Re: [Fwd: Beware the =?windows-1252?Q?UN=92s_Copenhagen?=
=?windows-1252
|
Dick Clifford
|
Oct 28, 2009 08:28 PST
|
Greetings!
While the possibility of a virtual World Government is most unlikely to
be agreed at Copenhagen this still leaves the question of third world
countries unresolved and likely to backfire on all of us.
Take the case of the Liberian Refugees who have just sent me their
report for the 2008/9 year. You will recall that they were at Buduburam
Refugee Camp but in October 2008 they were returned to Liberia where
they have been able to form a school thanks to the generosity of a
German visiting teacher. They mention that the unemployment rate in
Liberia is 80%, the infrastructure is trashed due to the civil war that
lasted some 16 years. Their main hope is their female President who is a
Harvard graduate. Their School had 258 students last year, 22 of these
had their fees paid by the Scholarship Fund that I run by appealing for
funds at Humanist Conventions and on some nets. 42 students paid their
own fees, the remainder 194 could not afford the fees and were admitted
free, ie they were subsidised by the fees paid for 64 students.
There are no other subsidies, they have problems paying their teachers,
and most children are not well fed so are unable to take in much
education. I will publish the full report soon.
While it is easy to blame the Liberians for the Civil War, you must
also take into account the warning issued by the IMF on March 3, 2009
which states that the third wave of the economic crisis is hitting the
world's poorest and most vulnerable countries. Of 71 countries
classified as eligible for concessional IMF loans many will see their
per capita incomes shrink and their commodity exporters will be hit
hard, facing lower export volumes and prices. Liberia is third from the
bottom. The IMF expects global recovery will not occur until 2010. It
should also be clear that the world trading system is designed to profit
the larger countries at the expense of the poorer countries.
The worlds Bankers and Financiers are responsible for this situation,
but it is clear that they see no reason for reform and happily accept
government handouts. The war in Afghanistan is not going well, as the
situation deteriorates in the 71 countries more insurrection will break
out. The result will be more refugees spreading out across the world.
Currently Australia does not take many refugees compared with Europe but
a large fuss is made about those arriving by boat. Global warming will
increase these problems and Peak Oil will result in reduced supply
within five years and no doubt somebody will go to war to claim their
supply, and others may be caught napping to find their oil supply is
inadequate to run their battleships, aircraft and tanks.
The "Copenhagen Plot" could possibly solve these problems but I think
that it is highly unlikely that western countries will consider
subsidising third world countries to the extent indicated.
Are their any other solutions? Yes lots of them. You will find them with
the aid of Google. The only one that I know of that lasted 100 years is
called the Guernsey Experiment. In 1817 they were broke, so they
printed some money, paid builders to build schools, the market, sea
defenses and other infrastructure. The money spread across the community
who were able to pay their taxes, part of this money was written off so
they were able to print more money to improve the roads. They were able
to do this for more than 100 years without inflation. No interest was
paid and they built plenty of infrastructure without debt Then the banks
tempted them and they became a tax haven. So they continued to be
prosperous with someone else's money.
An ideal solution for third world countries but the Banks will never
agree and they are very powerful..
A more modern alternative is the American Monetary Act which is similar
but more suitable for countries divided into States and can be easily
redrafted to suit any country. For more detail see:
http://www.monetary.org/amacolorpamphlet.pdf
Again the banks would oppose such proposals, tooth and nail. But it is
the banks policies which leads to too much competition, too much debt,
insufficient infrastructure, too much gambling on the stock exchange,
excessive payments to CEO's and results in crashes every 16 years and
mass unemployment Right now they are asking for increased rates which
will result in increased debt, the cause of the crash. Why should we put
up with it?
If we do nothing we will have to put up with it. Please consider sending
this on to many friends, even to Bankers or write your own improved version!
Dick Clifford
Frank Legge wrote:
| |
-------- Original Message --------
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!
*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
- http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/beware_the_uns_copenhagen_plot/
Thanks to Bruce for the link!
|
| | The above link does not work. Try instead:
|
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26268754-7583,00.html
| | --
9/11 24/7 until justice!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion list of the Council of Australian Humanist Societies
|
|
|
 |
|
