Following a White House call for approval of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Senate seems heading toward ratifying this long defunct treaty. So what is the Law of the Sea Treaty, what does it do and should we support it?

Simply, the treaty defines who controls the seas and its resources and provides a mechanism for resolving disputes over those issues. A certain numbers of miles off the coast of a nation belong to that nation. A certain number of miles beyond that is a province of exclusive economic, but not territorial, control for that nation. The rest, international waters, are controlled by the UN body which decides who gets to make use of its resources. In reading the text of the treaty, it doesn’t take long for the red flags to be raised. From the Preamble:

Recognizing the desirability of establishing through this Convention, with due regard for the sovereignty of all States, a legal order for the seas and oceans which will facilitate international communication, and will promote the peaceful uses of the seas and oceans, the equitable and efficient utilization of their resources, the conservation of their living resources, and the study, protection and preservation of the marine environment,

Bearing in mind that the achievement of these goals will contribute to the realization of a just and equitable international economic order which takes into account the interests and needs of mankind as a whole and, in particular, the special interests and needs of developing countries, whether coastal or land-locked,

Thanks to historic use of “equitable” as a weapon for socialists, it’s rare that it is possible for resources to be utilized both efficiently and “equitably” at the same time. The Soviet Union learned this the hard way. Whenever you see something like “equitable” used in a situation like these, ask yourself two key questions. Who decides what is equitable and how is having such authority not central planning?

And just what are the “special interests and needs of developing countries”? Are these interests in conflict with developed countries? If so, how much will we be asked to sacrifice for these “developing” countries, who always seem to be in a perpetual state of “development” and yet never manage to actually become developed?

We also see mention of environmental interests, which raises further important questions. Will these interests take precedence over all other considerations as environmentalists, usually getting their way, typically demand?

To answer at least some of these questions, let’s see what various policy experts and affected interests have to say about the treaty.

The Navy is completely supportive of the treaty. In a prepared statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Admiral Patrick Walsh, Vice Chief of Naval Operations, states simply that he supports the treaty because it “helps our Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airmen and Coast Guardsmen do their job,” and that he believes “our Navy can better protect the United States and the American people if we join the Law of the Sea Convention.”

Admiral Walsh notes four specific benefits, only capable of being provided by “binding treaty law”, granted by the treaty that are of benefit to our Armed Forces:

1 The Right of Innocent Passage, which allows ships to transit through foreign territorial seas without providing the coastal State prior notification or gaining the coastal State?s prior permission.

2 The Right of Transit Passage, which allows ships, aircraft, and submarines to transit through, over, and under straits used for international navigation and the approaches to those straits.

3 The Right of Archipelagic Sealanes Passage, which, like transit passage, allows transit by ships and aircraft through, over, and under normal passage routes in archipelagic states, such as Indonesia.

4 The right of high seas freedoms, including overflight and transit within the Exclusive Economic Zone.

In addition to these benefits, Admiral Walsh also points to the expansive claims of certain foreign nations:

The Convention also allows us to exercise high seas freedoms in foreign exclusive economic zones, including conducting military activities without coastal state interference. And this is important—the single most contentious issue in oceans law and policy today is the attempt by some foreign coastal States to treat the exclusive economic zone ? or EEZ ? like a territorial sea. The Convention makes clear that coastal States enjoy resource rights within the EEZ, but they do not enjoy and may not assert full sovereignty within the EEZ.

Admiral Vernon Clark, former Chief of Naval Operations, offers a similar assessment:

The Law of the Sea Convention supports our ability to operate wherever, whenever, and however needed under the authority of widely accepted law. The Convention codifies the right to transit through, over, and under essential international straits and archipelagic water. It reaffirms the sovereign immunity of our warships and other public vessels. It provides a framework to counter excessive claims of states that seek illegally to expand their maritime jurisdiction and restrict the movement of vessels of other States in international and other waters. And it preserves our right to conduct military activities and operations in exclusive economic zones without the need for permission from or prior notice to foreign governments.

Also appearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, President of the Center for Security Studies Frank Gaffney warns of supranational agencies wielding too much power.

LOST?s Transnationalist architects have long sought to build up supranational agencies. This treaty allows them to do so in unprecedented ways by: conferring on LOST ?organs? responsibility for regulating seven-tenths of the planet (i.e., the world?s oceans and the vast natural resources to be found in and below them); levying what are tantamount to international taxes; and imposing mandatory and un-appealable decisions in disputes that may arise involving parties to the Treaty.

To date, the full, malevolent potential of the Law of the Sea Treaty has been more in prospect than in evidence. Should the United States accede to LOST, however, it is predictable that the Treaty?s agencies will: wield their powers in ways that will prove very harmful to American interests; intensify the web of sovereignty-sapping obligations and regulations being promulgated by this and other UN entities; and advance inexorably the emergence of supranational world government.

Heritage also warns of UN corruption:

When international bureaucracies are unaccountable they, like all unaccountable institutions, seek to insulate themselves from scrutiny and become prone to corruption. The International Seabed Authority Secretariat is vulnerable to the same corrupt practices that have been present at the U.N. for years. The most pertinent example of this potential for corruption is the United Nations Oil-for-Food scandal, in which the Iraqi government benefited from a system of bribes and kickbacks involving billions of dollars and 2,000 companies in nearly 70 countries. Despite ample evidence of the U.N.?s systemic weaknesses and vulnerability to corruption, the U.N. General Assembly has yet to adopt the reforms to increase transparency and accountability proposed by former Secretary-General Kofi Annan and others. This example is particularly pertinent considering that the Authority could oversee significant resources through fees and charges on commercial activities within its authority and potentially create a system of royalties and profit sharing.

Doug Bandow, writing for the CATO Institute, calls the treaty “collectivist in nature and inimical to U.S. interests.”

Most objectionable is Section XI, that portion of the treaty governing seabed mining. The provisions of Section XI may have the effect of forever discouraging such operations, even where there might be huge benefits. Regulations are to be administered through a complicated system of committees and agencies within the International Seabed Authority, a creation of the United Nations that has ultimate jurisdiction over the agreement.

Funding for the ISA, and for enforcement of the LOST, would flow disproportionately from the United States. The ISA?s current budget is modest, but the revised agreement changed none of the underlying institutional incentives that bias virtually every international organization, most obviously the UN itself, toward extravagance.

In his report, Bandow also points out that even with the treaty, we’ll still have to actively protect our navigation rights. The treaty has not prevented signatories - such as Brazil, China, India, Pakistan or North Korea - from making the kinds of expansive claims mentioned by Admiral Clark as a reason for ratification.

Jeremy Rabkin of the Competitive Enterprise Institute is opposed to the lose of sovereignty:

In the past, the United States has jealously guarded its national sovereignty. It has never agreed to treaties under which new standards can be imposed, without express U.S. consent, by the decision of international bureaucrats or by coalitions of hostile?and potentially hostile?nations. What the United States does do in many areas it should do in regards to this treaty?assert its rights under customary international law. The Law of the Sea treaty is not necessary to secure claims which the U.S. already makes on this basis (regarding economic rights in U.S. coastal waters and rights of passage elsewhere). It is a dangerous concession to international fashion to accept the idea that U.S. rights are dependent on the approval of shifting majorities of other nations.

The National Center for Public Policy Research raises similar objections in a recent press release.

On balance, the risks of the treaty seem to outweigh the benefits, which are marginal at best. Signing doesn’t absolve us of having to combat the expansionist claims of other nations, but will expose us to the same kind of attacks that have plagued so many other UN bodies. So much power in a regulatory body populated by the usual thuggish dictators bent on eroding American power is a prescription for disaster. Senate Republicans need to oppose this treaty and protect American sovereignty.

The U.N. is warning us that it can’t afford to feed the world.

May be true. But more importantly, I say, we can’t afford to let them even try.

We all know Confucius’ fortune cookie wisdom of self-reliance: “Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.” The UN, like any self-serving socialist organization, understands that there is a secret third part to this anecdote: “Promise an endless supply of fish and men will depend on you for food, thus you gain power over them.” There’s your blue-print for gaining power through the nanny-state. Or in the case of the U.N., redistribution on a global scale. And when the providers fail to live up to their promise - which is inevitably the case - it’s a blue-print for suffering and strife.

Rising prices for food have led the United Nations programme fighting famine in Africa and other regions to warn that it can no longer afford to feed the 90m people it has helped for each of the past five years on its budget.

The World Food Programme feeds people in countries including Chad, Uganda and Ethiopia, but reaches a fraction of the 850m people it estimates suffers from hunger. It spent about $600m buying food in 2006. So far, the WFP has not cut its reach because of high commodities prices, but now says it could be forced to do so unless donor countries provide extra funds.

And what’s causing the budget straining price increases?

You guessed it, global warming. Or more accurately, the hoax that is anthropogenic global warming.

She said policymakers were becoming more concerned about the impact of biofuel demand on food prices and how the world would continue to feed its expanding population.

The warning could re-ignite the debate on food versus fuel amid concerns biofuel production will sustain food inflation and hit the world?s poorest people.

The WFP said its purchasing costs had risen ?almost 50 per cent in the last five years?. The UN organisation said the price it pays for maize had risen up to 120 per cent in the past sixth months in some countries.

Biofuel demand is soaking up grain production as is rising consumption in emerging countries for animal feed.

?We face the tightest agriculture markets in decades and, in same cases, on record,? Ms Sheeran said. Global wheat stocks have fallen to the lowest level in 25 years, according to the US Department of Agriculture.

Ms Sheeran added: ?We are no longer in a surplus world.?

The biofuel craze driving up food prices is the result of global warming fear mongering. Biofuels are “environmentally superior” and therefore less offensive to the Gaea spirit. It’s seems the third-world is in for a bumpy century. If global warming is “allowed” to happen they’ll either drown in the rising seas, be engulfed by the spreading deserts, washed away in the drenching monsoons or withered by the widespread droughts. In the meantime, however, in order to prevent these catastrophes, we will literally burn much of the planet’s food supply.

Ironically, the solution to the problem might be some genuine global warming. Longer growing seasons worldwide would mean the planet could support a much larger human population.

Although, Shrillary might have an alternative solution of her own.

Even before Hillary finishes her second term as President, her advisors would have American taxpayers pay a fixed 0.7 percent of our Gross National Income toward global funding of the United Nations? Millennium Development Goals. This means that the United States alone would have to pay nearly $140 billion per year for development assistance, to be administered by the United Nations.

In case you are wondering where the funding of this massive increase in foreign aid will come from, Hillary Clinton?s advisors have an answer - a new carbon tax. The Center for American Progress? tax ?expert? recommended this tax as one alternative to raise as much as $100 billion dollars a year in new ?green? revenue. He wrote that ?[W]hat Congress has to realize is that we need more ?good? taxes and fewer ?bad? taxes.

Except in the minds of those hardcore income redistributionists who think they know better how to spend our money than we do ourselves, how can any tax be described as ?good??

While the Islamist war against the West heats up on British soil, the cross-Atlantic relationship is cooling considerably. The new Prime Minster’s appointment of Sir Mark Malloch Brown to a key foreign ministry post does not bode well for the future of our cross-Atlantic relationship.

As a U.N. official, Malloch Brown was an outspoken critic of American leadership on the world stage and a constant thorn in the side of the United States. He launched an unprecedented attack on Washington’s approach to the U.N. in a speech in New York in June 2006, despite the fact that Washington gives over $5 billion a year to the U.N. system–more than France, Germany, China, Canada, and Russia combined. Malloch Brown warned of the “serious consequences of a decades-long tendency by U.S. Administrations of both parties to engage only fitfully with the U.N.” and condemned “the prevailing practice of seeking to use the U.N. almost by stealth as a diplomatic tool while failing to stand up for it against its domestic critics.” He singled out for particular criticism Washington’s decision to opt out of joining the disastrous new U.N. Human Rights Council, despite the fact that it was no better than the discredited former Human Rights Commission.

Malloch Brown could barely disguise his contempt for the American public and media, speaking of “unchecked U.N.-bashing and stereotyping” and a “U.S. heartland [that] has been largely abandoned to its [the U.N.’s] loudest detractors, such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.” What was needed in response, he argued, was for America’s leaders to support the U.N. “not just in a whisper but in a coast to coast shout, that pushes back the critics domestically, and wins over the skeptics internationally.”

Too busy to do anything about Iran’s continuing mission to thumb its nose at the rest of the world, the U.N. Security Council is turning its attention to the big threats to peace and security, that ever-present boogeyman responsible for all things bad in the world, global warming:

On April 17, the United Nations Security Council will discuss the security implications of global warming for the first time. The issue was placed on the agenda by the United Kingdom, which assumed the rotating presidency of the Council for April.

. . .The Security Council should not be deliberating global warming. The purpose of the Security Council is clearly laid out in the U.N. Charter, which confers on the Security Council “primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.”[17] The security implications of climate change are speculative at this point and, even if they result as predicted, would not pose an immediate threat for decades. The projected threats of global warming do not rise to the level of Security Council consideration.

The decision to raise the issue in the Council is troubling considering that such a step is often a prelude to a Council decision or resolution. A Council decision is the sole venue capable of compelling states to adopt actions to address global warming[18]?something that should not be contemplated without greater certainty and evidence of urgency.

Does anyone really think this organization has any credibility left?

On April 9, 2007 there was a United Nations believe-it-or-not moment extraordinaire. At the same time that Iran?s President Ahmadinejad declared his country was now capable of industrial-scale uranium enrichment, the U.N. reelected Iran as a vice chairman of the U.N. Disarmament Commission.

Yes Ripley, the very U.N. body charged with promoting nuclear nonproliferation installed in a senior position the state that the Security Council recently declared violated its nonproliferation resolutions.

So in Iran at the Natanz nuclear facility Ahmadinejad gloated: ?With great pride, I announce as of today our dear country is among the countries of the world that produces nuclear fuel on an industrial scale.? And in New York, courtesy of his U.N. platform, Iranian Disarmament Vice-Chairman Seyed Mohammad Ali Robatjazi railed against ?noncompliance with the NPT [nuclear nonproliferation treaty] by the United States? and ?the Zionist lobby.?

. . .

And it only gets worse, as the article goes on to highlight the Human Rights Council cover-up of its own investigation into Iran. Once again, we have an ideology on display that is utterly incapable of discriminating against clearly different groups. Their relativism prohibits them from recognizing any behavior as over the line. Ever wonder why liberals are this way? This video is the best answer:

It is somewhat long - though definitely worth it - but I’ll summarize here. At their core, liberals believe the fundamental cause of war is not that evil exists, but that some people (often referred to disparagingly as warmongers) actually believe they are right. In other words, if no one thought they were right, no one would have anything to fight for. So it becomes an imperative for liberals to elevate what is wrong and tear down what is right. This is why they side with Palestineans over Israelis. This is why they must believe that Islamists weren’t behind 9/11, but that Bush was responsible. This is why Sudan was made a member of the Human Right Commission while they were busy committing genocide. If you just think about it this way you can see examples everywhere. Here’s an example in the news today, as we learn a Canadian green party candidate cheered on the 9/11 attacks. Modern liberalism in action.

So when we learn that Iran is being rewarded for seeking nuclear weapons, it should come as no surprise. For they believe that in order to prevent conflict, that which is bad must be made equivalent with that which is good, and reality be damned.

Ban Ki Moon’s tenure as U.N. Secretary-General is already proving to be much more promising to those hoping for serious organizational reform. Personally, I wouldn’t mind seeing the whole concept abandoned. Organizations formed with the premise of giving two-bit dictators as much voice as civilized nations are doomed for failure. Nevertheless, if we must put up with a United Nations, having one that isn’t corrupt and funneling money to dictators would be a huge improvement.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon has been on the job for less than a month, but with a 26-word announcement Friday he did more to reform that international body than anything ever attempted by predecessor Kofi Annan.

“The Secretary-General will call for an urgent, system wide and external inquiry into all activities done around the globe by the U.N. funds and programs.” So said Mr. Ban’s spokesman after the Secretary-General met with Ad Melkert, associate administrator of the United Nations Development Program. The key word here is “external.” Concerns about corruption in the U.N.’s Oil for Food program bubbled for years before Mr. Annan finally agreed to set up the independent Volcker Commission.

The proximate cause for Friday’s meeting between Messrs. Ban and Melkert, and for Mr. Ban’s clean-house announcement, was Melanie Kirkpatrick’s op-ed article in The Wall Street Journal on Friday detailing irregularities in the UNDP’s programs in North Korea and citing U.S. concerns that tens of millions of dollars in hard currency have been funneled to dictator Kim Jong Il.

The All-Israel-All-The-Time United Nations is set to register complaints about those dastardly Jews Israel, this time regarding that evil fence they have constructed.

The United Nations General Assembly is expected to pass a decision Friday evening to set up an official registry to receive complaints from Palestinian citizens regarding damages incurred as a result of the security fence route.

It is not yet clear when such a registry would go into effect. Thus far it has been agreed that it would be located in Vienna and would receive complaints via the mail.

Two and a half years ago the International Court of Justice at the Hague gave an advisory ruling stating that the fence violates international law because its route fails to take sufficient account of damage caused to Palestinians.

At a forum entitled ?Israel?s illegal activities in East Jerusalem and the occupied Palestinian territories,? the group of Palestinians who proposed the registry suggested that a large-scale system be set up to receive Palestinian complaints on damages caused ?by the Israeli occupation.? European pressures led the proposal to be reduced to a smaller registry solely against the fence.

Gee, I wonder what their agenda is? The reason these groups are so upset should be obvious, as terrorists have admitted that the fence is an “obstacle” to their efforts.

The UN Human Rights Council, which condemns Israel at the drop of a hat (or the use of defensive force, as the case may be), can’t bring itself to condemn the Sudanese government, which has been complicit in the slaying of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Darfur.

The Sudanese government is widely accused of unleashing the Janjaweed militia to help its forces counter ethnic African groups who rebelled in 2003.

More than 200,000 people have been killed and some 2.5 million people have fled their homes in the violence, according to UN Estimates.

The lack of blame for the Sudanese government was in stark contrast to the council’s resolutions on Israel which have condemned the Jewish state for many practices, including “the systematic targeting and killings of civilians” in Lebanon and “attacks on human life, property, critical infrastructure and environment.”

The council, which replaced the widely discredited Human Rights Commission in June, has used its six previous sessions to pass eight resolutions denouncing Israeli treatment of Arabs.

It’s becoming more and more apparent that the UN has merely replaced one bogus anti-Israel group with another.

Iran has complained to the UN about…Israeli threats?

Iran, whose president has vowed to wipe Israel off the map, complained to the United Nations on Wednesday that the Jewish state was repeatedly threatening to bomb it.

The threats were “matters of extreme gravity” and the U.N. Security Council should condemn them and demand that Israel “cease and desist immediately from the threat of the use of force against members of the United Nations,” Iranian U.N. Ambassador Javad Zarif said.

This shows just what a mockery the United Nations is. For too many, it’s merely another tool of deception; another means to disrupt the functioning of the free world. Iran does not participate in good faith at any level, and yet it seeks to use the tools of international bodies against those who threaten only to defend themselves.

If outrageous threats leveled at members of the United Nations are to be found one need look no further than Iran, where Ahmadinejad recently promised, “we will soon witness [Israel’s] disappearance and destruction”.

Such comments from Ahmadinejad are not new. Shortly after assuming his role as President, he declared, “And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism”. He also predicted that the “new wave of confrontations generated in Palestine and the growing turmoil in the Islamic world would in no time wipe Israel away”.

Hat tip: Threats Watch

The “international community” backed ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah has predictably failed. UNIFIL has ignored its mandate to disarm Hezbollah, Iran has funded the militant terrorist organizations rebuilding and Syria has attempted to reassert its control over neighboring Lebanon. Threatswatch reports:

As the senior UN envoy to Lebanon, Terje Roed-Larsen, informs the Security Council that members the Lebanese government have recently ?stated publicly and also in conversations with us that there has been arms coming across the border into Lebanon,? the United States is voicing familiar concern that Syria and Iran are trying to destabilize Lebanon. US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton said after a closed-door Security Council briefing that Lebanese members of government were providing some information, ?But the government was afraid to be specific about these arms coming across the Syrian-Lebanese border because of fear of retaliation.?

The threat perceived by members of the Lebanese government is real and present. Following the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, a UN commission that has since stalled and faltered has only investigated Syria. In the time that lapsed after the Hariri murder, there were numerous assassinations and assassination attempts against anti-Syrian Lebanese figures in government and media. Lebanese citizens openly accused Syria of attempts to silence Lebanese opposition to Syrian control.

. . .Following the ceasefire, Iran was at the forefront offering massive amounts of reconstruction money. The likely principal purpose of that money was not to rebuild the Lebanese civilian infrastructure but, as the Bint Jbail resident indicates, to rebuild Hizballah?s damaged and destroyed positions in and under southern Lebanon.

. . .After the ceasefire agreement, the Lebanese government agreed to allow Hizballah to keep their arms so long as they did not carry or display them publicly. The influx of additional UNIFIL forces that came into southern Lebanon to stand as a buffer between Hizballah and the IDF saw its leadership demonstrate no will to disarm Hizballah as called for by the UN Security Council resolution that served as the mandate that brought them to the region.

Even after all that’s happened, the world still isn’t serious about this threat.