Comments for Should the Senate Ratify the U.N. Sea Treaty? at http://www.rcreader.com , comment 1 to 4 out of 4 comments http://www.rcreader.com Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:06:29 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.rcreader.com/commentary/should-the-senate-ratify/#comment-2137 Illogic article! - hkn Wed, 01 Sep 2010 10:22:34 +0100 http://www.rcreader.com/commentary/should-the-senate-ratify/#comment-489 This is truly an idiotic screed: For starters, the UN has NO substantive responsibilities under the LOS Convention. (It's called UNCLOS because the conference that negotiated it was convened pursuant to a UN General Assembly Resolution in the 1960s.) Mr. Hendrickson admits he "won't even try" to figure out whether the treaty yields net gains to the US. This is an abdication of intellectual rigor that staggers the imagination, coming as it does from a putative educator. Less lazy individuals have answered that question affirmatively, including the Chief of Naval Ops (and all living former CNOs), the Joint Chiefs, the secretary of state, the president, the American Petroleum Institute, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (twice!), the Bush-appointed US Oceans Policy Commission (unanimously), and all living former chief counsels of the State Dept. Unlike Mr. Hendrickson, I am familiar with the ACTUAL PROVISIONS of the treaty, and would be hapy to answer questions, with ACTUAL REFERENCES to the text. (I call this odd technique "scholarship.") For reasons I can't fathom, the far-right opponents of this treaty consider it some sort of saliva test, and deem its defeat sufficiently important to lie about its provisions in the press (or, as in Hendrickson's cae, to argue some irrelevant point about the UN). - Robert McManus Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:02:11 +0100 http://www.rcreader.com/commentary/should-the-senate-ratify/#comment-487 It appears that you are mistaking title for substance. The "United Nations" in the title refers only to the fact that the Convention was negotiated at the UN. In fact the Convention is an agreement among states as to the rights of coastal states (to manage their territorial sea, their offshore fishing resources and the minerals of the continental shelf) and the rights of seafaring states (to free navigation on the high seas, including within the economic zone, passage through straits used for international navigation, and innocent passage through the territorial sea). The United Nations does not have a role here - rights and responsibilities belong to states. In some cases there are provisions for arbitration of disputes, but there are exceptions for military activities, boundary delimitation and actions under Security Council resolutions. Even then, disputes are tightly limited and the rules lean in our favor. Only three cases provide for international bodies, and we intentionally decided to create new bodies rather then utilize the UN. One body is made up of geologists expert on reviewing limits to the continental shelf, another is an international tribunal that states may, but need not, choose to resolve disputes, and the third is the International Seabed Authority. The Authority as negotiated in 1982 was the reason for President Reagan's objections. It's powers and Authority, and the oversight role of the US, were renegotiated to our complete satisfaction in 1994. The US, once we join, will have a _permanent_ seat on the executive council and we will be able to veto any rule, regulation or amendment dealing with operations, budget or distribution of funds. In addition, the finances of the Authority are audited by commercial accounting companies. The entire staff of the authority is only 38 people, most of whom are clerks, administrative personnel, drivers and security personnel. If you don't like the UN, then you should give a new look at the LOS Convention because the convention not only avoids giving the UN power, it establishes an alternative body that incorporates features we would like to see added to the UN - particularly the permanent US seat, the introduction of chambered voting that enhances the influence of developed countries, and the requirement for consensus in financial decisions that gives the US a veto (but only if we join and attend so we can use it). The Convention is in place and running. As directed by President Reagan, we observe the convention as much as we can as a non-party already. As to the seabed provisions, the republican congresses failed to fund the US regime for seabed minerals that had been established in 1980. As a result, their is _no_ US seabed mining industry, even as Germany became the 8th consortia to be authorized by the Authority to have exclusive exploration rights for their minesite in the Pacific. Attack the UN all you want. But you will find that the US negotiators of the LOS Convention anticipated your concern and avoided giving the UN any role in the Law of the Sea Convention. - Caitlyn L Antrim Wed, 06 Feb 2008 22:15:42 +0100 http://www.rcreader.com/commentary/should-the-senate-ratify/#comment-485 I really need something up to date that says Law of the Sea will pass that is from last week. :) - Arsen Wed, 06 Feb 2008 12:36:42 +0100