Isakson Against Law Of the Seas Treaty

Apparently, nuance is unacceptable in Senate negotiations these days.  Voting against a very flawed bill in committee and stating, quite articulately, the problems with a bill in its current form will keep him voting against it are not sufficient statements of opposition for those who believe Agenda 21 runs all foreign and domestic policy (and these cool internets too!).

Thus, Senator Johnny Isakson, who has opposed the LOST treaty all along, has given up attempts to explain the total of objectionable items in the treaty, and is now stating unequivacably that he is against said treaty.  So there it is.  Isakson is a “No” on LOST. Those that have any idea what this post is about can now either safely remove your tinfoil, or point it in another direction.


  1. Baker says:

    I don’t know all the ins and outs, but this article from the WSJ… (which is surely behind a paywall if you click to it directly, just google “conservative time warp sea” and you should probably find it)

    …anyways, that article lays out pretty well what is good in the treaty, somebody fill me on the bad. Tin hat answers welcome but Isakson’s reasons for opposition preferred.

    Maybe I missed a post somewhere.

    • John Konop says:

      My understanding is we would have to give up tax revenue on offshore drilling in the gulf area and we would loose mining revenue. This is in trade for the rights that we already have via international water rights. The money would go into a general fund of international countries in the area. In my opinion it looks like another poorly negotiated trade deal with us giving away the house for nothing. Love or hate Trump, you cannot argue with him when he said that we are terrible negotiators……….

      • you says:

        LOST aka “small arms treaty” concerns gun owners because some believe it is an attempt by the UN to take our guns. Under the treaty there will be a creation of a new U.N. agency to regulate international weapon sales, and require countries that host firearms manufacturers to set up a compensation fund for victims of gun violence worldwide. This is just another way for the U.N. to get more money from us and it will cause prices to sky rocket. There is also talk that the wording leaves room to declare the registration of all American-made guns to prevent illegal exportation….national registration; that is so un-American.
        Gun owners are concerned and no one trust the U.N.

    • seenbetrdayz says:

      Yeah but most republicans don’t like reagan anymore except when he earns them votes by having his name mentioned.

  2. saltycracker says:

    It is a mixed bag of folks on both sides – military, political leaders, ally nations, business leaders with diametrically opposite positions. This is one of those situations where the elected need to attend the info meetings and make a decision or let it slide a few more decades………

  3. debbie0040 says:

    The problem is that up until yesterday afternoon, some Isakson staffers were telling callers he was undecided about the treaty – not that he was leaning toward not voting for it. Given the fact he voted for START, people were skeptical of Sen. Isakson’s position on this treaty.

  4. Baker says:

    “But the treaty now before the Senate has at its core a 200-mile economic zone and extended continental shelf. This is the greatest expansion of national sovereignty in history.”

    “The treaty provides property rights for miners in an area of the ocean not under the sovereignty of any nation. Absent U.S. adherence, U.S. firms cannot mine the deep seabed—as they will not have the security of tenure necessary to expend the $2 billion to $3 billion for a deep-seabed mining operation. These operations are of utmost importance for the U.S.—at stake is U.S. access to strategic minerals of copper, nickel, cobalt, manganese and rare earths worth about $1 trillion.”

    ?? I’m LOST. I’ll have to investigate the small arms portion of the treaty.

  5. Max Power says:

    Ladies and gentlemen this is an example of everything that’s wrong with Republican party. They’re opposed to this treaty not because of anything in it, but because 1) it’s a multilateral agreement and 2) it’s from the UN.

    I can only assume that Senator Isakson hasn’t read the treaty, but I have. And after read the whole thing it’s pretty easy to see that on the whole its a big win for the US. So what could be so objectionable to them:
    freedom of navigation no
    right of peaceable travel no
    200 mile EEZ no
    agreeing to try and not pollute the ocean no or at least i hope not
    setting up a system to allow seabed mining and a system of dispute resolution no
    drilling on the continental shelf no
    an organization to approve and regulate seabed mining maybe
    a royalty payment for mining and drilling outside the EEZ maybe

    Once again this seems like a no brainer to me. Right now there’s no legal authority for deep sea mining outside the EEZ. It’s better to have a legal framework than not to have one.

    There’s a reason every oil company, nearly every mining company, and the US Navy are begging the Senate to ratify this thing.

    • Charlie says:

      Senator Isakson sat on the committee, engaged in the markup, and there’s quite a few items floating around these here internets where you can see what his problems with the treaty in its current form are.

      But instead, let’s all just “assume” with you, and let you reduce a complex treaty into your own bullet/talking points…

      I’ll pass.

      • Max Power says:

        Charlie, if there’s a major problem with the treaty spell it out. I think you’ll find that most of the criticism isn’t about what’s actually in the treaty but what people fear will come about.

        Is it perfect? No. But the fact is I don’t think there are any killer flaws with the content LOTS, but there’s a huge political problem.

        • John Konop says:


          Food for thought……………..

          ………..As Heritage Foundation senior fellow Peter Brookes notes, the U.S. government now can collect royalty revenues from oil and gas companies that wish to drill on our extended continental shelf — the undersea areas beyond 200 miles of our coast. But if we ratify LOST, we’d have to fork over as much as 7% of that revenue to the ISA for redistribution to poorer, landlocked countries.

          Maritime and jurisdictional disputes would be settled by the ISA, which presumably would tell the U.S. Navy where it could and could not go. Freedom of navigation has been guaranteed by the U.S. Navy and, before it, the British Royal Navy. Now it would be the ISA. This meets perfectly the definition of the “global test” Sen. John Kerry, a backer of LOST, said in 2004 that our actions must meet…..

          • Max Power says:

            John, the problem with that is we drill there under no legal authority. It’s basically might makes right argument that assumes we’ll always be the biggest kid on the playground. I don’t assume that. I would prefer for the US to enter into an agreement where it’s claims would have to be respected by all. We have a real possibility of a war in the next decade in the South China Sea, because China’s claimed the whole darn thing. By getting into an multi-lateral agreement that would limit their claims we win.

            The ISA would settle only seabed disputes, other disputes would be handled by the ITLOS. Freedom of peaceful passage for warships is guaranteed by the LOTS. I have friends high in the Navy Judge Advocates who are at a loss as to why they can’t get this thing ratified. They see it as protecting american interests in the long run, and I trust the JAG corp far more than I do Johnny Isakson.

  6. John Konop says:


    This was the same argument we made via WTO and China years ago. Right now we are getting killed via currency manipulation, intellectual property theft………. I am all for international trade, but we have to do it in a manner that does have us getting wrong side of the horse every time. And this smells like the same deal…………..

    • Max Power says:

      I agree there’s a similarity with the argument made for the WTO, which btw I opposed. As opposed to the WTO this sets up a legal framework where bilateral agreements are impossible. Two nations can’t agree to divvy up seafloor mining rights in the Atlantic. There’s incredible resources out there that we can’t fully exploit because they’re in legal limbo. The LOTS treaty solves that problem.

          • Arrrrrrrrrgh. I remember the time I got my wooden leg got stuck in the freezer. Shiver me timbers! If I would have gotten better than high c’s in school, I could have worked somewhere other than Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrby’s.

          • saltycracker says:

            Pirate Code – Fairly familar with that on the first coast – our legislators would NEVER agree to that – just read the first two and then they get tough !

            In Florida, to the English, they were patriot privateers and to the Spanish, they were terrorist pirates…..

            I. Every man has a vote in affairs of moment; has equal title to the fresh provisions, or strong liquors, at any time seized, and may use them at pleasure, unless a scarcity (not an uncommon thing among them) makes it necessary, for the good of all, to vote a retrenchment.

            II. Every man to be called fairly in turn, by list, on board of prizes because, (over and above their proper share) they were on these occasions allowed a shift of clothes: but if they defrauded the company to the value of a dollar in plate, jewels, or money, marooning was their punishment. If the robbery was only betwixt one another, they contented themselves with slitting the ears and nose of him that was guilty, and set him on shore, not in an uninhabited place, but somewhere, where he was sure to encounter hardships.


Comments are closed.