and NO TAX RECORDS = I’VE GOT MINE, F*CK YOU IF YOU BELIEVE MY LIES.

    Silly Hoomans—just LOOK fer Christ Sake.

    • Supreme Ultrahuman (I see the comment system is still designed for retards.) says:

      I agree he’s not the greatest candidate, but he’s still better than Barry. Hell, we could let Charlie Manson out and put him on the ballot and it would be an improvement.

  10. sargasso_c says:

    Wasn’t this how the 1812 war started?

  11. orchidcup says:

    Artificial intelligence is better than no intelligence.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 5818 access attempts in the last 7 days.