Yo Ho Ho

I've noted before that while I don't know much about the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, it seems to have all the right enemies. Well, here comes Kate Sheppard with an article that explains it all and why it's important that we ratify it.

Comments

Actually, Kate Sheppard's article is pretty lightweight -- I didn't see one strong argument for why the treaty is in the US national interest.

There are several such arguments, of course. For one thing, the ice is melting in the Arctic Sea (global warming) and we may soon have the Russians drilling for oil just north of Alaska -- as well as sending a lot of tankers between Europe and China via the new Northwest Passage.
See http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/19/america/19arctic.php?WT.mc_id=rssfrontpage

Jim Imhofe, I suspect, prefers to see Exxon drilling for oil just north of Murmansk. No doubt a good, brisk nuclear exchange will decide the issue.

You have to admit that there is something bracing about 19th century Western piracy..er .."Manifest Destiny".

"We don't want to fight,
But by Jingo if we do
We got the ships
We got the men
We got the money, too!"

Posted by Don Williams | October 23, 2007 11:35 AM

While interesting for it's procedural history of the politics of ratification, the article really doesn't get to the meat of the controversary over the treaty. Not very informative.

Posted by Dave | October 23, 2007 11:50 AM

And, as I said before:

---------
It's good to hear that MattY reflexively sides with "internationalists and establishmenty business types", and automatically assumes that something must be good if "paranoid UN-haters" are against it, rather than, for instance, examining the claims from those who oppose it.

Those of a more liberal, open-minded bent should take a look through these:

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

Perhaps if MattY wants to do some real punditry he'll look through that last link and then try to tell us why we should ignore those concerns. If he doesn't do that he might as well be selling used tires.

P.S. This is meant as a *satire*, yet so far no one has caught on: youtube.com/watch?v=nTjcYVQ-cKE

I wonder why.

Posted by TLB | October 23, 2007 1:18 PM

The Law of the Sea Treaty controversy -- Boring Americans silly since the 1970s!

Posted by Steve Sailer | October 23, 2007 4:03 PM

After reading the linked article, I became convinced that it's important to ratify the treaty... to show that we still know how to ratify treaties... or something.

Could we maybe have spent a paragraph or two to show how ratifying this treaty is actually going to benefit us? Besides giving our treaty-ratifying mechanism a workout, I mean.

Posted by Sean Peters | October 23, 2007 8:09 PM

Dunno about Matt, but I felt "broad-minded" enough to follow TLB's link: and if the Eagle Forum's overheated bloviations are the standard of opposition to the LOS Treaty, it would only convince me, if I were a Senator, to vote "aye" as quickly and loudly as possible.

Sorry, TLB: but the sole common thread in all that commentary WAS "paranoid UN-hatred" - Phyllis Schlafly's jingoistic gibberings were the worst - no mention of any advantages we get (and have gotten) from the UNCLOS conventions; no mention of how LOST provides (and has provided) means for international naval cooperation; little "argument" at all -save mindless evocations of St. Ronny Reagan, and huffy sneerings about how the Heinous Awful Corrupt UN and its Heinous Awful Corrupt Globalizers are pushing the LOST to "handcuff US sovereignity" (exactly how they don't say: they just take it for granted that no one, anywhere else on the whole planet, is, or can be, motivated by anything else than reflexive anti-Americanism).

Oh, and the paroxyms of outrage over the seabed-mining issue is just inane: why the fulminations over taxes not-yet-levied on an industry not-yet-established, using technology not-yet-developed?

Lame bloviating scare-talk is all they have: whether ratification of the UNCLOS is a good thing or not (probably indifferent) - reading Eagle Forum's jingo-circus of posts leads me conclude its worth ratifying just to piss off these faux-populist isolationists.

Posted by Jay C | October 23, 2007 9:50 PM

Obviously, all those pissant countries in the rest of the world just love us to death and wouldn't band together to try to harm us. No, not at all. And, giving a corrupt, unelected bureaucracy the means to engage in global taxation... no possible harm there.

And, of course, we shouldn't look ahead but just live for today and not worry about tomorrow.

P.S. Up with the Democratic Party!

Posted by TLB | October 23, 2007 11:30 PM