I find that a little encouraging. I'd be more encouraged if the pro/con margin was better than 66/34. It would only require the flipping of one Senate weasel to get to the 67 vote majority to ratify the treaty.
The sixth paragraph in the Washington Times article lists three reasons why proponents for ratifying the treaty believe we should do so.
The fail in three parts:
"Proponents of ratification argue that member-nations are establishing rules of the sea that the U.S. would have to abide to without a vote."
So we'd have to abide by a treaty we didn't sign, like Kyoto? Yeah. No. A mild application of State Department backbone would solve that problem.
"They also argue that by ratifying the treaty, the U.S. would protect its claims and rights to mine America’s continental sea shelves and offshore waters for natural resources, without interference from other countries or other entities."
Which country or entity, exactly, is going to interfere? Is the U.N. going to slap sanctions on us? The Southern Belle has expressed the official BAR position on sanctions previously. Oh Noes! You means we don't haz National Sovereignty no more!!? (that's what this treaty is really about, isn't it. Isn't it? I thought so.)
"Without ratification, U.S. energy companies do not have the security they need to invest in exploring those areas for resources."Really? Were the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Coast Guard disbanded while I slept last night? Who's enforcing the treaty? Somali Pirates?
While this is a (sarcasm alert) compelling reason for ratification, it is a moot point. The U.S. federal gubmint, via the EPA, ensures that very little drilling occurs on America's continental shelf. You can look, but don't touch.
Now, I am being glib and a bit of a dilettante here, but I am of the opinion that nothing that comes out of the U.N. is good for the U.S. The U.N. should have been dissolved long ago.