To stop Law of the Sea ‘Backdoor Kyoto Protocol’, 34 senators needed

Politicos like Sec. of Defense Leon Panetta and lobbyist Trent Lott are pushing the U.S. Senate to agree to the Law of the Sea Treaty. President Ronald Reagan held firm on opposing that treaty in 1982. Now Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) is doing the same, hoping to line up 34 senators to halt it.

Opponents believe the treaty would have a negative impact on the U.S. economy and U.S. sovereignty.

One of the most troubling aspects of the treaty is that revenue would be held in Jamaica. How would the UN handle that money, considering the lack of transparency in the international organization? The framework suggests potential for corruption like the Oil for Food scandal.

Aside from the potential for corruption, there’s potential for an expansion of the Obama administration’s obstruction of the U.S. energy sector.

DeMint says the treaty is a “Backdoor Kyoto Protocol.” DeMint wrote:

“Ratifying LOST not only means losing national sovereignty, it means losing jobs. If the United States enters this agreement, it would mean giving up billions in oil-and-gas royalties to be redistributed among developing and landlocked nations -- some of whom are state sponsors of terror -- and subjecting the United States to international climate change lawsuits.”

The U.S. already has the means to deal with rights on the seas. Subjecting U.S. sovereignty to the whims of the UN would make our country more vulnerable.

In May CNS News featured a list of 24 senators who agreed to sign an opposition letter DeMint planned to send to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) whose party is aggressively pushing the agreement. Current media accounts suggest at least two more senators have signed the opposition letter.

The treaty already has 161 countries on board and the European Union. However, some countries don’t abide by the treaty they agreed to and disputes over matters like the South China Sea haven’t been resolved.

CNS cited a passage from DeMint’s letter:

“In his letter, DeMint writes, 'To effect the treaty’s broad regime of governance, we are particularly concerned that United States sovereignty could be subjugated in many areas to a supranational government that is chartered by the United Nations under the 1982 Convention.  Further, we are troubled that compulsory dispute resolution could pertain to public and private activities including law enforcement, maritime security, business operations, and nonmilitary activities performed aboard military vessels.'”

In 1982 columnist William Safire called the treaty “a giveaway to Third World Nations.” That is still an accurate assessment.

If you disagree with the Senate agreeing to the Law of the Sea Treaty, contact your senator and let him know how you feel. Pressure will mount ahead of the November elections and Democrats are gathering forces, targeting not only Leftists but also some errant Republicans.

Related/Source at The US Report

Panetta happy to see lobbyist Lott push for ratification of Law of the Sea Convention

LOST ratification would sacrifice sovereignty, weaken military

Something's fishy about sales pitch for Law of the Sea Treaty

Related on the Web

Rumsfeld on Hill to Stand Fast Against Kerry’s Law of Sea Treaty Drive (PJ Media)

(Commentary by Kay B. Day/June 15, 2012)