Law of the Sea Treaty American Sovereignty Under Attack Again?

Read the full Treaty HERE. Read the analysis of the Treaty HERE.  Wiki is HERE.

 So what is the controversy with this Treaty?  It  has never passed the US Senate for almost thirty years for one thing.  Now it is back, carried by John Kerry, (former Vietnam Swift Boat crew member and known liar) who is now postponing it until after the November elections.  Is this treaty good for America?  The jury is out but until a vote this debate will play out with both sides energized to win.

I had not heard of this (I am ashamed) until I listened to Donald Rumsfeld's interview on a cable news show last week.  He is against the treaty being ratified and gave his reasons.  HERE is the article with some of his concerns which mirrored the interview I watched.  He has some very good points and I am sure before it is overt, one way or another, Americans will get the full skinny.

Rumsfeld believes this is another UN redistribution scheme to take our money and give it to countries not doing as well.  That is a common scheme by the UN members because as we all know, America has prospered because our people are free and work hard.  Third world countries (maybe we should call them near-do well countries?), those one's with dictators or religious nuts in charge, want a piece of us, a big piece of us, again!  Besides a new transfer of wealth from our people's endeavors, the disposition of the "royalties" would be determined by a "International Seabed Authority".  Golly I wonder which countries would be on that authority?  Maybe Zimbabwe?

Rumsfeld said this when interviewed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,

 “I do not believe the United States should endorse a treaty that makes it a legal obligation for productive countries to pay royalties to less productive countries, based on rhetoric about the common heritage of mankind,”

I kind of have to agree with him.  Also, the US Chamber and Exxon Mobil are supporting ratification.  It is certainly a mixed bag of support but when John Kerry an the US Chamber agree, I really worry.  Perhaps the fact it can't make it out of the Senate is a good indicator of the danger it really contains.  What are the hidden consequences?  Why would America give up its rights to mine and explore and keep the fruits of it discovered in the international waters?  The last four administrations say because China is the threat.  I say perhaps the reason is MONEY!  When Exxon and John Kerry agree I must say I am very skeptical.

So read the treaty and decide (if that is even possible) for yourselves if this is another UN "climate change type bunch of BS" or something that would benefit America and it entrepreneurial spirit.  Richard Lugar lost his US Senate seat over this treaty and some others which his constituents considered a sellout to the UN and other countries.  Maybe they are on to something.