US State Dept. supports socialist "enterprise"
April 5, 2004
The U.S. State Department is asking the Senate to join a socialist “Enterprise,” and to guarantee 24% of its operating costs, while retaining only one of 145 votes on the governing council. The “Enterprise” is a mining company, owned by the International Seabed Authority, created by the Convention on the Law of the Seas.
In a capitalist enterprise, 24% of the total investment would buy 24% of the voting power, and 24% of the profit, and ensure the investor the right to examine the books.
This socialist “Enterprise” is owned by a world government agency, financed on the principle of “from each according to his ability...,” expressly for the purpose of mining the seabed for “the common heritage of mankind.” Neither the U.S., nor any other nation, could demand an independent audit of the books.
It could not be more socialist.
Irritated by the sudden, intense, and unexpected opposition to the treaty that developed immediately after the Foreign Relations Committee approved the it, John Turner, Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, came out swinging before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee last week.
In an effort to rebut criticism of the treaty, John Turner claimed that the treaty required “no surrender of sovereignty. In fact,” he said, “the Convention supports the sovereignty and sovereign rights of the United States....”
He did not explain, however, how his claim can be justified in view of the requirement of Article 2(3), which says:
“The sovereignty over the territorial sea is exercised subject to this Convention and to other rules of international law.”
If the U.S. agrees to exercise its sovereignty over its territorial sea, subject to this Convention, then the U.S. is surrendering its sovereignty to this U.N. authority.
And with a straight face, John Turner told the Committee that “The ISA has no authority or ability to levy taxes.”
The truth is that Agreement Annex, Section I (6)(a)(ii), specifically requires a fee of $250,000 for exploration, and the agreement authorizes other fees and royalties. Turner calls this “administrative fees and revenue sharing provisions,” which, he says, “are modest.” This semantic game-playing was the norm during Clinton’s “what the meaning of ‘is’ is” administration. The truth is that when a government agency has the power to compel payment, it is a tax, regardless of what John Turner may call it.
Every one of Turner’s efforts at rebuttal slip and slide around the actual facts. Every one of his so-called benefits of ratification describe conditions the U.S. already enjoys, or are benefits that accrue to the U.N.
Treaty proponents wasted no time rolling out the media mill to denigrate treaty opponents. Capitol Hill Blue described “right-wing neo-isolationists,” who billboarded the treaty on their web sites near fund-raising links, who pressured Karl Rove to the extent that the White House is now backing away from the treaty.
The article reports that: “ According to a source close to Lugar, the chairman [of the Foreign Relations Committee] told [Condoleezza] Rice: ‘We're going to pass this -- with you or without you.’"
This President walked away from the Kyoto Protocol, refusing to subject the United States to its regulatory power. He walked away from the International Criminal Court, refusing to subject U.S. citizens to the U.N.’s version of justice. How this same President could even allow consideration of this Law of the Seas Treaty, which is the purest form of socialism, and, on its face, requires the surrender of sovereignty over territorial seas, is a question that will cause him much grief in this election year.
This treaty is John Turner’s baby. His long-time friendship with Vice President Cheney provided the political cover needed to pursue his green objectives from his remote corner in the State Department. While building a coalition of support for this treaty among environmental organizations, Turner indicated that he intended to “revisit” the Convention on Biological Diversity as well.
Globalists were shocked in 1994, when, after approval by the Foreign Relations Committee, opposition to the Convention on Biological Diversity forced the Democrat Majority Leader to pull the treaty from the Senate Calendar. The Desertification Treaty was never placed on the Senate Calendar for a vote. It was included in a package of 34 “technical” treaties, all of which were passed by a show of hands, without debate or a recorded vote.
John Turner and Richard Lugar tried to use this same “show of hands” tactic on the Convention on the Law of the Seas, avoiding review by any other committee, and the scrutiny of a public vote. This stealth tactic failed. Opposition has mounted, and continues to grow, as the American people discover just how horrible this treaty really is.
© 2004 Henry Lamb - All Rights Reserved
Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
Henry Lamb is the founding Chairman of Sovereignty International (1996), and the founding ECO of the Environmental Conservation Organization (1988). He is publisher of eco-logic Powerhouse, a widely read on-line, and print magazine. His columns are frequently translated into Spanish and published throughout Central and South America, Spain, Portugal, and Italy. He has attended United Nations meetings around the world, is a frequent speaker at conferences and workshops across the country, and is a regular guest on dozens of talk radio programs. He has provided testimony for the U.S. Congress, as well as State Legislatures, and has served as a consultant to FOX News on U.N. affairs.
For eight years, he was CEO of a national trade association for contractors,
headquartered in Chicago, coming to that position from CEO of a private
construction company specializing in erosion control and water management
structures. His background includes teaching at the secondary school
level, and serving four years as a legislative analyst for a county
government in Florida. E-Mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]