Treaties We Don’t Need Or Want

Obama will push to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty, Rights of the
Child Treaty, and the International Criminal Court.

The Law of the Sea Treaty:
The Law of the Sea Treaty was conceived in 1982 by the U. N. as a method for governing activities on, over, and beneath the ocean’s surface. It focuses primarily on navigational and transit issues.The Treaty also contains provisions on the regulation of deep-sea mining and the redistribution of wealth to underdeveloped countries–as well
as sections regarding marine trade, pollution, research, and dispute resolution.

The Rights of the Child Treaty:
The Rights of the Child Treaty was signed in 1995 by Bill Clinton but wisely never ratified by our Senate. That’s because it would give the
federal government unacceptably broad new powers over children, families, and schools.It’s been a pet project of the cult of people who believe that the village should raise children rather than their parents. That’s the purpose of this treaty to give the UN a role in the raising
of children.

The International Criminal Court:
Specifically,the court threatens to diminish Americas sovereignty,
produce arbitrary and highly politicized “justice,” and grow into a
jurisdictional leviathan. Many of the legal safeguards American
citizens enjoy under the U.S. Constitution would be suspended if
they were brought before the court. Endangered constitutional
protections include the prohibition against double jeopardy, the
right to trial by an impartial jury, and the right of the accused to
confront the witnesses against him.


2 Responses to “Treaties We Don’t Need Or Want”

  1. Caitlyn Says:

    The Law of the Sea Convention was first conceived in 1965 in discussions between the US and USSR over how to stop the encroachment of coastal state authority over the high seas, something that threatened both state’s blue water navies. In order to get all countries on board, it was decided to seek a comprehensive convention that could gain near-universal support.

    The convention was completed in 1982, but the US had problems with six areas related to the minerals of the seabed beyond national jurisdiction. These six areas were fixed by a binding multilateral agreement that supplemented the Convention and in 1994 the US signed the agreement and sent the convention and agreement as a package to the senate.

    It was the George W. Bush Administration that decided to push the Senate to ratify the convention in 2003 and has continued to support joining the convention. Rather than itemize the details of why the convention has the approval of the administration, I’ll simply point out some of the people and groups who support it:

    Reagan’s secretaries of state George Shultz and Al Haig,
    George H.W. Bush’s Secretaries of State James Baker and Larry Eagleburger.
    All living Chiefs of Naval Operations,
    All living Commandants of the US Coast Guard;
    All living Legal Advisers of the State Department back to and including the Reagan Administration;
    The US Chamber of Commerce,
    The domestic oil and gas industry,
    The US shipping industry,
    The telecommunications industry,
    Environmental and conservation organizations and
    Virtually every group that defends, exploits or protects our oceans and coasts all support the LOS Convention regardless of party.

    Of course, there are a few organizations, mostly Washington-based think tanks, that oppose the convention, And if one opposes multilateral agreements as a matter of course, then the LOS Convention will be included in that opposition. But this is a convention that was negotiated by conservative and moderate republicans with a firm grasp of US interests both in sovereignty over our coastal resources and in our freedom of navigation around the world. They did an excellent job too.

  2. armageddonoutahere Says:

    Caitlyn, Here are some of the reasons:

    Reason #1: The Treaty Will Undermine U.S. Sovereignty.
    In addition, the fact that the International Seabed Authority has the power to amend the convention without U.S. consent. That concern has also not been remedied since it was first introduced.

    Reason #2: The Treaty Will Become a Back Door for Environmental Activists.
    The Executive Director of Greenpeace International, Thilo Bode, has explained how the environmentalist movement plans to leverage the treaty to advance its agenda, which often runs counter to U.S. interests

    Reason #3: America Should Not Participate in Yet Another U.N. Bureaucracy. International institutions created by multilateral treaties
    spawn unaccountable international bureaucracies, which in turn inevitably infringe upon U.S. sovereignty.

    Reason #4: American Participation Will Undermine U.S. Military and Intelligence Operations.
    Under the convention, the United States assumes a number of obligations at odds with its military practices and national security interests, including a commitment not to collect intelligence.

    Reason #5: The U.S. Does Not Need the Convention to Guarantee Navigation Rights.
    The U.S. enjoys reciprocal navigation rights by customary international practice.

    For these reasons and many others, conservatives who are concerned about U.S. sovereignty and national security should oppose ratification
    of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea Treaty.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: