Good.
"Military heavy hitters go to bat for high seas treaty
WASHINGTON - Proponents of a treaty governing the high seas rolled out military star power Thursday to try to lift the prospects for a long-spurned pact that faces strong conservative Republican opposition.
Two generals and four admirals, including the chief of naval operations and the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, appealed to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to ratify the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The United States is the only major nation that has refused to sign the treaty, which was concluded in 1982 and been in force since 1994.
The appearance by the military leaders came a few weeks after Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Army General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made a rare joint appearance before the committee to argue for the treaty.
Related: Sailing the High Seas Near Somalia
Senator John F. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts and the committee’s chair, is trying to build a case for the pact, which is endorsed by 161 countries and the European Union. Kerry is holding out the possibility of a vote in a congressional lame-duck session after the November elections.
The military leaders insisted that the pact would improve national security and enhance US standing in the world, while conservatives say the treaty would undermine US sovereignty. The United States has abided by the treaty since President Reagan’s administration.
“It will fortify our credibility as the world’s leading naval power and allow us to bring to bear the full force of our influence on maritime disputes,’’ said Admiral James Winnefeld Jr., vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs. “In short, it preserves what we have and it gives us yet another tool to engage any nation that would threaten our maritime interests.’’
Making it easier to sink other ships for whatever reason we claim.
Said Kerry: “Do we really want to entrust our national security to an unwritten set of rules? Is there any other area in which we choose to leave important matters of national security to customary law? The answer to both questions is no.’’
The treaty establishes a system for resolving disputes in international waters and recognizes sovereign rights over a country’s continental shelf out to 200 nautical miles and beyond if the country can provide evidence to substantiate its claims.
Some witnesses also spoke against the treaty, targeting a system of royalty payments under the treaty that compels countries such as the United States to make payments to developing countries, saying it would force wealthy countries to aid others.
“I do not believe the United States should endorse a treaty that makes it a legal obligation for productive countries to pay royalties to less productive countries, based on rhetoric about the common heritage of mankind,’’ former Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld said.
My first reaction to seeing his name and realizing he testified in front of Congress was why was he not put in the brig?
--more--"
And we all know it is not fairne$$ and value$ the U.S. cares about:
"Ayotte among GOP senators opposed to high seas treaty
WASHINGTON — A three-decade effort to persuade the United States to ratify a global treaty ruling the high seas has again encountered rough waters, with three more Republican senators saying they would oppose ratification.
That brings the number opposed to 34 senators, enough to prevent ratification of the Law of the Sea treaty. The Constitution requires two-thirds Senate approval of any treaty.
And with Republicans taking control of the Senate this fall the treaty is at the bottom of the sea of your choice.
Support for the treaty has been widespread, with leaders from the military, State Department, and business community contending it would help protect the country’s security and economic interests across the oceans. Ratification has been a top goal of Senator John F. Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Opponents, however, say the treaty would undermine US sovereignty. Republican senators Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Rob Portman of Ohio announced on Monday they oppose ratification.
In a letter to the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, Ayotte, and Portman said the treaty was not in nation’s best interests. “The terms of the treaty are not only expansive, but illdefined,” the letter said.
We know what intere$t$ they mean.
A third Republican, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, had recently announced his opposition.
The United States is the only major power to not have signed the treaty, which was negotiated in 1982 and went into effect in 1994. Among other elements, the treaty established tribunals to adjudicate conflicts over territorial waters and other jurisdictional issues.
You mean we are.... (gulp).... isolated?
Supporters had included big-business groups such as the oil and gas industry, which wants to protect US interests in the increasingly navigable regions of the Arctic.
Are you sure about the navigation?
--more--"
Also see: Mired in the Muck of the Lousiana Marshes
