The UNCLOS, or “Law of the Sea” has been in existence since the 1980’s but has still not be ratified by the US Senate. Could Trump be the President who gets them to do so??: https://www.arcticnow.com/politics-policy/2017/09/21/whats-the-one-u-n-treaty-trump-should-love/
Nobody had anything to say about the changes of UNCLOS being ratified by the US under Trump in 2017. Now there are a second change. Any better luck?
Meanwhile Biden is trying his luck to get the Senate to ratify at least the latest addition to UNCLOS:
Any possibility that if he can get 60 votes for the BBNJ addition?
If so, what are the odds that the Senate eventually will ratify UNCLOS?
After all, since US is a signatory and claiming rights according to UNCLOS, why not go the whole hog and ratify it?
Below is a link to a point, counter point discussion of the debate on UNCLOS from US standpoints. I would say most pro-globalist, pro-UN, pro-China Americans would want us to ratify it. Definitely all of the anti-American throughout the world wants the US to ratify it. But here is thing, Reagan didn’t sign it, Bush H didn’t sign it, Clinton didn’t sign it, W didn’t sign it, Obama didn’t sign & Trump didn’t sign it. Biden is on board for it but in his diminished mental state, if he were any other 82 yr old in the US he couldn’t renew his driver license, would be advised not to answer his phone & would probably have a POA over him for his protection. Without a doubt, his support for UNCLOS is 100% his handlers doing. We already do what we want at sea without giving away more of our sovereignty to the United Nation. Anyone who goes to sea knows this. We wouldn’t gain anything except another court ruled by China over us to answer to. No wonder ombugge wants us to ratify it.
1 Like
Of the “Con” against argument in the above link, I find the 4 points below the most compelling not to ratify. F*ck China:
"Of greater concern is the convention’s recognition of coastal state “residual rights” in the exclusive economic zone (“EEZ”). The ambiguity of this allows states, like China, to claim non-resource-related jurisdiction in the EEZ that is clearly unlawful, to include a right to restrict foreign military activities. Similarly, despite the clear language in the convention, the number of States that condition passage of warships on prior notice or consent has proliferated. Nearly 30 percent of the parties to the convention condition the right of innocent passage of foreign waters in their territorial sea.
Finally, the treaty establishes an elaborate compulsory dispute settlement mechanism to enhance compliance with its provisions. Nonetheless, even though decisions of a court or tribunal are intended to be final and binding on the parties to the dispute, the procedures lack an enforcement mechanism and are therefore of minimal value. Case in point: China’s refusal to comply with the decision of the tribunal in the South China Sea arbitration case with the Philippines was a serious blow to the rule of law.
The treaty also creates a new, sprawling UN bureaucracy to manage the world’s oceans. To date, these organizations have not paid their expected dividends. The ISA has been in existence for 40 years and is still working on codifying a mining code. There is also growing concern that deep seabed mining will wreak havoc to the marine environment. The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf has a daunting task ahead of it. To date, it has received over 90 submissions from states, over 50 percent of which are still awaiting consideration. Moreover, the Commission may only make recommendations to states and has no authority to adjudicate overlapping claims, like the Russian, Canadian, and Denmark claims in the Arctic. This inability to resolve overlapping claims could lead to conflict between the states."
1 Like
Yes US is the odd man out here, as the ONLY major party NOT to have signed or ratified the UNCLOS:
US has signed the latest BBNJ addition, but to ratify that without ratifying the main body UNCLOS sounds a bit silly.
Depending on “gunboat diplomacy” at this day and age sounds even more silly and more costly, (From your linked article):
Thats a great copied quote ombugge. China understands this too. That’s why they ratified the treaty on their end, invaded & conquered Philippino waters then completely ignored that silly treaty & international kangaroo court afterwards. Because of their navy, they can pretty much do as they please & no one says diddly squat about it. Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum/Treaty, invaded Ukraine twice killing over 100k & still has strong international friends & sells oil/natural gas to the EU. If the rest of their world wants to subjugate themselves to a corrupt Chinese controlled UN court where only the law bidding & weak suffers so be it, let them. The people of China rather depend on their strong navy, thats why they do what they want to the Philippines in the South China Sea. I rather not handcuff our national security interests & hand the keys to some bullshit UN bureaucracy & hope they figure it out for us.
I would also like to say, I completely understand why you, US globalists, China & other America haters wants the US to ratify UNCLOS. Your groups opinions of US security & defense is well known. But there’s good reasons why no US Commander in Chief except the current puppet has ever advocated for ratification. It goes against US best interests.
1 Like
According to the definition of the word globalist. The USA has been with it’s financial and military means has been promoting globalism for many, many years.Not saying I am for it but it is a fact and will continue as money drives everything, especially in the USA.
1 Like
I agree with this but I would like to add, for better or worse, in one way or another, the USA military has been promoting their best interests for many, many years. The more sovereignty we keep the better imo. Subjugating ourselves to a Chinese, EU or UN controlled court doesn’t benefit us at all. The rest of the world mostly hates or are jealous of our arrogant asses already. Ratifying UNCLOS wouldn’t win us any love or take any money off our debt. Just tie our hands more & make competitors feel self righteous if we decide to be as aggressive as China or Russia again. I don’t see a point to it.
2 Likes
Sounds like you want the world to be a copy of the Wild West; “let’s see who carry the biggest gun and can draw fastest”.
For some year there were promising signs that the world had moved on from that, but that is no longer the case.
The kindergarten mentality is back, or is it the “machomen” talking big, with little to show for it? Which war has been won with big ships and superior air force lately?
It doesn’t help having a big navy when even simple homemade drones can take them out (just ask the Russians)
Maybe time to talk to each other, rather than see who can talk tough and threaten death and destruction for all.
Because it’s been proven to not work.
You do realize that every word of your post, while intended to refer to the US, DIRECTLY applies to your favorite country china and how they conduct business inside the EEZs of their neighboring countries, right?
1 Like
Yea, well… I just checked the list of 169 countries that signed on to that treaty & I see the names of Ukraine & The Philippines on it. That didn’t stop China & Russia from doing whatever the heck they wanted with their Cowboy, larger navies. And it also didn’t stop the EU from buying shitloads of oil from Russia to fund their illegal war or the rest of the world from bending a knee to China. If the US has so much to gain by joining, I’m surprised you want it for us so bad? You must secretly love America & have our best interests at in heart? I wonder if Ukraine & The Philippines still have lawyers out in the lobby of the UNCLOS court waiting for Russia & China to reverse course because of the UN judgments?
2 Likes
If you turn back the clock 154 years and substituted Great Britain for United States of America the counter argument would have made the same sense. Unfortunately for some empires don’t last for ever. Small countries like mine a taking cover while the elephants dance.
2 Likes
Yes that is correct; “it didn’t work”. Have you ever wondered WHY it didn’t work?
After the Cold War was over there were a period of hope that the world could be a friendlier and more peaceful place . Military spending went down (aka the Peace dividend) in many countries, saving the taxpayers money. Or tax money could be used for better purposes, like better education, healthcare, pensions, infrastructure etc.
But that did not suite everybody, especially the “military –industrial complex” (MIC).
They found enough willing politicians with extra large pockets and greedy media moguls ready to cooperate so a good portion of the voting population could be duped into supporting military ventures against real and imagined enemies in 3rd world countries.
Since that did not cost enough, to satisfy their greed, they had to find another enemy that had the necessary scare effect to keep “Joe Sixpack” willing to fork out his hard earned monies. They found the perfect candidate; China (spelled with a capital C)
China fit the bill perfectly. The “Yellow Peril” were a well known threat, both because they appeared on the way to overtake the US as the world’s economic power #1, took the jobs away from people in the west and in the process of building up their armed forces.
Wiping up hysteria about Chinese spies everywhere (think balloons and drones etc,) and surveillance equipment fitted into anything Made in China,(think STS cranes, smart phone and Tik Tok)
Their intention to “take over the world is well documented” 
They even want to be able to trade with other nations without using US$. Preposterous!!
No China is NOT my favourite country, Indonesia has top position on my list of countries in the world. Maybe because I know the country “Sabang ke Merauke” and spent many years sailing and working there.
I don’t know if you have ever been in Chine, but I have.
My first time there was in Shanghai in 1960, during the “Great Leap Forward” and a few time during the “Cultural Revolution”. Not the best time in Chinese history.
Since the opening up in the early 1980 and until my last visit, in 2015, I have been in China many times and in many different places. I have seen the development there with my own eyes.