Almost two-thirds of our Earth’s surface is ocean. Most of it is not under the rule of any government.   Practices and disputes are already handled very well by existing international law on a case-by-case basis.  Despite no widespread government antagonisms over the high seas, the United Nations wants to jump in and hold sway with intricate regulations in the 400-plus sections of the Law of the Sea Treaty.  The rejection of this misguided LOST by our lawmakers in Congress would be a major safeguard for the rights and interests of Americans.  Nevertheless, the Bush Administration is plowing forward.  Here are five top reasons to reject LOST.

             1.  Right now individuals and companies can go out into the open ocean beyond the 200-mile exclusive economic zones and explore for resources.  If they find useful products for the publics of the world, there’s currently nothing stopping them or imposing extra bureaucratic costs.  Now comes the U. N. regime with its LOST Authority and Enterprise who want to impose regulations and fees on many of these resource developers.  This is sometimes referred to as a U.N. tax.  Moreover, such companies would then have to become officially sponsored by some government in order to develop those resources, because the U.N. is made up of governments, not people or companies.  Unfair favoritism by these government sponsors would undoubtedly be the norm, and cartels could easily hold sway with their substantial political power.

             2.  Americans are used to due process rights for all regulatory activity.  At the U.N., however, there are absolutely no rights for any person or company.  Individuals have no right to comment, to appear before, or be informed for anything in the U.N.  The LOST  bureaucracy is lodged in the U.N. Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea in the Office of Legal Affairs.  Its operations and deliberations are insulated from the outside world.  There is no Freedom of Information Act for the U.N.  Even Congress has a nearly impossible time to conduct oversight.

            3.  Instead of addressing one or two matters, LOST has over 400 sections.  (See text at www.us.org/issues/m-los.html.)  It is several times larger than the U. S. Constitution.  As a treaty, it would have the power of the supreme law of the land.  Too much power and authority could easily be surrendered to the U.N. under LOST without any safeguards for American rights.  We all have heard of the “devil in the details”.  There are thousands of “details” that the Bush Administration has failed to tell Congress or the public.  If LOST is to be honestly considered, Congress should be considering an implementation bill at the same time that explains how all the 400-plus sections will create duties, enforcement responsibilities, appeal rights, and so on.  Such a bill would need to pass both the House and Senate.  The trouble is that the Bush Administration has not presented such an implementation bill so we can see what it is really up to.  We should also be provided with complete transparency with all the U.N. Enterprise and Authority proceedings.

             4.  The State Department would be the lead agency for any and all activities of LOST at the U.N.   Not the Commerce Department, not the Interior Department, not the Energy Department, and not any other agency with a primary resource and enterprise mission.  Indeed the State Department has been lagging in even the most elemental aspects of ocean issues.   For neighboring countries to administer their 200-mile exclusive economic zones starting back as far as 1976, the respective governments need to agree on maritime boundaries.   Did you know the State Department has failed to establish any maritime boundaries with Canada in the Arctic Ocean or the Pacific Ocean?  Even though the state legislature of Alaska complained loudly by resolution in 1999, no negotiations have been opened up.  The State Department has also failed to assert the American EEZ’s with maps for about 60 American Guano Act islands in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean—a lapse amounting to millions of square miles of neglected resources.  Finally, the State Department has not challenged the Russian suspect claim to the North Pole under LOST provisions.  If LOST is adopted by the U.S., the Russians would expect the State Department to support them!

             5.  The International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea would be charged with adjudicating some of LOST disputes.  These agencies are not part of American jurisprudence subject to the Bill of Rights.  They would be an intrusion into American law without any specific Congressional authorization.  Even more troubling is how they would attempt to enforce their rulings.  Would they have power over a United Nations Force against Americans?  Would the State Department be required to enforce the edicts with the American military, with American spy agencies, with American civil law enforcement, with U. S. marshals, with state National Guards, or what?  Congress should know before it acts.

             The issues of the high seas are too important and valuable to leave up to the chancy administration by the United Nations.  The temptation of corruption, as exemplified in the Iraq Food-For-Oil scandal, is everpresent with the 180 member governments constantly jockeying for position and favors with each other.  A well-known disappointment is trying to expect meaningful human rights out of the United Nation Human Rights Commission which is dominated by infamous human rights abusers.

             A better alternative to LOST would be for the U. S. to negotiate about specific topics about the open seas under individual treaties.  That would be the responsible avenue for real progress.  The 400-plus articles of the proposed LOST are too much and too dangerous for the American public to swallow.