=?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_[CAHS]_[Fwd:_Beware_the_UN=92s_Copenhagen?= plot -
=?window
|
John Perkins
|
Oct 30, 2009 04:22 PST
|
There will need to be some kind of global authority to deal with the
twin problems of resource depletion and climate change.
John
At 21:08 28/10/2009, 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 <mailto:johnbu-@gmail.com><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:
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/>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!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion list of the Council of Australian Humanist Societies
|
|
|
 |
|
