KYOTO'S WATER WIZARDS
A group opposing the Kyoto Treaty is attempting to establish a WORLD WATER PARLIAMENT, and the article lays out their goals as well. ~ Jackie Jura
Firstly, here's the plans the Kyoto Treaty is working on:
"...12,000 people met in Kyoto at the official Third World Water Forum to determine the direction of current water policies
... dominated by private corporations who favour large projects such as dams, instead of simpler technologies
... want water privatisation and "commodification" of water
... enabling creeping corporate control via privatisation
... escalating water scarcity and sparking future "water wars"
... the Iraq war was also about control of Iraq's huge water resources
... creating water-wasteful processes through water supply systems based on "heavy engineering" solutions such as dams
...international financial institutions' control water supply finance
...industry and World Bank spokesmen advocate public-private partnerships
... water services are included in the on-going World Trade Organisation negotiations, in particular the European Commission's recently leaked WTO negotiating requests to open up the water services in many developing countries to foreign private investment
... no parliamentary sovereignty over water-trade negotiations
... they're planning a Fourth World Water Forum in Montreal in 2006
Here are the goals of a group forming to oppose the water plans of the Kyoto Treaty:
Their goal is a WORLD WATER PARLIAMENT. They met in Italy at the same time the meeting in Kyoto, Japan was going on.
...The Florence meeting's 1,400 participants (70% Italians) came from pacifist, environmental, development and farmers' NGOs, as well as local authorities. They met to carry forward the Porto Alegre World Social Forum's call in January for a new democratic world water parliament and a halt to water privatisation.
...The world's water resources must become a common global good under a new international system anchored in a constitutional right to water for all
The final declaration in Florence called for:
- a guaranteed minmum of 40 litres a day to each world inhabitant by 2020, while meeting ecosystem needs
- a radical overhaul of present water-wasteful processes in all economic sectors, prioritising rehabilitation and maintenance of existing water supply systems over "heavy engineering" solutions such as dams
- public-public partnerships instead of public-private partnerships advocated by industry and the World Bank in Kyoto
- upgrading tap water quality to reduce mineral water consumption
- innovative funding mechanisms including water taxes and ethical investment funds to ensure continued local authority ownership and mangement of water supplies - under the supervision of democratic assemblies representing consumers and workers
- a critical review of international financial institutions' role in water supply finance and establishment of a World Water Solidarity Fund
- international river basin authorities
- withdrawal of water services from the on-going World Trade Organisation negotiations
- a parliamentarians' water network to promote recovery of parliamentary sovereignty over trade negotiations, in particular as regards water
- The 2006 meeting in Montreal of the fourth World Water Forum should be replaced with the inaugural World Water Parliament."
above compiled from Alternataive water future outlined. BBC News, Mar 24, 2003
Thursday, August 16, 2007
U.N. Wants to Rule New World Order
In the name of peace, the world body wants member states to subjugate their sovereignty to the organization and grant the authority to field what amounts to a standing U.N. army.
Outside the north entrance to the United Nations in New York City stands an oversized sculpture of a pistol with its barrel tied in a knot, presumably the symbol of the U.N.'s founding purpose: "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war."
But in the three days of the Millennium Summit of world leaders (Sept. 6-8), many would say that knot became metaphorically undone to point the barrel straight at the heart of national sovereignty. Attempting to untie the knot was the largest gathering of heads of state ever assembled, arriving in mini-motorcades at a United Nations heavily barricaded for their security. Royalty and civilian heads of state jostled each other, each wearing their kingdom's best as they wound their way into the great hall to speak in tandem about "global interconnectedness" and the need for "collective responsibility" in the face of threats to "our common humanity."
To meet the heavy burden of this collective responsibility, they unanimously approved the so-called "Millennium Declaration." Subject to rubber-stamping by the U.N. General Assembly, this declaration purports to authorize, among other things, "the resources and tools" which the United Nations needs "for conflict prevention, peaceful resolution of disputes, peacekeeping, post-conflict peace-building and reconstruction."
From a podium centered between two great TV monitors, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan implored the 150-plus world leaders in the cavernous hall on the opening day to consider "very seriously" the report of the Panel on U.N. Peace Operations, a report known by the surname of its chairman, former Algerian foreign minister Lakhdar Brahimi. On the second day, Annan warned representatives of all 15 member states of the U.N. Security Council that the body's reputation "to make the difference between peace and war" was on the line, particularly in Africa. As if "pre-briefed," to use the words of one analyst, the Security Council quickly adopted a resolution to strengthen "the central role of the United Nations in peacekeeping," to address the root causes of conflict and, most importantly, to welcome the Brahimi report.
The Brahimi report aims to make the United Nations "a credible force for peace" by restructuring its Department of Peacekeeping Operations, elevating peacekeeping to "a core activity of the United Nations" and substantially increasing funding through the yearly budget instead of current ad hoc arrangements: "It means bigger forces, better equipped and more costly but able to be a credible deterrent." It calls for robust "rules of engagement" so that U.N. forces "do not have to cede the initiative to their attackers" and so that U.N. "troops or police who witness violence against civilians [will] be authorized to stop it."
John Bolton, a former assistant secretary of state for international organizations during the Bush administration and now a senior vice president at the American Enterprise Institute, tells Insight that it will not be "a bunch of people with blue helmets sitting at a base somewhere," but more "a quasi rapid-deployment force." Nevertheless, Bolton testified on Sept. 20 before the House International Relations subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights that "the U.N. now wants the capacity to wage small wars (small `moral' wars, of course)."
While some might call this a peacekeeping force, others might look at it and see a U.N. standing army. Brett Schaefer of the Heritage Foundation tells Insight that equipping the United Nations with combat capability is "ill-conceived. Essentially [it] allow[s] the. U.N. to pick the good guys and the bad guys. And I don't trust the U.N. to make that decision." The Brahimi report encourages U.N. member states to establish a national pool of civilian police officers ready to serve for one year and to enter into partnerships with other states to form "brigade-size standby forces ready for effective deployment." One such training facility, the Kofi Annan International Peacekeeping Training Centre, already is operative in Ghana. Brahimi announced that contributing troops "implies a willingness to accept the risk of casualties on behalf of the mandate."
The themes of high casualties and of subjugating "state sovereignty" to the needs of "humanity" came up again on Sept. 7 across town at the Gorbachev State of the World Forum, coconvened with Canadian Gen. Romeo Dallaire -- the former commander of U.N. forces in Rwanda who tried to warn the United Nations of the then still pending massacre of some 800,000 people. Dallaire captured the summit's fundamental dilemma underpinning the summit between state sovereignty and "humanity." When BBC interviewer Tim Sebastian asked who is responsible for such international failures in Rwanda, the general fingered "every sovereign state that put self-interest before humanity." His subsequent remarks implied that a country's reluctance to accept casualties represented "self-interest."
Annan apparently long has felt national sovereignty to be a thorn in his peacekeeping side. He told The Economist nearly a year ago that traditional notions of sovereignty and the ways states define their national interests are "obstacle[s] to effective action in humanitarian crises" such as Rwanda. "A new, broader definition of national interest is needed in the new century, which would induce states to find greater unity in the pursuit of common goals and values ... the collective interest is the national interest.... Humanity, after all, is indivisible" [italics added].
In his advance summit report, We the Peoples: The Role of the United Nations in the Twenty-first Century, Annan invoked the European Union as a model "security community," one "characterized by dependable expectations that disputes will be resolved by peaceful means." The report sets down a new concept of "a human-centered security" which cites that people are threatened less through territorial acquisition today than, for example, through internal conflict, resource depletion and wars among the poor. Thus "security," from this point of view, requires prevention. Attempting to put "legs" to that notion, Annan emphasized to the Security Council on July 20, "We must make conflict prevention the cornerstone of collective security." President Clinton, showing remarkable sync with the secretary-general, informed the Security Council on Sept. 7 that "we will be forced increasingly to define security more broadly."
How a security threat is defined determines the basis for action by the Security Council under provisions of the U.N. charter. Brahimi's tampering with these provisions (and the redefinitions of "human security" by Annan and Clinton) worries Henry Lamb, the of Eco-logic and the president/ of Sovereignty International Inc. "I find the changes most disturbing," Lamb tells Insight. "The U.N. charter authorizes military action only by the Security Council, and then only when invited by affected member states. As decision-making authority is removed from the Security Council, ostensibly to enable a faster response effort -- and even a pre-emptive strike capability -- the real power is further consolidated into administrative [bureaucratic] hands."
Underpinning such "human security" is the new concept of "individual sovereignty," which Annan juxtaposed to "state sovereignty" in The Economist article. Annan implies that states serve individuals by protecting their rights. Unlike the rights in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, which are endowed by a Creator, however, the "rights" to which the secretary-general refers are "enshrined in the charter of the U.N. and subsequent international treaties."
Journalist Mary Jo Anderson learned firsthand that rights "enshrined in the charter of the U.N." are very vulnerable indeed. A writer for the Catholic journal Crisis who sharply has criticized the United Nations for failing to protect the human rights of religious persons, she was told by officials in the U.N. press office that "religious publications had no place at this summit." "Minus sovereignty," she tells Insight, "we all become `citizens of the world' and thus there is no longer an advocate, a defender of our rights as we understand them." Only by presenting proof of previous U.N. press accreditation did she eventually receive credentials.
To be sure, "rights" increasingly are being redefined at the United Nations in ways that many religious people believe do not protect them. Some, mostly Western U.N. delegations -- including the United States -- recently have moved to legalize prostitution, to advocate "child rights" that pit children against parents and to reinterpret as "fundamental human rights" abortion, sex education for adolescents in schools without parental consent and homosexuality. The strategy is first to label something a "human right" and then to use a "right" to trump contrary claims by sovereign nations seeking to uphold traditional morality.
The same process of "rights creation" is being applied to the issue of peacekeeping and prevention. For example, Annan spoke to a meeting of the U.N. Development Program (UNDP) on Sept. 11: "Without development we can neither prevent conflict nor build peace. Without development, people will not enjoy human rights in any meaningful sense -- which is why we have now come to understand development as being in itself one of those rights. Without development, there will not be justice in the world -- and people without rights will be unlikely to `practice tolerance and live together in peace [italics in original].'"
Heritage's Schaefer scoffs at the idea of development being a right: "All you're doing by saying everything is a right is confusing people. The right to pursue happiness doesn't mean you're going to have happiness."
Even the administrator of the UNDP, Mark Malloch Brown, has learned to say the right things despite the UNDP's notoriety as an advocate of "world governance." Brown tells Insight he gets "very, very nervous" when the right to development is viewed "in the same way as the right to political free speech or the vote." In an exclusive interview, he cautions, "To me, it is just implausible to believe that you can legislate a right to a job or to education or to health care. What you can do is legislate the right to an opportunity, but what will create the job or the opportunity for education for your children is the role of an individual in creating wealth in a society; [that is] what will pay for the job." Brown's agency, with offices in 136 countries, is according to Annan "well-placed to take the lead" in postconflict "peace building."
Broadened concepts of national interest, human security and "rights" form the backdrop against which mere peacekeeping no longer is the rule. According to Brahimi, more often peacekeeping must involve "peacemaking and peace-building." Only by peace-building can the so-called "peacekeepers" make a graceful exit from the scene. It will be the job of peacekeepers, Brahimi says, "to maintain a secure local environment for peace-building and the peace-builders' task to support the political, social and economic changes that create a secure environment that is self-sustaining."
All of this expanded peacekeeping and peace-building amounts to "international nannyism," Bolton tells Insight, borrowing a phrase from Johns Hopkins University professor Michael Mandelbaum. Nannyism likewise could describe the "shared responsibility" for managing worldwide economic and social development," which the Millennium Declaration insists the world should adopt as a value. Moreover, such responsibility, especially for economic globalization, is to be monitored: "It is our job [i.e., the U.N.'s] to ensure that globalization provides benefits not just for some but for all" and "serve[s] as the place where the cause of common humanity is articulated and advanced," says the declaration.
In a clip that was edited out prior to delivering his summit talk but still was distributed to the press, Clinton, in effect, corroborated a willingness to assume the nanny role in "build[ing] social and economic institutions ... to keep alive the hope for peace." As if taking a page from Brahimi, he further emphasized in speeches to both the summit and to the Security Council the need to recognize "the iron link between deprivation and war" in order to prevent conflict. According to the report and We the Peoples, the sources of conflicts include poverty, distribution, discrimination, corruption, a failure of governance, the contest for power, competition for scarce resources and issues of ethnicity, religion or gross violation of human rights. Stated another way, any of these "root causes" of conflict could constitute a threat to international peace that requires peacekeeping intervention.
Bolton reminded the House subcommittee that such peace-building used to be called "nation-building" and that as run by the Clinton administration in Somalia ended in disaster. In one view, the concept of "indivisible humanity" is a threat to export Somalias around the world -- an undertaking that might turn Lyndon Johnson's Great Society into a global-society give-away, create hot spots in Africa and elsewhere and introduce "regovernance" and/or reconstruction in an effort to prevent conflict and to build peace. Global experts from the United Nations would be redesigning economies, training civilian police, strengthening legal and penal systems, rehabilitating degraded environments, ensuring "food security" and deepening the processes of democratization and civil society. Democracy would be imposed by authoritarian fiat.
During his summit talk, Clinton gave a vote of confidence to Annan's proposals to have the United Nations rule the world: "When leaders seize [the] chance for peace, we must help them. [T]he U.N. did not have the tools to finish the job [in Sierra Leone and West Timor]. We must provide those tools -- with peacekeepers that can be rapidly deployed with the right training and equipment, missions well-defined and well-led, with the necessary civilian police." Comparing Clinton's statement to the administration's "wavering" policy on peacekeeping in general, Chantal de Jonge Oudraat of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace glossed it for Insight as "sufficiently vague" so as to be hard to tell whether it meant the United States would send troops or train them for other countries. To Oudraat, "progress" would require actual troop engagement to send a strong signal to opponents of peace, and that means the United States would have to pay the bill: "The U.N. is a useless, weak organization without the support of the U.S. None of this, none of this [the Brahimi objectives] can become a reality without the United States."
COPYRIGHT 2000 News World Communications, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2000 Gale Group
0 comments:
Post a Comment