SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: goldworldnet who wrote (226763)11/4/2007 1:09:18 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Respond to of 793926
 
A Sinkable Treaty
Why America doesn't need the Law of the Sea.

Saturday, November 3, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 17-4 Wednesday to approve the Law of the Sea Treaty, meaning it's now up to 34 Senate Republicans to send this giant octopus of a document back where it belongs. To wit, the bottom of the ocean.

The U.S. last disposed of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea--LOST to its critics--when Ronald Reagan was President. This May, however, the Bush Administration reversed course and declared that the Gipper's objections had been fixed by a 1994 amendment. We've since had a debate on these pages over that point, with former Secretaries of State George Shultz and James Baker in favor, while Ed Meese and William Clark, Reagan's Attorney General and National Security Adviser, remain opposed.

The best arguments for the treaty come from the U.S. Navy, which likes how it creates a legal framework for navigational rights. The oil and gas industry approves of provisions that create an "exclusive economic zone" for the U.S. out to 200 miles. There's also the potential for development (with clear legal title) of resources in the deep seabed, which would be managed by the International Seabed Authority on which the U.S. would be guaranteed a seat. And, in fact, the 1994 amendment did get rid of some of LOST's most obnoxious provisions, such as mandatory technology transfers and other redistributionist nostrums.

Then again, the Navy has been getting along fine by using the "customary law" that has guaranteed freedom of the seas for three centuries. Treaty proponents have taken to arguing that, unless we ratify, Russia will lay claim to oil rights over the Arctic seabed. But Russia's expansive Arctic claims, possibly including the sea floor under the North Pole, are themselves a product of the treaty. We also hear that the U.S. must have its proverbial "seat at the table" in negotiations over such claims. But the nations with a direct geographic Arctic claim ought to be able to cut a deal without giving Cuba or Zimbabwe a seat. America's historic experience with similar multinational bodies (e.g., the U.N. Human Rights Commission) hardly justifies confidence that having a seat will enhance our influence, rather than constrain it.

The larger problem is the treaty's sheer size, with no fewer than 320 articles and nine annexes. These cover everything from "Criminal jurisdiction on board a foreign ship" (Article 27) to "Anadromous stocks" and "Catadromous Species" (Articles 65 and 66) to the "Jurisdiction of the Seabed Disputes Chamber" (Article 187). Much of this is anodyne, but perhaps the Senators should read the fine print before voting. They might be surprised by what they find.

Consider the treaty's potential effects on military activities. The Administration says these are excluded from the treaty and, further, that the U.S. gets to decide what constitutes such activity. But then how to explain Article 20, which states that "In the territorial sea, submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag." How will this affect the ability of U.S. submarines to gather intelligence in coastal waters or deploy special forces on hostile shores? Last we checked, a $1 billion submarine called the USS Jimmy Carter had been built precisely for that purpose.

The Navy might also ask how its powerful sonars--which some environmentalists say harm marine life--could run afoul of Article 196. This states that countries "shall take all measures necessary to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment resulting from the use of technologies under their jurisdiction or control."

Or take concerns that the treaty's requirements on pollution are a back-door mechanism for forcing U.S. compliance with the Kyoto Treaty and other global environmental pacts. Confronted with the argument, an Administration spokesman told the Senate that the treaty did not exercise jurisdiction over land-based pollution. Replied Republican Senator David Vitter: "If it is . . . not covered by the treaty, why is there a section entitled, 'Pollution from Land-Based Sources'?" A good question, considering that Article 213 notes that countries "shall adopt laws and regulations and take other measures necessary to implement applicable international rules and standards established through competent international organizations" to control such pollution. Note our emphasis.

Critics are also right to be concerned about the powers of direct taxation the treaty confers on the International Seabed Authority. The details of this innovation are buried in Article 13 of the treaty's third annex, and contain a mix of "production charges" and annual million-dollar "administrative" fees. Such measures are all but unprecedented for an international organization and have a potential for corruption, especially when the taxes can run as high as 70% of net proceeds.

Some 154 countries have joined the Law of the Sea Treaty, with the U.S. one of the few holdouts. Critics are being labeled isolationists, or worse. But the U.S. has been abiding voluntarily with the terms of the treaty since 1983, with no ill effect. Twenty-some years ago a former President objected to handing sovereignty over two-thirds of the Earth's surface to another unaccountable international body. Ronald Reagan sank the treaty then; now it's up to 34 Senators to show similar courage.

opinionjournal.com



To: goldworldnet who wrote (226763)11/5/2007 9:53:24 AM
From: goldworldnet  Respond to of 793926
 
While Europe Slept:
How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within (Paperback)
by Bruce Bawer (Author)

amazon.com

By George D. Klein, author, Dissensions

I'll break my review into several parts:

1). In the Fall of 1989, I served as a Fulbright Senior Research Fellow at the Vrije Unviersity of AMsterdam. Everything Bawer describes about European values, attitudes,society, their elites, etc., is absolutely correct. I saw it first hand. Because of the demise of patriotism and a value system, Dutch (and much of European) society has become one where social standards have evaporated. Thus, lacking a moral and ethical compass, an understanding of what is right and wrong, and a devotion to a coddling welfare state, they have created a vacuum that the Jihadists are only too willing and eager to fill. They created their own mess.

However, what he describes is ingrained in the Euroopean system throughout their history. I know. I immigrated from there as a child. Just the players have changed.

2). What Bawer did not disclose. WHile In the Netherlands, I discovered that Dutch corporations preferentially recruit workers from the military to staff the assembly line to the Board room. Many of these former military types "yearn to be of public service" and run for their parliament. Close to 55% of elected Dutch officials have a military background.

In 1989, I asked someone in the US Embassy what would happen if an economic turn down occurred. Would these ex-miltiary elected officials say "Ya, right, let's take over and run ze country like za military to fix ze problems" and would this lead to the re-emergence of militaristic fascism? I was made to understand this was a major concern. Bawer is correct in raising the issue of re-emerging fascism in response to the rising tide of Islamistc fascism in Europe, but he understated it. Likely, that will be the outcome to counter the Jihadists when crunch-time comes.

As my father once told me "beware of the man on a white horse." European hsitory is a continuiong saga of leaders on white horses, and becsue history repeats, it is likely to happen again.

Bawer also did not mention the following. European countries with former empires have only themselves to blame. When they gave up their empire, they still considered former residents (including native/ethnic people) of their "colonies" to be be citizens of the "Empire" and gave them British and French and Dtuch passports for openers. Many used these passports to immigrate to the UK, the Netherlands, and France. In 1960 when visiting London, I was astounded at the number of Pakistanis working as bus ticket collectors, street sweepers, and garbage men because British workers didn't want to do those job and instead collect welfare. Those Pakistanis saved their money, opened businesses, imported their wives and proceeded to multiply at a high rate, while establishing mosques and then importing immans.

3). What are the solutions?: Bawer really didn't have many. So here are some. First, if it is true that immigrants are tearing up their ID's and flushing them down the toilet on airplanes on the way to Europe and then claiming asylum, European governments COULD require that all ID's be turned over at check in, taken on board in a sealed container, and returned to the incoming passengers on landing at the immigration counter in the presence of a European immigration officer. That might slow things down with regard to fake asylum.

Second, European government should start shipping out ALL radical Muslim immans and radical Islmaic sympathizers (including those born in Europe) back to the country of their heritage.

Third, European governments should require that all children born in their country of foreign parents must attend school in Europe, and not be shipped at age 3 back to the Islamic world for an education, only to reappear later as adults. All subsidies for such children should be stopped if they leave the country. The only exception would be if the parents leave the country permanently too.

Fourth, Eruopean governments MUST stop subsidizing all religious schools, denominations, and institutions if they truly want to separate Church and State. Clearly, the failure to do so has been misunderstood, abused and corrupted.

Fifth, require all incoming "fetch brides" to be screened by embassies around the world before giving them visas. Use a system like the US uses in such circumstances.

Sixth, place a limit on the number of children the government will subsidize to three children. If a family has more than three children, no subsidies for the new ones. (Works in China to a point?)

If Bawer has sized up European attitudes correctly, and I believe he has, don't expect this to happen. But these proposals would help contain the problem in part.

Last, I have a question for Bawer? Why does he still chose to live in Europe? When I left the Netherlands in 1989 after living there six months, I vowed never to return and I haven't. It was bad then, and has become worse now.

RECOMMENDATION: Buy this book. It could happen in the USA and there are signs that in some parts of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states some of this is developing.

* * *