More Law of the Sea

Check out Corine Hegland's account of the issues in play (PDF) in the Law of the Sea Treaty. She's doing neutral reporting, so she doesn't come out and say that there's little to the opponents' case besides vague paranoia but she also make it clear that there's little to the opponents' case besides vague paranoia.

Comments

Well, this article at least tries to enumerate some of the issues. I have no reason to take any side on the issue without reading a real exposition of all the issues and the arguments on both sides, but it's kind of scary that you think this is neutral reporting. I

Posted by Dave | October 25, 2007 11:22 AM

Basically, this has become of the Republican ancient widow's mailing list selling points. "KEEP AMERICA FREE! (send $20 today!)"

These bozos absolutely swamp the toothless and senile with anxiety-inducing money pitches. Appeals to Reagan, whom doddering relicts can recall, are all part of that.

Confirmation? Go visit your most ancient conservative relative and fan through her accumulating mail.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | October 25, 2007 11:34 AM

But, but... THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES will SIT IN A ROOM and MAKE DECISIONS that will TAINT OUR SACRED BODILY FLUIDS!

Whoa! I don't know what happened there... it was like I dozed off, entered the astral plane, and picked up the TLB feed. Sorry. Won't happen again.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | October 25, 2007 12:34 PM

The article spends way too much time analyzing Reagan (and his compatriots' opinions) and very little time if any describing the pressing problem(s) this treaty is supposed to solve. Actually reading the overview (here) is somewhat more helpful in that regard. On the whole, the LOST seems like a good idea on paper. I can imagine opposition from military hawks (who oppose the transit rules for the straits), deep-sea miners who don't want to give 7% of their revenue to the ISA, polluters, and people who, on principle, don't ever want the US to precommit to any sort of binding international legal framework. On the other hand, there's also people like me who regard this as likely to be an ineffectual boondoggle which mainly provides a new crop of job appointments for the UN and all its hangers-on. You can count me as lukewarm opposition, though I don't really care much one way or the other.

Posted by bbartlog | October 25, 2007 1:42 PM

Let's bust her credibility:

...Gaffney still brims with reasons to reject the treaty. It encroaches on American sovereignty. It creates a new U.N. bureaucracy, with taxation powers... [other downsides...] None of these claims are quite true, say treaty proponents... It has no actual taxation powers, although members are assessed dues, and it may claim up to 7 percent of revenues from some oil and gas sites; it can also conduct its own hard-mineral mining at some deep seabed locations.

So, it has no taxation powers, then it's got features that sure look like taxation powers. Right.

Here's more on those downsides:

http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/LOST/

Posted by TLB | October 25, 2007 5:14 PM