The UN is funded in large part by U.S. taxpayers.
I believe we cover some 75% of the UN budget.
and this is just a little of what you have gotten for your buck!!!
# 1 - The UN "Law of the Sea Treaty" (UN Convention on the Law of the Sea - UNCLOS) conceived in 1982 by the UN as a method of governing activities on, over, and beneath the ocean's surface.
It came into force on November 16, 1994
It asserts the UN's control over 7/10ths of the earths surface (70% of the earth is covered by oceans) which includes all U.S. territorial waters.
Although over 155 countries and the European community have signed onto this treaty, thankfully the U.S still has not.
The reason we have not is......
Part XI of the Convention provides for a regime relating to minerals on the seabed outside any state's territorial waters or EEZ. It establishes an International Seabed Authority (ISA) to authorize seabed exploration and mining and collect and distribute the seabed mining royalty.
However even though the United States is not a party to the treaty, it considers many of the remaining provisions as binding and as "customary international law".
# 2 - The ICC (International Criminal Court) which was established in 2002 is a UN created court that claims the authority to put U.S. citizens on trial, along with the citizens of all other nations of course.
So far anyway the U.S. government has rejected it, but US support for the ICC is around 68% for Democrats, and 56% of Republicans.
The UN ICC goes so far as to say they have the absolute right to put on trial even citizens of nations who do not belong to the ICC (that would include Americans).
So the U.S. has had to pass legislation in order to protect its own citizens from this court.
# 3 - The Bush administration has proposed putting together a 75,000 man UN army called the "Global Peace Operations Initiative"
This UN army is to be largely funded by the U.S. Pentagon budget and is to be equipped and trained by our already overtaxed military forces.
# 4 - The UN Reform Act of 2005 (H.R. 2745) put forth by the Republicans and passed on June 17, 2005, (by a vote of 221 to 184) - supports the creation of a
"UN Peace Building Commission".
This new creation will serve as the UN's enforcement arm.
Or as Ron Paul put it...."the internationalization of what were formerly internal affairs of sovereign nations"
These things allow for the Centralization of power under the UN umbrella and gives the UN..........
**an independent military,
**a court system,
**an executive branch - to enforce UN decrees and interfere in the affairs of sovereign and independent nations.
**and control over 70% of the earths surface (the oceans).
There can be no other name for this than a "World Government" in the making.
A little back history in the UN............
The UN was created in part by American "one worlders" at the New York based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) along with communists from other nations.
U.S. traitor and Soviet agent Alger Hiss was in charge of the UN founding conference in 1945 and was the key architect of the UN Charter.
He was assisted by many others who were like-minded.
Their goal was to establish the framework of a world government that would gradually be empowered and transformed into a global socialist dictatorship.
8 comments:
The need for a new law of the sea convention was conceived by the United States and the Soviet Union in 1965 as a way to accommodate the great power interests in freedom of navigation and the coastal state interest in extending national control over fishery and mineral development in the seas and continental shelves off their coasts. The Convention is an agreement among states as to how the old law of 'anyone can do anything anywhere in the sea' had to be changed to reflect coastal state interests and their power to protect them. In fact, the US was the first nation to challenge the old law of the sea in 1945 by proclaiming control over the resources of the continental shelf beyond 3 nautical miles.
While the member nations use the Convention to delineate their agreement on rights and duties at sea, it in no way gives anyone control of "70% of the earth's surface." That makes a quotable line, but it is wrong. In fact, the convention recognizes coastal state control over large areas (with the US among the largest - the US Exclusive Economic Zone is larger than the land area of the United States). For the rest of the seas, and for navigation, in, under and over the EEZ, the Convention clarifies the freedoms of navigation that were only partially protected by the 1958 conventions on the law of the sea and were not protected at all by the eroding customary law dating back to the early 17th century that failed to address issues such as factory fishing ships, marine transport of nuclear materials, oil spills from commercial vessels and foreign mineral exploration of a nation's continental shelf.
The Law of the Sea Convention was no plot for UN control - it was designed and negotiated (and renegotiated to meet Pres. Reagan's guidelines) by the United States to protect US interests, and the US was the biggest winner in both ocean control and freedom of navigation. That is why President Bush, all of the joint chiefs and every living chief of naval operations support the Convention, as to oil and gas developers and commercial fishing firms.
Say so over what happens in the oceans IS by default control of those oceans.
And yes even though the U.S. is NOT party to the Law of the Sea Treaty, (because of Part XI of that convention)
I am absolutely sure that the U.S. benefits from it.
After all the powers that be here in the U.S. would settle for NOTHING less than that now would they???
And oh yes, much plotting is afoot in this world, you best believe that!!!
I'm not sure what your preferred alternative to the LOS Convention is. Do you think there should be no agreement on the 'rules of the road' for use of the seas? Or do you think the US should define our own rules and force compliance by others? Or, perhaps, that we don't need rules for use of the seas and for setting agreed limits to jurisdiction?
To answer your question...rules of the sea are fine...however I do not think the UN is the correct agency to be monitoring, negotiating, or enforcing rules.
The UN should NOT have the say so on anything....because they have proven themselves to be corrupt, and inept in every way!!!
I do not believe the UN has earned the right or the trust to be endowed as the "decision maker".
We are led to believe that the UN directive is to prevent atrocities, and negotiate peace and harmony in the world...they do none of this!!!
Peace keeping they can not, or worse, will not do.
They just sit behind embassy walls and watch the carnage unfold.
Or even worse they often join in the carnage themselves, taking liberties with women and young girls, either by bribe or by force!!!
Unable to agree even on what genocide is, not to mention doing absolutely NOTHING about it other than talk and so the atrocities continue!!!
How many thousands of lives have been taken as the UN stood and watched??
So forgive me if I do not trust the UN to do ANYTHING else right either.
Their record speaks for itself.
The UN is a complete sham and I don't trust that they have society's best interests at heart.
The LOS Convention was negotiated AT the UN, not BY it or FOR it. Rules are enforced by states, not by the UN. In the three cases where standing bodes were needed, they were created outside the UN and under the control of the states party to the Convention.
There are occasions in ocean affairs where standing organizations are needed. One example is the International Maritime Organization, which drafts rules and standards for state approval and convenes negotiations for conventions and protocols such as the Suppression of Unlawful Acts convention and agreements related to safety of life at sea.
Well then I guess, according to you anyway, we have nothing to worry about.
However here are a couple things that point to the UN having DIRECT involvement in governing under this treaty.
*No control over funding:
The treaty gives a blank check TO THE UN (who is funded by the US). The US would have no control over how the money is used.
*Eminent domain:
The treaty applies eminent domain to intellectual property GIVING THE UN THE POWER to seize technology and share it with potentially enemy states.
*National sovereignty:
The treaty creates the International Seabed Authority (ISA) with its own dispute resolution tribunal.
The ISA simply being AN OFFSHOOT ORGANIZATION OF THE UN.
The International Law of the Sea Tribunal takes sovereignty away from independent nations and puts it in the hands of the ISA, AND IN TURN THE UN.
*Taxation:
The license fees and taxes levied on economic activities in the deep seabed area by the ISA would be, in effect, a form of 'taxation without representation'.
Citizens would be indirectly taxed through business and governmental activities in the area.
Taxes that go to the ISA, AND IN TURN THE UN.
*Economics:
Businesses can already exploit resources from the international area;
ratifying the treaty forces them to buy licenses for that right and pay taxes on the proceeds to the ISA, AND IN TURN THE UN.
Now tell me again....
just how the UN has nothing to do with it???
Underlying most of your arguments is a confusion between the "United Nations" - the organization headquartered in New York and established under the UN charter - and any group comprised by most of the countries of the world, regardless of the rules by which they function. There are a number of multinational organizations that work smoothly for interests shared by the United States and the work of the US negotiators of the LOS convention in both the initial negotiations and the subsequent negotiation of changes to the convention used the successful examples as a model and a goal. That is why President Reagan said that if his six criteria for the seabed provisions were eventually met, then he would approve US ratification. In 1994 we met all six criteria.
Some of your points below ignore the changes imposed by the 1994 agreement. That is a shame because in doing so you ignore Ronald Reagan's accomplishments and contributions to achieving a convention fully in our interests.
Funding
The United Nations is separate from the Law of the Sea Convention and the International Seabed Authority and claiming otherwise does not make it so. With regard to funding, there are no provisions by which nations, either individually or collectively, pay funds to the United Nations. When it saves money, the ISA may contract with the UN for services (translators, managing staff pensions, etc.), but that is a fee for service arrangement that does not make the two organizations into one; instead, it makes the Authority more cost-effective.
The International Seabed Authority is controlled by a 36 member Council on which the US, when the US joins the convention, will have the only permanent seat. A seat on the Council will give the US a veto over any rules and regulations, over any distributions of royalties resulting from deep seabed mineral development, and over any amendments to the seabed provisions of the Convention.
Moreover, the budget of the seabed authority has to be approved without objection by the Finance Committee, in which the US will have a seat as long as we are paying a share of the budget of the Authority. That, in other words, is a veto for the US.
Eminent Domain
Your information is 14 years out of date. The original convention included provisions by which technology for deep seabed mining could be purchased at "fair and reasonable commercial terms and conditions" but at that time there was a provision that the sale of technology could be required on those terms if it was not available on the market. However, the 1994 Agreement on Implementation, a binding convention negotiated under guidelines set by _Ronald Reagan_, deleted these provisions. All other provisions related to technology are aspirations for sharing technology, not requirements.
National Sovereignty
The dispute resolution provisions of the seabed regime are a feature the US has wanted in order to force competitors to follow the terms of the Convention, and an important part of the provisions is commercial arbitration using internationally accepted rules.
Engaging in international commerce and investment requires international systems for resolving disputes. That is why you don't hear industry complaining about these provisions.
Taxation
US citizens, through the permanent representation of the US on the Council and on the Finance Committee, would be represented by the appointees of our senior elected representative - the president of the United States. We elect the president so we are represented in the financial decisions of the Authority. Having a blocking vote in the Finance Committee makes this very effective representation.
The UN does not get to tap the funds of the Authority. There are only three allowed uses for funds: operations of the ISA (as approved by consensus of the Finance Committee), adjustment assistance to developing state mineral producers hurt by new production from the seabed (subject to veto by the US in the Council), and return to the member states of the Authority (that it, all members of the convention). All those decisions have to be approved by the Council and/or the Finance Committee so the US would have a commanding voice in them.
Economics
By staying outside the Convention, the US could claim the right of US firms to mine the seabed, but it cannot claim to grant exclusive access to a mine site. Customary law of the sea going back 300 years rejects any provision for exclusive access to any part of the sea. It was through the negotiation process, first in the 1958 conventions and later in the broader 1982 convention, that we obtained recognition of the right to exclusive access on the continental shelf and exclusive economic zone.
There has been a US law in place since 1980 for licensing US deep seabed mining operations. For a while it was hoped that by creating a "mini-treaty" of the states capable of mining the seabed that effective exclusive access could be obtained. The treaty fell apart after the 1994 agreement was adopted and all other states with seabed mining capability joined the convention. There is only one US firm left with a license under US law and it haven't done anything with it (other than lose all their foreign partners and investors) for well over a decade.
Meanwhile, there are 8 firms and consortia operating under the Authority, including Germany, France, Japan, India, Russia, China and Korea. They have been exploring their mine sites and developing and testing technology. By staying outside the convention, the United States has crippled the domestic deep seabed mining that was first developed here.
You didn't mention it, but the Seabed Authority has been in operation for a dozen years. It has developed and approved rules and regulations for exploration of seabed minerals that are quite similar to those issued initially by the US under our own law. The Council has worked as intended by the 1994 Agreement, and the budget of the ISA has been approved by consensus of the Finance Committee as provided by that agreement. During the first two years, while the US was a provisional member of the Council and Finance Committee, we were the dominant participant and decisions were made (as they continue to be) by consensus.
It is obvious that we are of different minds on this issue,
so I guess we will simply have to agree to disagree.
Thanks for the lively debate though!
Post a Comment