Law Of The Sea Treaty

Is anyone keeping up with the current activity of Meshech in and around the North Pole?

I hope all Americans are currently aware of the L.O.S.T. Convention which has been, for the past 20 years or so, and is currently, trying to steal America's sovereignty right out from under our noses.

This treaty would concede control of all of the seas (70% of the world's surface) to the United Nations. The only current members of this convention are Russia (Meshech) and Norway. Russia is very eager to get this treaty up and rolling because they believe it will give them access to the oil rich sea bed in Canadian/American territorial waters which they have already laid claim to in Aug. of this year.

Certain U.S. Senators tried to ratify this treaty without Americans even being aware of it, much less given an opportunity to oppose it.

Contact your Senators and tell them that we would like to keep our Sovereignty and our own Constitution intact, thank you very much!!!

God Bless, AviYAH

Aviyah,

Nice to hear from you again. How does this tie in with the teachings of the SC? Though I wouldn't be surprised if Pastor Murray mentions it on his weekly phone message, perhaps this is yet another move towards a one world government?

If so, which I think it is, this is a partial fulfillment that globalism is alive and well and will take on more meaning as prophecy unfolds, and reveals a system that will be in place when the anti-christ appears.

John Norton Moore, director of the Center for Oceans Law and Policy, said that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) "strongly supports United States national interests. It protects the sovereignty of American ships and aircraft and more than doubles the resource jurisdiction of the United States. It affirms traditional United States leadership in oceans affairs. Indeed, the Convention is one of the greatest negotiating successes in United States diplomatic history." You can find Moore's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee concerning the Law of the Sea Convention at:

http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/testi...mony031014.pdf

To view the full text of the Law of the Sea Convention:

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/conventi...s/closindx.htm

Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) says that conspiracy theories about the U.N., international lawyers, and U.S. sovereignty have hampered congressional progress on this issue. Congressmen are busy responding to citizens who have an incorrect view of the U.N.'s role and its authority as it pertains to the treaty.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.as...20071004c.html

This ocean treaty is strongly supported by our military leaders and aids our national security in crucial ways. It provides legal certainty for U.S. naval vessels navigating the world's oceans. The Navy, the Coast Guard, and our fishing, shipping, undersea cable, mining, asnd oil and gas industries all support ratification of this convention.

http://www.oceanlaw.org/index.php?na...cle&sid=30

Let the facts inform you, not conspiracy theories based on Biblical interpretation.

dodge wrote:
*****
Let the facts inform you, not conspiracy theories based on Biblical interpretation.
*****

<font color="0000ff">Gen 22:17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;
</font>

Not to worry dodge -- there is nothing mankind will do to mess up this nations control of the seas. The Lord has ordained it!

"The VCLT was drafted by the International Law Commission (ILC) of the United Nations" Wikipedia

The state of Texas is scheduled to execute Heliberto Chi on October 3, 2007. Chi is a citizen of Honduras who was sentenced to death for the March 24, 2001 murder of Armand Paliotta, 56, at the K&amp;G Men's Superstore in southwest Arlington.

Chi's court-appointed attorney, Wes Ball, says that Chi was not allowed to contact his country's consulate as prescribed by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. That 1963 treaty was meant to allow foreigners who are arrested the right to speak with their consulates.

http://stopexecutions.blogspot.com/2...y-to-stop.html

My intention here is not to provoke a debate over the death penalty, but to show that nations taking part in the United Nations has been setting in place a one world constitution. We are becoming more and more subject to a law that is of the world. Which shows that not only that there is a strengthening one world government, in which we are a big player, but it is already in actuality in effect right under your noses. There is proof all over the place.

The bible said this would take place and it leads to a fake peace that the Antichrist sits at the head of upon his arrival. If you are not putting God's word in your mind you will worship him, maybe with out even knowing what you are doing. You will try to think when you are faced with a god on earth, some being outside of this world that is all to familiar with you, what was said to you by the SC, but we are not your salvation, and God has tried to show you the importance of coming to full knowledge. You will fail if you do not heed the warnings of the Prophets, and I do mean the ones of the Old Testament. Antichrist will know your weakness, however there is no weakness in the word of God. This is the reason that it is important for you to know as many truths in the bible as you can. Even down to who Israel is, it will fall into place. If you know exactly what takes place in the end times you will see, when Antichrist is here, that everything you believed is and has unfolded right before your eyes.

The Law of the Sea Convention is supported by the President, senior cabinet officials, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Commandant of the Coast Guard, a host of former legal advisors for the Department of State, our current and former Secretaries of the Navy, and former Chiefs of Naval Operations.

Our Navy can better protect the U.S. and the American people if we join the Law of the Sea Convention.

http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/testi...mony070927.pdf

Gordon England, Deputy Secretary of Defense and prior Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security and Secretary of the Navy testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month, saying that the “legal framework that the Convention establishes is essential to the mission of the Department of Defense, and the Department of Homeland Security” and is “essential for their mission.”

Secretary Gates, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Military Department Secretaries, all of the Combatant Commanders, and the Commandant of the Coast Guard call for swift approval for U.S. Accession to the Law of the Sea Convention and ratification.

http://www.jag.navy.mil/documents/te...mony070927.pdf

John D. Negroponte, Deputy Secretary U.S. Department of State stated, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month that the U.S. role in leadership on oceans issues such as maritime security would be lessened without our accession to the Convention. Negroponte believes that the Law of the Sea Convention serves as a foundation for our partnerships in the Proliferation Security Initiative and strengthens our ability to carry out intelligence activities that other countries seek to restrain.

http://www.legislative.noaa.gov/Test...onte092707.pdf

President Bush said in his May 15 statement that joining the Law of the Sea Convention will serve the national security interests of the United States, secure U.S. sovereign rights over extensive marine areas, promote U.S. interests in the environmental health of the oceans, and give the United States a seat at the tab le when the rights essential to our interests are debated and interpreted.

Admiral Patrick M. Walsh, U.S. Navy Vice Chief of Naval Operations, made a statement before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations last month, saying that accession to the Convention is an “important priority for the Administration.” Adm. Walsh stated that he supports the accession because it “helps our Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airmen, and Coast Guardsmen to their job.”

HTTP://WWW.JAG.NAVY.MIL/DOCUMENTS/TE...MONY070927.PDF

I think you Shepherd's Chapel students ought to write letters to these distinguished experts and tell them that because of your interpretation of the Bible and your expectations of an evil One World Order run by Kenites that they should reconsider their views on the matter. It will help them, they need a good laugh.

Hey Smyrna,

"How does this tie in with the teachings of the SC?" (Smyrna, 10/24/07)

Yes this treaty is definitely a push toward one worldism. In fact, Borgese the brain child of the treaty declared in a speech in 1999, "The world ocean has been, and is, so to speak, our laboratory for the making of a new world order." Borgese, by the way, was openly supportive of Karl Marx ideology and communism.

I believe this convention and its treaty are to the U.S., what the European Union and its constitution are to Britain.

The terms of the L.O.S.T. treaty would supercede our own constitution. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this treaty would not be good for America (Dodge).

But this specifically is related to SC teachings because we can plainly see that the stage is being set for the fulfillment of prophesy in Ezekiel 38. Pastor Murray has stated many times that he believes this will come to pass when Meshech invades through Alaska.

1) "And the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,
2) Son of man, set thy face against Gog, the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him,
3) And say, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against thee, O Gog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal:
4) And I will turn thee back, and put hooks in thy jaws, and I will bring thee forth, and all thy army, horses and horsemen, all of them clothed with all sorts of armour, even a great company with bucklers and shields, all of them handling swords:
5) Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya with them; all of them with shield and helmet:
6) Gomer, and all his bands; the house of Togarmah of the north quarters, and all his bands: and many people with thee........
11) And thou shalt say, I will go up to the land of unwalled villages; I will go to them that are at rest, that dwell safely, all of them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates, 12) To take a spoil, and to take a prey; to turn thine hand upon the desolate places thatare now inhabited, and upon the People that are gathered out of the nations, which have gotten cattle and goods, that dwell in the midst of the land.....
14) Therefore, son of man, prophesy and say unto Gog, Thus saith the Lord God; In that day when My People of Israel dwelleth safely, shalt thou not know it?
15) And thou shalt come from thy place out of the north parts, thou, and many people with thee, all of them riding upon horses, a greaat company, and a mighty army:
16) And thou shalt come up against My People of Israel, as a cloud to cover the land: it shall be in the latter days, and I will bring thee against My land, that the heathen may know Me, when I shall be sanctified in thee, O Gog, before their eyes."

It is in process RIGHT NOW! August 2nd, 2007 Meshech planted their standard in out territorial waters. Traditionally this act has been viewed as a declaration of war. Russia is claiming our territory for Pete's sake! Conspiracy theory my eye! What more warning does one need! Vlad wants the oil and diamonds that are thought to be there. They are not flying bomber jets over our navy bases for sport! Vlad and company are planning their next move.

Russia wants this treaty because they believe it will entitle them to the continental shelf beneath the Arctic Ocean that they are already claiming.

God Bless, AviYAH

Dodge,

Do you agree that this treaty would nullify much of our own constitution? Do you really believe it would be in America's best interest to be obligated to the terms of this treaty? This is Socialism/Communism at its finest.

So which is it Dodge? I don't understand your position? Are you a Socialist or a Communist? Are you suggesting that the policies of the Bush Administration and the United States Government are infallible?

Does it not strike you as odd or alarming that a few Senators are trying to sneak this in without the American people having a say so on the matter? Does it not bother you that this convention has been nipping at our sovereignty since 1982 and just will not take no for an answer?

The battle of Haman Gog is nothing to fear Dodge. Armageddon will be happening simultaneously with Judah in Israel. It is written that God will destroy Meshech and his bands Himself. When this comes to pass, we will all know that He is our Creator and we are His People.

Reap what you sow, AviYAH

Aviyah,

I agree with you and boy, what will the SC critics do if indeed there is skirmishes or even all out war in our state of Alaska?

And in the Middle East,I see that Israel pulled a bombing raid on Syria, in what is speculated to be a construction site for nuclear weapons. Drudge Report)

Interesting and fascinating times.

Hi Aviyah – could you explain to me how the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea “nullifies much of our constitution?” I don’t understand how you come to that conclusion. Have you actually read the text of the Convention?

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/conventi...s/closindx.htm

If what you say is true, why do these people support ratification:

President Bush, Secretary of State Rice, Commandant of the Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, Republican Senator Richard Lugar, Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers, Chief of Naval Operations Vice Admiral Vern Clark, Bill Clinton, Colin Powell, all living State Department Legal Advisors, the American Bar Association, Oceana, World Wildlife Fund, among others. (are they all Kenites, working for the New World Order?)

Did you know that the treaty, as altered by the 1994 agreement, requires no transfer of sovereignty. Instead, it strengthens and extends U.S. sovereignty over vast amounts of ocean territory and resources.

“The opposition to the Law of the Sea is based entirely on a visceral hatred for multilateral cooperation. Its champions detest all forms of international organization and believe the purpose of international law is to constrain U.S. behavior. They believe the U.S. should rely on the threat of force to advance its goals and should not be constrained by any rules.”

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002402.php

This Law of the Sea agreement is supported by environmental groups, petroleum trade associations, peace groups, the Coast Guard, Navy, departments of State, Commerce, and the Interior (just to name a few).

Write your representatives and urge them to support the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention. This is one battle that smart progressives need to take up right now.

"Yes this treaty is definitely a push toward one worldism." Logic dictates that as the world becomes a smaller place and people become more and more dependant upon each other the worlds resources will have to be managed as a whole to be managed more effectively. There is nothing conspiritorial or deceptive about that. It just makes sense.

Yes, it does make sense,especially since it was predicted thousands of years ago,before anything imaginable like it could even be conceived by mere mortal men.

You'll learn one day, whether you are dead or alive I cannot tell you, as I do not know. But one day you will know.

L.O.S.T. is the most wide ranging push for one worldism since the original UN system was established after World War II. It is meant to govern activities on, over, and beneath the ocean's surface, which covers 70 percent of the planet. "He who controls the sea, controls the land." Though its primary focus is supposedly navigational and transit issues, with proponents claiming it is merely codifying traditional practices, L.O.S.T. also contains provisions on the regulation of deep-sea mining and the redistribution of ocean wealth to underdeveloped countries. Though the U. S. would be largely responsible for much of the "fees", the U.S. would have only one vote out of 140 with no veto power as it has on the U. N. Security Council. It also has sections regarding marine trade, pollution (including land-based pollution that can affect the ocean), maritime research, and, of course, its own dispute resolution system – complete with foreign judges – that usurps national sovereignty.

The Heritage Foundation warns "the treaty would have unintended consequences for U.S. interests-including a threat to sovereignty."

Ronald Reagan was adamantly opposed to this idea and actually lost sleep worrying over the implications of this treaty and the direction the world was going with this.

Perhaps you Dodge, can name one beneficial thing the corrupt bureaucracy, that is the United Nations, has brought to man kind since its inception. The U.N. cannot stop mass genocides in Africa. The U.N. does nothing to prevent terrorist attacks anywhere in the world. The U.N. is powerless to prevent wars between nations. The U.N. is utterly inept at preventing radical extremists from developing nuclear bombs. These bureaucrats don't really seem to accomplish anything, aside from wasting perfectly good oxygen.

Yeah lets sign a treaty, without the consent of the American people, that obligates us to abide by U.N. laws rather than our own sovereign God given constitution! Yeah lets sign a treaty, without allowing Americans to vote for or against it, which obligates us to fall in line with Communist Russia!! Yeah lets sit idly by while a few sneaky Senators hand over control of 70% of the surface of the planet (as well as the seabed below it and sky and space above it) to the U.N.!!! I have to say you are a colossal idiot Dodge!!!

Is this a conspiracy? No, I think rather it is a blatantly obvious attempt to remove America from its position as the world's lone super power.

Reap what you sow, AviYAH

The United Nations Law of the Sea Convention provides our military the rights of navigation, by water and by air, to take our forces wherever they must go, whenever it is necessary to do so. Our ships — including vessels that carry more than 90 percent of the logistic and other support for our troops overseas — are given the right of innocent passage through the territorial seas of other states. In addition, the treaty permits American warships to board stateless vessels on the high seas.

The treaty also provides an absolute right of passage through, over and under international straits and through archipelagoes like Indonesia. These rights — the crown jewels of the treaty — did not exist before 1982, when the Convention was concluded. Our security and economic interests are tied directly to these rights.

Another provision in the treaty establishes the breadth of the territorial sea — the area within which a state may exercise sovereignty — at 12 miles. This allows the United States to extend its territorial sea from three miles to 12 miles, while making several other nations reduce their excessive claims.

Our national security interests alone should be sufficient to persuade the Senate to act now. But the Convention also advances the economic interests of our country. It gives us an exclusive economic zone out to 200 miles, with sovereign rights for exploring, exploiting, conserving and managing the living and non-living natural resources of the zone. Coastal states are given sovereign rights over the continental shelf beyond 200 miles if the shelf meets specific geological and other scientific criteria. Under the Convention, our Arctic continental shelf could extend out to 600 miles.

Our nation will be in a much stronger position to advance its military and economic interests if we ratify the treaty. We can guide and influence the interpretation of rules, protecting our interests and deflecting inconsistent interpretations. The agreement is being interpreted, applied and developed right now and we need to be part of it to protect our vital interests in the area of security and beyond.

(continued)

The treaty is more favorable to our security interests now than we could achieve if we started all over again today. Yet as the debate over ratification takes place, you will see and hear arguments against it that are confected of half-truths and imagination.

The treaty does not authorize a “United Nations navy” or “United Nations taxes.” We are not giving away American sovereignty by ratifying it, nor would joining it hinder our intelligence activities. An international institution would not control the world’s oceans.

The Reagan administration objected to certain treaty provisions related to seabed mining. But a 1994 agreement fixed all flaws in the original Convention. The treaty now guarantees appropriate American influence with a permanent seat on the decision-making body. It eliminates earlier provisions that would have required countries to share technology. And it generally facilitates access to mining on reasonable commercial terms. With the modifications enacted in 1994, the treaty now meets all the criteria established by President Reagan in 1982 to make the treaty in the interest of the United States.

Twelve years ago we missed the opportunity to ratify the treaty in its present form. Our national security, if anything, is more reliant on worldwide access to the sea and the air on an open and undisputed basis than it was then.

The Convention of the Law of the Sea is by all lights in our national interest and has earned bipartisan support. President Bush and his administration have spoken out favorably. The Clinton administration also fully supported ratification.

We need to convert this important consensus into that simple action of advice and consent in the Senate, thereby preserving and protecting our national security and other interests embodied in this important treaty.

(New York Times op ed piece by retired Admiral Vern Clark, chief of Naval Operations from 2000 to 2005, and Thomas R. Pickering, Chief U.S. delagate to the U.N. from 1989 to 1992)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/14/op...pickering.html

Can I try and clear up a misconception here? The U.S.S.R. (Union of Soviet <u>Socialist</u> Republics) voted itself out of existence in 1991. Since then, it has been working towards democracy. Its no longer considered a "communist" country. I have no doubt there are still a lot of communists living there, but I have even less doubt there are a lot of communists in the U.S..

I think the Heritage Foundation does some good, but I am uncomfortable with it taking money from the moonies, Korea and the Coors (beer) Co. It is ultra-conservative. That also makes me leery. Ultra anything usually leads to control issues, which is ironic, because that is just what conservatives say they are against. Doesn't "trickery" come to mind?

I often wonder if conservatives think the rich got rich by sharing all they have with the poor.

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
LOST will give the UN (united nothing) the rights of incursion into the inland waters of the United States and will in effect remove our sovereignty over our own waters.

The UN is against everything the United States stands for.

Dodge,
let me educate you about the UN.
---</font>}
How they vote in the United Nations

Below are the actual voting records of various Arabic/Islamic States which are recorded in both the US State Department and United Nations records:

Kuwait votes against the United States 67% of the time
Qatar votes against the United States 67% of the time
Morocco votes against the United States 70% of the time
United Arab Emirates votes against the U. S. 70% of the time.
Jordan votes against the United States 71% of the time.
Tunisia votes against the United States 71% of the time.
Saudi Arabia votes against the United States 73% of the time.
Yemen votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Algeria votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Oman votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Sudan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
Pakistan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
Libya votes against the United States 76% of the time.
Egypt votes against the United States 79% of the time.
Lebanon votes against the United States 80% of the time.
India votes against the United States 81% of the time.
Syria votes against the United States 84% of the time.
Mauritania votes against the United States 87% of the time.

U S Foreign Aid to those that hate us:
Egypt, for example, after voting 79% of the time against the United States, still receives $2 billion annually in US Foreign Aid.

Jordan votes 71% against the United States and receives $192,814,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.

Pakistan votes 75% against the United States receives $6,721,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.

India votes 81% against the United States receives $143,699,000 annually.

Perhaps it is time to get out of the UN and give the tax savings back to the American workers who are having to skimp and sacrifice to pay the taxes (and gasoline) .

dodge wrote:
*****
The treaty now guarantees appropriate American influence with a permanent seat on the decision-making body.
*****

We already have a "decision-making body" that is bound [supposedly] by the Constitution of the United States. We don't need to subvert the Constitution through LOST, the United Nations, the World Court, or any other of these one-world-order organizations.

Thank you, godchild, for that reasonable comment. Aviyah seems to think that if one is in support of the U.N. Law of the Sea Convention then that one must be a communist or a socialist. Yes, of course the Heritage Foundation is a right-wing Conservative organization, and one must read what they say with that in mind.

I listen to professionals who know what they're talking about, like Captain Pat Neher, a U.S. Navy JAG officer specializing in International and Operational Law, who writes that “Any past or present Navy judge advocate with salt on him or her will tell you – the navigation and overflight rights and freedoms reflected in the Law of the Sea Convention are absolutely critical to current and future Fleet operations. Specifically, our Navy depends upon the principles contained in the Convention in moving forces on, over, and under the world’s oceans, whenever and wherever needed.”

"The U.N. Law of the Sea Convention recognizes and preserves for our ships and aircraft the freedom to conduct innocent passage in territorial waters, transit passage through international straits (surface, air, and subsurface), unrestricted military activities in the high seas, military surveys, and approach and visit of suspected stateless vessels."

"Economically, the Convention supports our national interests by giving the U.S. sovereign rights over the resources of one of the largest continental shelves in the world. Further, it is the Law of the Sea Convention that creates and recognizes a country’s Exclusive Economic Zone out to 200 nautical miles, and the rights to explore, exploit, conserve, and manage the natural resources therein."

"Arguments that were used in the past to keep the U.S. outside the Convention were addressed and corrected in 1994 amendments to the Convention. There are important reasons for us to join without further delay, and the President’s statement in support of the Convention is a major step forward towards the goal of joining the Convention."

(by Captain Pat Neher, International and Operational Law, Practice of Navy Knowledge Online)

http://www.jag.navy.mil/JAGMAG/May-Junlawofthesea.pdf

We must take into consideration what Captain Neher says along with President Bush, President Clinton, senior cabinet officials, the Joint Cheifs of Staff, the Commandant of the Coast Gurad, legal advisors for the Department of State, current and former Secretaries of the Navy, former Chiefs of Naval Operations, the Deputy Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Homeland Security, Secretary Gates, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Military Department Secretaries, all of the Combatant Commanders...all in favor of U.S. Accession to the Law of the Sea Convention and ratification.

Then weigh in what Students of Arnold Murray say, who believe that there is a mythic race called Kenites behind a conspiratorial New World Order, the descendants of a sexual relationship between Satan and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

No contest.

One can easily see why this treaty should not be ratified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_Sea#Arguments

From this site, we have the arguments against ratification -

<font color="119911">National sovereignty: The treaty creates a new UN agency with its own dispute resolution tribunal. However, should the US stop its current compliance with the US-negotiated laws of the Convention, the U.S. could not be taken to the Law of the Sea Tribunal since the U.S. has indicated that it would choose binding arbitration rather than availing itself of the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea.

The Environment: Some of the Convention's conservation provisions would provide new avenues for non-US environmental organizations to affect domestic US environmental policies by pursuing legal action in both US and international courts.[3] In addition, requirements that nations either harvest their entire allowable catch in certain areas or give the surplus to other nations could result in mandated overfishing.[4]

Taxation: The license fees and taxes levied on economic activities in the deep seabed Area by the ISA would be, in effect, a form of 'taxation without representation'. Citizens would be indirectly taxed through business and governmental activities in the Area.

Economics: Businesses can already exploit resources from the international area; ratifying the treaty would force them to buy licenses for that right and pay taxes on the proceeds.

Navigation rights not threatened: One of the treaty's main selling points, legally recognized navigation rights on, over, and under straits, is unnecessary because these rights are not currently threatened by law or by any military capable of opposing the US.

Harm to de-militarizing operations: The treaty would for the first time require all unmanned ocean vessels, including submarines used for mine detection to protect ships exercising the right of innocent passage, to navigate on the surface in territorial waters - effectively eliminating their value for such purposes.[5]
No control over funding: The treaty gives a blank check to the UN, funded by the US. The US would have no control over how the money is used.

Eminent domain: The treaty applies eminent domain to intellectual property giving the UN the power to seize technology and share it with potentially enemy states.

Lack of need: The U.S. already honors almost all the provisions of the treaty. For practical purposes, there is no pressing need to ratify it that outweighs the negatives of the remaining provisions. Any perceived benefit of an improved U.S. image world-wide is likely to be illusory.
</font>