Law of the sea Treaty (LOST)

[runningman]

If Bush ratifies this agreement and the senate approves (which it looks like it is going to) it will give the UN power over all the waters of the world.. the USA as we know it will end.. stupid Canada already went along with it..

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN3129836420071031

Tax, Tax, Tax and of course Permits.. its all about money.. nothing to do with security. Bush says its so the NAVY can travel throughout the globe. They already do that everywhere. Are we to believe that after world war 2 the USA NAVY subs stopped going to Japan and China and Russi??.
The price of goods will def. go up dramatically.. Regan vetoed it back in the 80's because he felt it was a direct threat to USA interests.

[Shpira]

Re: Law of the sea Treaty (LOST)

I am not entirely convinced that its about tax, but it is about money. The Artic is the issue here. There are disputes between US and Russia over the the Artic teritories because oil has been found and "The treaty guarantees U.S. access to oil, natural gas and other natural resources extending 200 miles out from the U.S. shoreline -- an area covering nearly 300,000 square miles."
When Reagan was president the Artic was not an issue and today the US can not afford to boycott the international community and attempt to bully Russia.

So there you have it, as for patroling the friendly waters...treaty or no treaty no unauthorised US ships will be alowed to enter Russian waters and come back out in one piece (I would imagine the same for China). However, I don't really think this is an important issue here at all.