[Fwd: Beware the =?windows-1252?Q?UN=92s_Copenhagen_plot_-?=
=?windows-1252?Q?_
|
Frank Legge
|
Oct 28, 2009 03:08 PST
|
-------- Original Message --------
<table class="moz-email-headers-table" border="0" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
Subject:
Beware the UN’s Copenhagen plot - World Government? The
Australian
Date:
Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:11:02 +1100
From:
John Bursill <johnbu-@gmail.com>
Hello all,
I've been watching this issue and I think this article is a good
sign that some "heat" may arrive for the MMGW summit that is really a
power grab for the elite, regardless of the science!
From the Australian:
<span
class="Apple-style-span" style="text-decoration: underline;">Beware
the UN’s Copenhagen plot
Janet Albrechtsen Blog | October 28, 2009 | 170 Comments
SHAME on us all: on us in the media and on our politicians. Despite
thousands of news reports, interviews, analyses, critiques and
commentaries from journalists, what has the inquiring, intellectually
sceptical media told us about the potential details of a Copenhagen
treaty? And despite countless speeches, addresses, interviews,
doorstops, moralising sermons from government ministers, pleas from
Canberra for an outcome at Copenhagen, opposition criticism of
government policy, what have our elected representatives told us about
the potential details of a Copenhagen treaty?
With just over 40 days until more than 15,000 officials, advisers,
diplomats, activists and journalists from more than 190 countries
attend the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen, we know nothing.
Nothing about a climate change treaty that the Rudd government is keen
to sign and one that will bind this country for years to come.
Of course, there is no final treaty as yet. That is what they are
hoping to finalise in Copenhagen. But there are 181 pages that make up
the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change dated September 15, 2009:
a rough draft of what could be signed in Copenhagen. And yet, not one
member of the media or political class has bothered to inform us about
its contents as an important clue to what may happen in Copenhagen. The
shame of that state of affairs started to trickle in last week.
Emails started arriving telling me about a speech given by Christopher
Monckton, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, at Bethel University
in St Paul, Minnesota, on October 14. Monckton talked about something
that no one has talked about in the lead-up to Copenhagen: the text of
the draft Copenhagen treaty.
Even after Monckton’s speech, most of the media has duly ignored the
substance of what he said. You don’t need me to find his St Paul
address on YouTube. Interviewed on Monday morning by Alan Jones on
Sydney radio station 2GB, Monckton warned that the aim of the
Copenhagen draft treaty was to set up a transnational government on a
scale the world has never before seen. Listening to the interview, my
teenage daughters asked me whether this was true.
So I read the draft treaty. The word government appears on page 18.
Monckton says: “This is the first time I’ve ever seen any transnational
treaty referring to a new body to be set up under that treaty as a
government. But it’s the powers that are going to be given to this
entirely unelected government that are so frightening.”
Monckton became aware of the extraordinary powers to be vested in this
new world government only when a friend of his found an obscure UN
website and hacked his way through several layers of complications
before coming across a document that isn’t even called the draft
treaty. It’s called a “note by the secretariat”. The moment he saw it,
he went public and said: “Look, this is an outrage ... they have kept
the sheer scope of this treaty quiet.”
Monckton says the aim of this new government is to have power to
directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental
affairs of all the nations that sign the Copenhagen treaty.
In a sense, countries that sign international treaties always cede
powers to a UN body responsible for implementing the treaty
obligations. But the difference is that we usually understand the
details of the obligations and the power ceded.
Now read the 181-page draft treaty. It is impossible to fully
understand the convoluted UN verbiage. Yet even those incomprehensible
clauses point to some nasty surprises that no politician has told us
about. For example, Monckton says the drafters want this new world
government to have control over once free markets: the financial and
trading markets of nation-states. “The sheer ambition of this new world
government is enormous right from the start; that’s even before it
starts accreting powers to itself in the way that these entities
inevitably always do,” he says.
The reason for that power grab is clear enough from the draft treaty.
Clause after complicated clause sets out the requirement that developed
countries such as Australia pay their “adaptation debt” to developing
countries. Clause 33 on page 39 says that by 2020 the scale of
financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be
at least $US67 billion ($73bn), or in the range of $US70bn to $US140bn
a year.
How developed countries will pay is far from clear. The draft text sets
out various alternatives, including Option 7 on page 135, which
provides for “a (global) levy of 2 per cent on international financial
market (monetary) transactions to Annex I Parties”. This means
industrialised countries such as Australia, if we sign.
Monckton’s warning to Americans that “in the next few weeks, unless you
stop it, your President will sign your freedom, your democracy and your
prosperity away forever” is colourful. But no more colourful than the
language used by those who preach about the perils of climate change
and the virtues of a hard-hitting Copenhagen treaty.
Put aside Monckton’s comments. Ask yourself this: why has our
government failed to explain the possible text of a treaty it wants
Australia to sign? There has been no address from any Rudd minister to
explain the draft treaty. No 3000-word essay from the thoughtful PM. No
speech in parliament. No interview. No press release. Nothing.
Presumably the hard-working Climate Change Minister Penny Wong has read
the 181-page draft text. Presumably our central control and command PM
has been briefed about the draft text. In Germany a few months ago,
Kevin Rudd complained about the lack of “detailed programmatic
specificity” going into the Copenhagen talks. Yet the draft text
provides much detailed specificity about obligations on developed
nations to transfer millions of dollars to developing countries under
formulas to be set down by an unelected body. So why the silence? Are
they hiding the details of this deal from us because most of the polls
now suggest that action on climate change is becoming politically
unpalatable?
And what explains the media’s failure to report and analyse the only
source document that offers any idea of what may happen in Copenhagen?
Ignorance? Laziness? Stubborn adherence to the orthodox government line
that a deal in Copenhagen is critical? An obsession with the politics
of climate change rather than policy?
At least we have heard from Monckton. He told Jones there had already
been a million hits on the link to his St Paul address. “So the message
in America is now out ... Now you know about it and you need to spread
the word.”
Perhaps now our PM and our Climate Change Minister can spare a few
moments to tell us about the details they know about but have so far
chosen not to tell us about.
Link - <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/beware_the_uns_copenhagen_plot/">http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/beware_the_uns_copenhagen_plot/
Thanks to Bruce for the link!
--
9/11 24/7 until justice!
|
|
 |
|
