Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Wankers Aweigh

Ah, so the Law of the Sea is the only thing that stands in the way of freedom of the seas for our Navy?

The treaty sets international navigation rules, which U.S. Navy officials consider important and which business groups argue are critical for exercising rights to mine the ocean floor or explore for oil in the Arctic.

Advocates of ratification warn that if the U.S. doesn't join the pact, other nations will be able to shape the rules for exploring the ocean floor, without the U.S. input.

I thought our Navy, with their periodic freedom of navigation exercises--like this one when Libya asserted we must not cross their "line of death"--was the source of that freedom of movement. If this treaty is so crucial for that, how on Earth have we managed to defend freedom of navigation since 1982 when the treaty first raised its ugly head? That's a puzzle, no? Further, if China is your worry, what makes you think this treaty is the one they'll obey? I mean, if China is so keen on respecting the Law of the Sea, why did this happen a few years ago? I mean, China did sign the Law of the Sea. Aren't they bound by it? Wait. What? They interpret it differently than we do? Huh. Fancy that.

And what's with the notion that a treaty we don't even belong to is binding on us? Isn't that the point of deciding to join or not join? I mean, we have to obey a treaty we don't sign while China gets to ignore other treaties on sea issues that they did sign?

If the Obama administration is worried about China halting our Navy, they'd best think about maintaining a strong Navy and Air Force to support it. Otherwise, we'll change our course, so the People's Liberation Army won't steer shy-y-y-y. Roll over and beg, Navy, Wankers Aweigh.

Oh, and what about the Davis Strait? My understanding is that we contend that is international water. The Canadians seem to think signing the treaty gives them the strait. Without arguing on the merits of the claims (because I know nothing about the merits), doesn't this argue against signing the treaty? It's one thing to have a dispute with a good friend and ally. But what other claims do treaty signers assume our signature ratifies? Is the "line of death" now sanctified by international treaty?

Further, if the Obama administration is so gung ho about drilling for oil in the Arctic and mining the sea bed, our president can tell companies to do it now and see who tries to stop us. Heck, we'll even donate a tiny portion of the revenue to the Third World Dictator Retirement Fund of the UN's choice.

Yet we're being told by the Obama administration and the nuanced crowd that only nuts oppose something that George W. Bush and oil companies support.

I'm sorry, but when both Bush and oil companies have been demonized by the Obama administration and the nuanced crowd for years, I'm just a bit suspicious of motives. Call me a nut, but I'm also suspicious of something that John ("I served in Vietnam") Kerry supports. When these guys say we need the treaty so our Navy can go where it wants, so we can drill in the Arctic Ocean, and so we can scrape the sea bottom for minerals, forgive me if I think they are lying through their teeth.

We've lived just fine without joining this treaty for thirty years, now. Thirty more years of success at sea will rely on the strength of our Navy and not on some farcical aquatic ceremony of signing the UN Law of the Sea.

UPDATE: The treaty won't set the rules of the road at sea and keep the peace with China. It will just create rules where China drives on the left and we drive on the right.

Yet we'll be surprised if we collide after ratifying this worse-than-useless treaty.

Honestly, what exactly have we missed out on for the last three decades because we haven't signed it?

Anyone? Bueller?