Age of Pericles: An Obama Allegory

Age of Pericles: An Obama Allegory

George Galloway banned from Canada

The British M.P. who kissed the ground in Gaza, and who gave money, property, and diplomatic cover to the terrorist regime of Hamas, has been denied entry into Canada because he is deemed to be a security risk.

From the Daily Mail:

'Infandous*' George Galloway banned from Canada on grounds of national security (*look it up)

Outspoken anti-war MP George Galloway has vowed to fight an 'outrageous decision' to ban him from Canada on the grounds of national security.

Mr Galloway said the ban was 'not something I'm prepared to accept' and pledged to use all means at his disposal to challenge the ruling.

But a spokesman for Canada's immigration minister Jason Kenney insisted the decision, taken by border security officials, would not be overturned for a 'infandous* street-corner Cromwell' (*'infandous: too odious to be expressed or mentioned).

This Hamas photo shows the head of the Hamas government Ismail Haniyeh, right, embracing George Galloway during their meeting in Gaza City on March 10 this year

Mr Galloway was due to give a speech in Toronto on March 30 but has been deemed 'inadmissible' to Canada under section 34(1) of the country's immigration act.

Mr Kenney's spokesman Alykhan Velshi said the act was designed to protect Canadians from people who fund, support or engage in terrorism.

The minister has the right to issue special exemption permits but will not do so in Mr Galloway's case.

The man who banned him: Canada's immigration minister Jason Kenney

Mr Velshi said: 'We're going to uphold the law, not give special treatment to this infandous street-corner Cromwell who actually brags about giving 'financial support' to Hamas, a terrorist organisation banned in Canada.

'I'm sure Galloway has a large Rolodex of friends in regimes elsewhere in the world willing to roll out the red carpet for him. Canada, however, won't be one of them.'

Mr Galloway, 54, MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, is consulting organisers of his north American speaking tour and exploring whether legal action can be taken to overturn the ban.

Mr Galloway, an opponent of the war in Afghanistan where Canadian troops are deployed as part of international forces, lamented the 'idiotic' ruling as 'irrational, inexplicable and an affront to Canada's good name'.

And the Scot also said being refused entry to Canada was like being told to stay away from the family home.

Mr Galloway said: 'This is a very sad day for the Canada we have known and loved - a bastion of the freedoms that supporters of the occupation of Afghanistan claim to be defending.

'This has further vindicated the anti-war movement's contention that unjust wars abroad will end up consuming the very liberties that make us who we are.

'This may be a rather desperate election ploy by a conservative government reaching the end of the line, or by a minister who has not cottoned on to the fact that the George Bush era is over.

'All right-thinking Canadians, whether they agree with me over the wisdom of sending troops to Afghanistan or not, will oppose this outrageous decision.

'On a personal note - for a Scotsman to be barred from Canada is like being told to stay away from the family home.

'This is not something I'm prepared to accept.'

Mr Galloway was due to speak at a public forum entitled Resisting war from Gaza to Kandahar, hosted by Toronto Coalition to Stop the War later this month.

The Respect party MP was also set to address a second public forum in Mississauga, just south of Toronto, on March 31.

His proposed visit prompted the Jewish Defence League of Canada to write an open letter to the country's government urging it to do 'everything possible to keep this hater away'.

In 2006, Mr Galloway was refused entry to Egypt on the grounds of national security after he travelled to the country to give evidence at a 'mock trial' of former prime minister Tony Blair and ex-US president George W Bush.

He was held overnight in a police cell before the authorities changed their minds and allowed him in, and he later received a personal apology from the country's president.

A spokesman for Citizenship and Immigration Canada confirmed that Mr Galloway had been deemed inadmissible on national security grounds and would not be allowed into the country.

He said the decision had been taken by border security officials 'based on a number of factors' in accordance with section 34(1) of the country's immigration act.

The act states: 'A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds for:

'(a) engaging in an act of espionage or an act of subversion against a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada;

'(b) engaging in or instigating the subversion by force of any government;

'(c) engaging in terrorism;

'(d) being a danger to the security of Canada;

'(e) engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada; or

'(f) being a member of an organisation that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage in acts referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c).'

Immigration minister Jason Kenney has the right to exempt people from the act if it is felt that their presence would not be 'detrimental to the national interest'.

But the spokesman said Mr Kenney would 'decline to exercise that discretion' in Mr Galloway's case.

NowPublic

Tags: Canada | Gaza | terrorism | World | Hamas | Canadian Politics | British MP George Galloway | A Palestinian man holds bags of rice before their distribution to Palestinians at a United Nations food distribution center in Sha'ati refugee camp in Gaza City. Photo: AP

Muslims stallking Jewish shops and saying "I'm going to kill you"

Threats to Jews in New York, threats to Jews in London, threats to Jews all over. And yet the UN is focused on "Islamophobia," and Islamic advocacy groups in the U.S. have to manufacture hate crimes to shore up their victim status. When will this madness end? Is the West even still able to produce a political leader who will stand up to this? The free world needs to take a stand and make it clear to Muslims in the West that this is not tolerable. But I am not holding my breath.

"London - More Anti-Semitic Attacks in Golders Green," from Vos Iz Neias?, January 22.

London - The Jewish community in Golders Green has been the target of further anti-Semitic attacks, in the form of more offensive graffiti.

Graffiti reading "Kill the filthy Jews" was daubed on walls and pavements near Golders Green tube station and vandals wrote "Jihad 4 Israel" on top of Holocaust Memorial Day adverts.

Golders Green residents have unanimously condemned the ongoing hate crimes, which have risen up in the wake of the Gaza conflict....

I'm glad they have, but what about the local Muslims?

Joseph Haziza, 27, manager of Menachem Kosher butchers which is next to Sinclair Grove on Golders Green road, said: "In this area of Golders Green the graffiti hasn't been as bad. Further up the Golders Green Road they have been affected, with Muslims coming into Jewish shops and saying: 'I'm going to kill you'.

"I don't wear my cuple [skull cap] when I'm out and about. I don't want to be started on."...

At least one Jewish resident of the area has been brutally beaten: "Bloody Beating In Golders Green," by Justin Cohen for Totally Jewish.com, January 22:

An Orthodox man from Golders Green yesterday spoke of his determination to continue living an openly Jewish life after he was viciously beaten and left with blood pouring from his face, in one of the most serious incidents of an unprecedented wave of anti-Semitism afflicting Britain.

Wearing a kippah and his long Shabbat coat, Michael Bookarz was walking home from La Fiesta restaurant on Golders Green Road on Saturday night when he was set upon by two hooded attackers. "I was walking towards the A406 at about 10.20pm when I noticed a guy was walking towards me," the 31-year-old told TJ.

"He suddenly started running and punched me in the face. When I was on the ground, another person ran over and they both started kicking me and stamping on my body and head.

"One of them said this is because of what's happened to the Palestinians in Gaza. Someone must have looked out the window because they suddenly just ran off leaving me on the floor.

"I was scared but the main thought running through my head as it was happening was self-preservation and defending myself. The second the attack finished my next thought was to get help. I took my phone out to dial 999 and I could see blood covering the screen of the phone - there was blood pouring down from my nose."...

NowPublic

Tags: Israel | Hate | World | Islam | anti-semitism | Muslims | United Kingdom | U.K.

Does PFGBest have ties to Illinois Gov's Corruption Scandal?

Now that Wall Street and the United States financial system has imploded, and the ties between corrupt financiers, politicians, and the shenanigans of these crooks are well known to all of us, we're left with many unanswered questions.

Public Corruption in Illinois:

Should Mr. Blagojevich end up in prison, he will join predecessors including the following:

• Republican George Ryan, who is currently serving a 6 1/2-year stretch in federal prison for racketeering and fraud. Blagojevich, along with Sen. Richard Durbin, has publicly supported an appeal to the White House for the commutation of Mr. Ryan's sentence.


• Otto Kerner, a Democrat who was convicted in 1973 on 17 counts of bribery, conspiracy, perjury and other charges before being sentenced to three years in the pen. The federal prosecutor in that case, James Thompson, later ascended to the governor's chair and wound up getting his law firm to defend Ryan for free.


• Dan Walker was convicted in 1987 -- years after leaving office -- of bank fraud. Serving from 1973 to 1977, with a reputation as a reformer, he was the last Democratic governor of the state before Mr. Blagojevich took office in 2003.


• Lennington Small, a Republican, served from 1921 to 1929. He was indicted while in office for embezzlement related to actions taken when he was state treasurer. He was later acquitted; several of the jurors in the case ended up with state jobs.

Also, in one infamous case further down the chain, a former speaker of the state's House of Representatives and secretary of state, Paul Powell, was found after his death in 1970 to have had several million dollars in embezzled cash stashed in shoe boxes.

Mr. Powell, according to a Time magazine article at the time, had his own definition of success, believing that "there's only one thing worse than a defeated politician, and that's a broke one."

Now that trillions of dollars are wiped from people's 401K's, pensions, and investments, the question as to who was watching the hen house is garnering more and more attention.

We have the alphabet soup of regulatory agencies that were supposed to be watching us, but who were they watching out for?

Firms like http:///www.http://www.pfgbest.com/ CEO, Russell Wassendorf, Sr.?

His campaign contributions into the Chicago Political machine where many of our major financial firms are located makes one wonder--is the stack of cards located against the investors?

On the other hand the Commodity Futures Trading Commission wants the public to be more informed of fraud and fraudulent claims by unscrupulous foreign exchange and other Commodity Firms:

Commodity Futures Trading Commission Forex Fraud

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has witnessed increasing numbers, and a growing complexity, of financial investment opportunities in recent years, including a sharp rise in foreign currency (forex) trading scams. A federal law enacted in December 2000, called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (CFMA), makes clear that the Commission has the jurisdiction and authority to investigate and take legal action to close down a wide assortment of unregulated firms offering or selling foreign currency futures and options contracts to the general public. In addition, the CFTC has jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute foreign currency fraud occurring in its registered firms and their affiliates.

How about Peregrine Financial Group’s acquisition of American National Trading aka the “ANTC” Group?

A cursory review of American National would reveal that their main principals and firm was alleged to be in violation by the National Futures Association of:

C.R.2-2(a) - CHEAT,FRAUD DECEIVE CUSTOMERS C.R.2-9(a) - SUPERVISION OF EMPLOYEESC.R.2-29(a)(1) - FRAUDULENT COMM. TO PUBLIC PROHIB

Gee, how inspiring.

But, nonetheless, Peregrine Financial Group, announced that: "PFG and ANTC are joining forces to better serve ANTC’s customers," said PFG Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Russell R. Wasendorf, Sr. "There are so many synergies, and we believe there will be significant benefits to ANTC customers.

Synergies? Benefits? So Many?

Really.

From a very cursory public regulatory records search—which doesn’t include any civil or criminal complaints—there appears to be over 40 customer complaints with either the National Futures Association and/or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission against Peregrine Financial Group alone.

Not very inspiring of “trust” is it?

The future of our ability to invest with confidence and trust, and to believe what our capital market Financial Firms do, is how they perform, or what they don’t perform.

Based on the recent meltdown in the large New York and Chicago Securities and Financial Firms, that appears to have been replaced with a culture not only of greed, but of our collective ennui.

As to Mr. Wasenforf, Peregrine Financial, and other of his companies, how many times have they not had enough capital to legally operate one must wonder why they're still in business?

Quite a few actually. Are they using our trust monies to gamble with?

Are there any connections between Wasendorf, Tony Rezko, or the indicted Illinois Governor?

Time will tell.

But for a firm that was allegedly started in a "basement" the fact that Wasendorf's firm, Peregrine, sues all of his clients that his company loses money on behalf, is surely a clue to be aware of that these guys are no different than many of the others that have lost the public trust.

Which other companies, people, and politicians are next in line to be found liable in this unbelievable Chicago corruption?

NowPublic

Tags: Wall Street | corruption | fraud | CHEAT | peregrine financial | Tech & Biz | Russell Wassendorf | Illinois Gov Rod R Blagojevich | Futures Firms

Now Public named as a Top 40 Social News Website

I think that this list from dosh-dosh, doesn't full compare and contrast Now Public with the rest of its choices, but kudos to everybody here:

"I spent some time going through hundreds of social news sites and came up with a list of sites which I think are worth exploring. Each site on this list is evaluated according to various criteria, including the no. of votes for each story and the frequency/date of submissions, all of which are indicators of user/viewer activity.

This list is not meant to be comprehensive. It doesn’t include every social news website out there but only the ones which I think has potential for providing you with relevant/fresh news while giving exposure to your ideas, brand or website.

Some of the sites on this list have a broad topical focus while others are created to cater to a specific niche. I’ve divided the list into two portions: General Social News or websites which cover a wide variety of news and Niche Social News which refers to specialized sites that only focus on a limited range of niche topics.

This list purely consists of English social news sites. There are no social bookmarking or social network sites included. I’ve not included video sharing sites because I’ll be writing more on them and video marketing in a future article.

Here’s a brief definition of social news sites, in case you’re unfamiliar with them:

Social News websites are communities which allow its users to submit news stories, articles and media (videos/pictures) and share them with other users or the general public. Some of these articles will be given more visibility, depending on various factors such as the number of user votes for each item.

Apart from counting registered user votes, some social news websites employ human editors to determine the visibility of each news item. Certain stories will be removed from the website while others may be given a ‘featured‘ position if the story is highly relevant and news worthy.

And down the list, on Number 18 is:

18. Nowpublic: A participatory news network which focuses on citizen journalism. Each user has their own individual profile blog/page and can upload videos, images and news stories."

Well, not much of a detailed description, but we get to write the final verse, line, and chapter.

 

NowPublic

Tags: citizen_journalism | Culture | Dosh-Dosh | Now Public | pfgbest. pfgbestwatch | Social Media News Websites

Just Breaking: Car bomb kills 4, injures 68 in Turkey

Looks like a War within a War in Iraq between the Kurds and Turkey. From Yahoo news:

ANKARA, Turkey - A car bomb apparently targeting military personnel killed four people and wounded 68 others Thursday in the Kurdish-dominated southeastern city of Diyarbakir, officials said.

A bus transporting military personnel was passing by a five-star hotel when the bomb exploded, the state-run Anatolia news agency said. Four people were killed and 68 wounded, according to the governor's office in Diyarbakir.

Two of the dead were soldiers, the private Dogan news agency said.

Several people could be seen lying unconscious amid burning cars, and a bus was engulfed in flames, reports said. Some students also were injured by flying glass, CNN-Turk television said.

Authorities blamed the blast on Kurdish rebels. Police captured two suspects who reportedly were escaping the scene, CNN-Turk television said, citing police sources.

The attack — which shattered the windows of surrounding buildings and could be heard some 3 kilometers (2 miles) away — appeared to be a retaliation to three airstrikes by Turkish warplanes against Kurdish rebel shelters in northern Iraq last month.

There have been two explosions in Turkey's commercial center, Istanbul, over the past two weeks, killing one and injuring nine. No one has claimed responsibility for the attacks but Istanbul Gov. Muammer Guler blamed Kurdish rebels.

Rebels from the Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK, have battled for autonomy in southeastern Turkey for more than two decades — a campaign that has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths. The group uses strongholds in northern Iraq for cross-border strikes.

In October, Parliament authorized Turkey's military to strike back at rebels across the border.

Turkish warplanes took off from an air base in Diyarbakir just minutes after Thursday's attack, pro-Kurdish Firat news agency reported on its Web site. It was not clear if the jets were on a bombing mission.

Turkish military claimed it has killed up to 175 rebels in the first air assault alone on Dec. 16, a figure denied by the PKK.

Firat reported that PKK leaders in Iraq earlier declared big cities in Turkey targets for rebels living in the country.

NowPublic

Tags: Iraq | Iraq | Turkey | war | Kurds | Politics | terrorism

International Waters are Not Free

From U.N., Wikipedia and World Net Daily sources:

The U.N. has now taken upon itself to regulate
International Waters--setting in motion, what had been
previously very dangerous precedents, into fact.

From the U.N.

A Constitution of the Oceans, ratified and implemented
back in 1982.

Background via Wikipedia:

Historical background

The LOS replaces the older -- and weaker -- 'freedom
of the seas' concept, dating from the 17th century:
national rights were limited to a specified belt of
water extending from a nation's coastlines, usually
three nautical miles, according to the 'cannon shot'
rule developed by the Dutch jurist Cornelius
Bynkershoek. All waters beyond national boundaries
were considered international waters - free to all
nations, but belonging to none of them (the mare
liberum principle promulgated by Grotius).

In the early 20th century some nations expressed their
desire to extend national claims: to include mineral
resources, to protect fish stocks, and to provide the
means to enforce pollution controls. (The League of
Nations called a 1930 conference at The Hague, but no
agreements resulted.) Using the customary
international law principle of a nation's right to
protect its natural resources, President Truman in
1945 extended United States control to all the natural
resources of its continental shelf. Other nations were
quick to follow suit. Between 1946 and 1950,
Argentina, Chile, Peru, and Ecuador extended their
rights to a distance of 200 nautical miles to cover
their Humboldt Current fishing grounds. Other nations
extended their territorial seas to 12 nautical miles.

By 1967, only 25 nations still used the old 3-mile
limit, while 66 nations had set a 12-mile territorial
limit and eight had set a 200-mile limit. For the
latest table of maritime claims, as compiled by the
United Nations, see [3]. According to that table, as
of July 24, 2007, only a handful of countries still
use the 3-mile limit: Jordan, Palau, and Singapore.
That limit is also used in certain Australian islands,
an area of Belize, some Japanese straits, certain
areas of Papua New Guinea, and a few UK dependencies,
such as Anguilla.

In 1956, the United Nations held its first Conference
on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS I) at Geneva,
Switzerland. UNCLOS I resulted in four treaties
concluded in 1958:

Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone,
entry into force: 10 September 1964
Convention on the Continental Shelf, entry into force:
10 June 1964
Convention on the High Seas, entry into force: 30
September 1962
Convention on Fishing and Conservation of Living
Resources of the High Seas, entry into force: 20 March
1966

Although UNCLOS I was considered a success, it left
open the important issue of breadth of territorial
waters.

In 1960, the United Nations held the second Conference
on the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS II”); however, the
six-week Geneva conference did not result in any new
agreements. Generally speaking, developing nations and
third world countries participated only as clients,
allies, or dependents of United States or the Soviet
Union, with no significant voice of their own.

The issue of varying claims of territorial waters was
raised in the UN in 1967 by Arvid Pardo, of Malta, and
in 1973 the Third United Nations Conference on the Law
of the Sea was convened in New York. In an attempt to
reduce the possibility of groups of nation-states
dominating the negotiations, the conference used a
consensus process rather than majority vote. With more
than 160 nations participating, the conference lasted
until 1982. The resulting convention came into force
on November 16, 1994, one year after the sixtieth
state, Guyana, signed the treaty.

The convention introduced a number of provisions. The
most significant issues covered were setting limits,
navigation, archipelagic status and transit regimes,
exclusive economic zones (EEZs), continental shelf
jurisdiction, deep seabed mining, the exploitation
regime, protection of the marine environment,
scientific research, and settlement of disputes.

The convention set the limit of various areas,
measured from a carefully defined baseline. (Normally,
a sea baseline follows the low-water line, but when
the coastline is deeply indented, has fringing islands
or is highly unstable, straight baselines may be
used). The areas are as follows:

Internal waters 

Covers all water and waterways on the landward side of
the baseline. The coastal state is free to set laws,
regulate use, and use any resource. Foreign vessels
have no right of passage within internal waters.

Territorial waters

Out to 12 nautical miles from the baseline, the
coastal state is free to set laws, regulate use, and
use any resource. Vessels were given the right of
"innocent passage" through any territorial waters,
with strategic straits allowing the passage of
military craft as "transit passage", in that naval
vessels are allowed to maintain postures that would be
illegal in territorial waters. "Innocent Passage" is
defined by the convention as passing through waters in
an expeditious and continuous manner, which is not
“prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security”
of the coastal state. Fishing, polluting, weapons
practice, and spying are not “innocent". Nations can
also temporarily suspend innocent passage in specific
areas of their territorial seas, if doing so is
essential for the protection of its security.

Archipelagic waters 

The convention set the definition of Archipelagic
States in Part IV, which also defines how the state
can draw its territorial borders. A baseline is drawn
between the outermost points of the outermost islands,
subject to these points being sufficiently close to
one another. All waters inside this baseline will be
Archipelagic Waters and included as part of the
state's territorial waters.

Contiguous zone

Beyond the 12 nautical mile limit there was a further
12 nautical miles or 24 nautical miles from the
territorial sea baselines limit, the contiguous zone,
in which a state could continue to enforce laws
regarding activities such as smuggling or illegal
immigration. 

Exclusive economic zones (EEZs)  

Extend 200 nautical miles from the baseline. Within
this area, the coastal nation has sole exploitation
rights over all natural resources. The EEZs were
introduced to halt the increasingly heated clashes
over fishing rights, although oil was also becoming
important. The success of an offshore oil platform in
the Gulf of Mexico in 1947 was soon repeated elsewhere
in the world, and by 1970 it was technically feasible
to operate in waters 4000 metres deep. Foreign nations
have the freedom of navigation and overflight, subject
to the regulation of the coastal states. Foreign
states may also lay submarine pipes and cables. 

Continental Shelf 

Continental shelf is defined as natural prolongation
of the land territory to the continental margin’s
outer edge, or 200 nautical miles from the coastal
state’s baseline, whichever is greater. State’s
continental shelf may exceed 200 nautical miles until
the natural prolongation ends, but it may never exceed
350 nautical miles, or 100 nautical miles beyond 2,500
meter isobath, which is a line connecting the depth of
2,500 meters. States have the right to harvest mineral
and non-living material in the subsoil of its
continental shelf, to the exclusion of others.
Aside from its provisions defining ocean boundaries,
the convention establishes general obligations for
safeguarding the marine environment and protecting
freedom of scientific research on the high seas, and
also creates an innovative legal regime for
controlling mineral resource exploitation in deep
seabed areas beyond national jurisdiction, through an
International Seabed Authority.

Landlocked states are given a right of access to and
from the sea, without taxation of traffic through
transit states.

Part XI of the Convention provides for a regime
relating to minerals on the seabed outside any state's
territorial waters or EEZ. It establishes an
International Seabed Authority (ISA) to authorize
seabed exploration and mining and collect and
distribute the seabed mining royalty.

Opened for signature - December 10, 1982.
Entered into force - November 16, 1994.

Countries that have signed, but not yet ratified -
(24) Afghanistan, Bhutan, Burundi, Cambodia, Central
African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Republic of the
Congo, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Ethiopia,
Iran, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Liberia,
Libya, Liechtenstein, Malawi, Niger, Rwanda,
Swaziland, Switzerland, Thailand, United Arab
Emirates, United States.

Countries that have not signed - (17) Andorra,
Azerbaijan, Ecuador, Eritrea, Israel, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Peru, San Marino, Syria, Tadjikistan,
Timor-Leste, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vatican
City, Venezuela.

The United States strongly objected to the provisions
of Part XI of the Convention on several grounds,
saying that the treaty is unfavorable to America's
economy and security. The US felt that the provisions
of the treaty were not free-market friendly and were
designed to favor the economic systems of the
Communist states. The US also felt that the provisions
might result in the ISA becoming a bloated and
expensive bureaucracy due to a combination of large
revenues and insufficient control over what the
revenues could be used for.

Due to Part XI, the US refused to ratify the UNCLOS,
although it expressed agreement with the remaining
provisions of the Convention. Even though the United
States is not a party to the treaty, it considers many
of the remaining provisions as binding as customary
international law.

Revision of the LOS Convention

From 1983 to 1990, the United States accepted all but
Part XI as customary international law, while
attempting to establish an alternative regime for
exploitation of the minerals of the deep seabed. An
agreement was made with other seabed mining nations
and licenses were granted to four international
consortia. Concurrently, the Preparatory Commission
was established to prepare for the eventual coming
into force of the Convention-recognized claims by
applicants, sponsored by signatories of the
Convention. Overlaps between the two groups were
resolved, but a decline in the demand for minerals
from the seabed made the seabed regime significantly
less relevant. In addition, the decline of Socialism
and the fall of Communism in the late 1980s had
removed much of the support for some of the more
contentious Part XI provisions.

In 1990, consultations were begun between signatories
and non-signatories (including the United States) over
the possibility of modifying the Convention to allow
the industrialized countries to join the Convention.
The resulting 1994 Agreement on Implementation was
adopted as a binding international Convention. It
mandated that key articles, including those on
limitation of seabed production and mandatory
technology transfer, would not be applied, that the
United States, if it became a member, would be
guaranteed a seat on the Council of the International
Seabed Authority, and finally, that voting would be
done in groups, with each group able to block
decisions on substantive matters. The 1994 Agreement
also established a Finance Committee that would
originate the financial decisions of the Authority, to
which the largest donors would automatically be
members and in which decisions would be made by
consensus.

In the United States there is vigorous debate over the
ratification of the treaty, with criticism coming
mainly from political conservatives who consider
involvement in some international organizations and
treaties as detrimental to US national interests. A
group of Republican senators, led by Jim Inhofe of
Oklahoma, has blocked American ratification of the
Convention, claiming that it would impinge on US
sovereignty. The Bush administration, a majority of
the United States Senate, and the Pentagon favor
ratification, as do representatives of scientific and
international legal scholars, and mining and
environmentalist groups.

Pro-Ratification Arguments

The Environment:

Oceans cover over 70 percent of the
Earth. In the US, there are laws to keep marine
resources available for future generations. UNCLOS
sets a global standard so that all countries are
legally bound to protect the marine environment,
protect fish stocks, and prevent pollution.
National Security: The US military, which relies
heavily on its ability to freely navigate on and fly
over the sea, has been a strong advocate of UNCLOS. In
the absence of treaty law, the US relies on customary
law that can change as states' practices change. Also,
under this customary law, the Pentagon claims that
countries often make unreasonable and irresponsible
claims on marine territory that frustrates US military
action. The US has tried to work around these claims,
but without a legal framework to support them, the
Pentagon believes it risks compromising its
intelligence and military operations at sea.
International diplomacy and peaceful dispute
resolution: The Convention offers a peaceful way to
resolve territorial and natural resource disputes
through the ISA or the Law of the Sea Tribunal, based
on agreements which signatory parties have already
committed to. In contrast, without ratification, the
US has no peaceful recourse if another non-signatory
party decides to close its straits to navigation.
It helps American businesses: Each country has
exclusive rights to manage the resources in areas near
its coast. Under the terms of UNCLOS, which maps out
the boundaries of these areas, the American zone is
larger than that of any other country in the world.
The size of this zone is 3.36 million square miles -
bigger than the lower 48 states combined. In addition,
under UNCLOS, coastal states can exercise sovereign
rights over natural resources within the extended
continental shelf area beyond this territory. It would
also give US companies an opportunity to apply for
licenses with the ISA, which manages claims to
resources in the deep seabed, an area over which no
country has sovereign rights.
Anti-Ratification Arguments

National sovereignty:

The treaty creates the
International Seabed Authority (ISA) with its own
dispute resolution tribunal. However, should the US
stop its current compliance with the US-negotiated
laws of the Convention, the U.S. could not be taken to
the Law of the Sea Tribunal since the U.S. has
indicated that it would choose binding arbitration
rather than availing itself of the International
Tribunal on the Law of the Sea. 

The Environment:

Some of the Convention's conservation
provisions would provide new avenues for non-US
environmental organizations to affect domestic US
environmental policies by pursuing legal action in
both US and international courts. In addition,
requirements that nations either harvest their entire
allowable catch in certain areas or give the surplus
to other nations could result in mandated overfishing.
Taxation: The license fees and taxes levied on
economic activities in the deep seabed Area by the ISA
would be, in effect, a form of 'taxation without
representation'. Citizens would be indirectly taxed
through business and governmental activities in the
area. 

Economics:

Businesses can already exploit resources
from the international area; ratifying the treaty
would force them to buy licenses for that right and
pay taxes on the proceeds. 

Navigation rights not threatened: One of the treaty's
main selling points, legally recognized navigation
rights on, over, and under straits, is unnecessary
because these rights are not currently threatened by
law or by any military capable of opposing the US.
Harm to de-militarizing operations: The treaty would
require all unmanned ocean vessels, including
submarines used for mine detection to protect ships
exercising the right of innocent passage, to navigate
on the surface in territorial waters to be entitled to
the right of innocent passage. The operative language
is identical to that contained in the 1958 Convention
on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone to which
the U.S. is already a party. 

No control over funding:

The treaty gives a blank
check to the UN, funded by the US. The US would have
no control over how the money is used. 
Eminent domain: 

The treaty applies eminent domain to
intellectual intellectual property giving the UN the
power to seize technology and share it with
potentially enemy states. 

Lack of need:

The U.S. already honors almost all the
provisions of the treaty. For practical purposes,
there is no pressing need to ratify it that outweighs
the negatives of the remaining provisions. Any
perceived benefit of an improved U.S. image world-wide
is likely to be illusory. 

On May 15, 2007, President Bush announced that he had
urged the Senate to approve the UNCLOS. On October
31st, 2007, the Senate Foreign Relations Committe
nvoted 17-4 to send the treaty to the full U.S. Senate
for a vote.

With this vote--the United States virtually guarantees
that the United Nations has, de facto, become the
trustee of the Internatinal Seas--setting the stage
for confrontation.

LOST has long had the support of environmental groups
such as the Natural Resources Defense Council.

It would establish rules governing the uses of the of
the world's oceans – treating waters more than 200
nautical miles off coasts as the purview of a new
international U.N. bureaucracy, the International
Seabed Authority

The ISA would have the authority to set production
controls for ocean mining, drilling and fishing,
regulate ocean exploration, issue permits and settle
disputes in its own new "court."

Companies seeking to mine or fish would be required to
apply for a permit, paying a royalty fee

Critics also point out the new U.N. agency would have
the right to compete directly with private companies
in those profit-making activities.

The U.S. would have only one vote of 140 – and no veto
power as it has on the U.N. Security Council.

The Bush administration claims the initiative for
reintroduction of the treaty comes from the military,
which likes the 12-mile territorial limits it places
on national claims to waters. Yet, critics point out
international law already protects non-aggressive
passage, including non-wartime activities of military
ships.

One of the main authors of LOST not only admired Karl
Marx but was an ardent advocate of the
Marxist-oriented New International Economic Order.
Elisabeth Mann Borgese, a socialist who ran the World
Federalists of Canada, played a critical role in
crafting and promoting LOST.

Borgese was hailed by her U.N. supporters as the
"Mother of the Oceans" or "First Lady"of the Oceans."
She died in 2002.

The youngest daughter of the German novelist Thomas
Mann, Borgese openly favored world government , wrote for the left-wing The Nation magazine and was
a member of a "Committee to Frame a World
Constitution." She served as director of the
International Center for Ocean Development and
chairman of the International Oceans Institute at
Dalhousie University in Canada.

The U.N. Environment Program, UNEP, has said that
Borgese recognized the oceans as "a possible test-bed
for ideas she had developed concerning a common global
constitution."

Borgese received UNEP's "Environment Prize" in 1987
and was credited with organizing the conferences that
"served to lay the foundation" for the United Nations
Convention of the Law of the Sea, according to
Dalhousie University, which houses her archives.

In a 1995 speech, pro-U.N. Democratic Sen. Claiborne
Pell said Borgese's ideas were "embodied in the
negotiated texts of the Law of the Sea Convention."

Her ideas included recognizing the oceans as the
"common heritage of mankind" and creating an
International Seabed Authority to charge U.S. and
foreign companies for the right to mine the ocean
floor.

In a January 1999 speech, Borgese declared, "The world
ocean has been, and is, so to speak, our great
laboratory for the making of a new world order."

In an article titled, "The New International Economic
Order and the Law of the Sea," she argued that the
pact could "reinforce" the goals of the NIEO by giving
Third World countries a role in managing access to the
oceans.

In a 1997 interview, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
broadcaster Philip Coulter asked Borgese about the
collapse of Soviet-style communism and the triumph of
the "elites."

Borgese replied "there is a strong counter-trend. It's
not called socialism, but it's called sustainable
development, which calls ... for the eradication of
poverty. There is that trend and that is the trend
that I am working on."

The concept of "sustainable development," considered a
euphemism for socialism or communism, has been
embraced in various pronouncements by the U.N. and
even the U.S. government.

In her book, "The Oceanic Circle: Governing the Seas
as a Global Resource," she approvingly cites Karl
Marx, the father of communism, as someone with
"amazing foresight" about the problems faced by urban
and rural societies. The book is available from the
liberal Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.

In an article co-authored with an international
lawyer, Borgese noted how LOST stipulates that the
oceans "shall be reserved for peaceful purposes" and
that "any threat or use of force, inconsistent with
the United Nations Charter, is prohibited."

She argued LOST prohibits the ability of nuclear
submarines from the U.S. and other nations to rove
freely through the world's oceans.

NowPublic

Tags: continental shelf | deceipt | deception | EEZ | Environment | International Seabed Authority | OCEANS | pfgbest. pfgbestwatch | Politics | Territorial Waters | TREATY | U.N. Constitution of the Oceans | Unclos