|
|
Norrin Radd
Joined: 04 Nov 2000
Posts: 90
|
The Desertification Treaty claims jurisdiction over 70% of t
 Sun Dec 10, 2000 7:55 pm
|
 |
|
New U.N. treaty
ratified quietly
By Henry Lamb
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com
The U.N. Convention to Combat Desertification was ratified by the U.S. Senate on October 18, but few Senators yet know that it has been ratified. Senator Craig Thomas (R-WY) introduced a package of 34 treaties, all of which were ratified by a show of hands -- no recorded vote.
Initially, Senator Thomas' office told callers that the Senator had nothing to do with the ratification. On December 8, his office called to explain that Senator Thomas just happened to be on the Senate Floor late in the afternoon of October 18 -- and was asked by the leadership to handle procedurally, the package of treaties. Senator Thomas has asked the Foreign Relations Committee to explain how, and why, the Desertification Treaty was included in the package.
At the recent climate change talks in the Hague, Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) said the treaty had not been ratified, until corrected by one of his staff. Phone calls to Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN), and other Senators, caught staffers off guard: Nobody knew how their boss voted on the ratification. They could not know -- there was no recorded vote.
This treaty was signed by the Clinton administration in 1994. It has been locked up in the Foreign Relations Committee since. Normally, treaties of such monumental importance are debated in committee and then forwarded to the Senate floor for further debate and disposition.
Not this time. The treaty appeared in a package of 34 treaties -- most of which were single-issue treaties with single nations, dealing with stolen vehicles, criminals, and the like. The Desertification Treaty, however, is not a single-issue treaty with a single nation.
This treaty is one of several environmental treaties that emerged from the 1992 U.N. Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro. One of those treaties, the Convention on Climate Change, was ratified in 1992. The Convention on Biological Diversity failed ratification in 1994. The Convention to Combat Desertification was skillfully maneuvered through the Senate to avoid the public reaction which killed the Convention on Biological Diversity.
The Desertification Treaty claims jurisdiction over 70% of the earth's land area -- virtually all of the land that is not covered by the Convention on Biological Diversity. Moreover, this new treaty creates a structure through which all other environmental treaties are supposed to be integrated under a common United Nations implementation regime. A companion treaty is now being developed by the U.N. Commission on Water for the 21st Century. The United Nations is, in fact, creating the structure in international law and, through its extensive bureaucracies, to control the use of all natural resources on earth.
The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on October 18, 2000 -- whether or not it knew what it was doing. On November 17, the Clinton administration delivered the ratification documents to the United Nations. The United States is now bound by the international law that claims the power to dictate land use in 70% of the earth's land.
The name of the treaty implies that it is concerned about deserts -- in fact, it is concerned about all land use. To combat desertification, the treaty seeks to prevent land use that its enforcers think may lead to desertification. Converting forests to pasture, for example, or pasture to row crops, or crop land to subdivisions, are all uses that may lead to desertification, according to literature produced by the United Nations.
There is no distinction between federal land and privately owned land when it comes to land use under the jurisdiction of the U.N. The U.N. sees its role to be the establishment of policy -- it is up to the participating nations to see that the policy is implemented. The recent rash of land acquisition measures promoted by the administration and Congress seeks to get more land under federal ownership. The vast expansion of regulatory control over land use by all federal agencies makes it easier for the United States to comply with its international obligations under a variety of international treaties. This new treaty extends even further the U.S. obligation to control land use.
According to the treaty itself, no reservations can be included in its ratification (Article 37). The Resolution of Ratification adopted by the Senate contains several reservations -- all of which will be ignored by the United Nations.
Withdrawal from the treaty cannot even begin until after three years of participation -- and then another year must pass before withdrawal is recognized by the U.N. -- assuming, of course, that there is some desire in the Senate to withdraw.
///
Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization and chairman of Sovereignty International.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_lamb/20001209_xchla_new_un_tre.shtml
|
| |
|
|
Thermit
Joined: 08 Jul 2000
Posts: 3136
Location: Texas |
|
Sun Dec 10, 2000 8:32 pm
|
|
|
Interesting. I'd like to be able to read some of the Treaty itself, but I don't know what type of file their download is. If anybody is able to download it, post it. Here's their summary:
UN Treaty Site
http://untreaty.un.org/English/millennium/law/xxvii-25.htm
quote:
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa, Paris, 14 October 1994
Objectives
The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification is a major achievement of the international community. Stemming from the United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the Convention is an innovative document, which breaks new ground in international environmental law.
The Convention describes its objective as "[t]o combat desertification and mitigate the effects of drought in countries experiencing serious drought and/or desertification, particularly in Africa, through effective action at all levels, supported by international cooperation and partnership arrangements in the framework of an integrated approach which is consistent with Agenda 21, with a view to contributing to the achievement of sustainable development in affected areas". Furthermore, the Convention adds that "[a]chieving this objective will involve long-term integrated strategies that focus simultaneously, in affected areas, on improved productivity of the land and the rehabilitation, conservation and sustainable management of land and water resources, leading to improved living conditions, in particular, at the community level."
Key Provisions
Both affected and developed Contracting Parties undertake comprehensive sets of obligations under the Convention. In accordance with the Convention, all Contracting Parties have an obligation to adopt an integrated approach addressing the physical, biological and socio-economic aspects of desertification and drought. In addition, affected Contracting Parties undertake to give priority to combatting desertification and mitigating the effects of drought by establishing strategies and priorities within the framework of sustainable development plans and policies. In turn, Contracting Parties from developed countries commit themselves to active support by providing substantial financial resources and other forms of assistance, individually or jointly, to the efforts of affected developing Contracting Parties.
The Convention is to be implemented through National Action Programmes supplemented by such programmes at regional and sub-regional levels. National Action Programmes form the very core of the Convention. The Contracting Parties should implement the Convention, taking into account the participation of populations and local communities in a spirit of partnership and international cooperation.
The Conference of the Parties (COP) is established as the supreme body of the Convention, whose main task is to make the decisions necessary to promote effective implementation of the Convention. The Convention also establishes a Permanent Secretariat which will, among other duties, make arrangements for sessions of the Conference of the Parties and its subsidiary bodies, and compile and transmit reports submitted to it. Scientific and technological information and advice will be provided by a Committee on Science and Technology.
Africa is given priority and particular attention throughout the Convention and the first of the four Regional Implementation Annexes, which form an integral part of the Convention, is devoted to the continent. There are three further Regional Implementation Annexes to the Convention (Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean and the Northern Mediterranean) to provide guidelines and arrangements for the effective implementation of the Convention. All of the Annexes provide for action programmes to be part and parcel of their policies for sustainable development.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Thermit on 12-10-2000] |
| |
|
|
cydoniaquest
Joined: 12 Aug 2000
Posts: 797
Location: nowhere |
|
Mon Dec 11, 2000 10:11 am
|
|
|
DELETED BY THE ARTIST FORMALLY KNOWN AS CYDONIAQUEST
[Edited 1 times, lastly by cydoniaquest on 01-13-2001] |
| |
|
|
Norrin Radd
Joined: 04 Nov 2000
Posts: 90
|
|
Tue Dec 12, 2000 8:39 am
|
|
|
I think is is ver disturbing. We just don't seem to want to listen.
I just don't understand why it is so tough to get people to care about the UN and what is really going in the world. This election debacle has people in a trance. I have posted mountains of evidence at 2 other discussion forums, yet most of the people just go back to their bashing of Gore/Bush/Hillary/Rosie, or whomever they think is worth complaining about.
It really is frustrating some times. Luckily, people like you and numerous others, are helping to spread the truth.
I just wish it wasn't such an uphill struggle all the time.
Anyways, I seem to agree with most of your opinions, as we do seem to be on the same wavelength and I hope to read more of your posts.
Brent
p.s.
I thought you might enjoy this.......
(bracketed paragraph is my emphasis)
By Betsy Pisik
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
NEW YORK Sen. Jesse Helms Thursday blasted the United Nations for its "lack of gratitude" to the United States, sternly warning that the international body risks U.S. withdrawal if it continues "to impose its presumed authority on the American people." "They see the U.N. aspiring to establish itself as the central authority of a new international order of global laws and global governance. This is an international order the American people will not countenance," said the North Carolina Republican, perhaps the U.N.'s staunchest critic.
Mr. Helms, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the first member of Congress ever to address the 15-member Security Council, was coolly received by the executive body. After his fiery 40-minute speech, there was no applause. While Mr. Helms said he was appearing before the body's Security Council to extend a "hand of friendship," he added that "candor compels that I reiterate this warning: The American people will never accept the claims of the United Nations to be the 'sole source of legitimacy on the use of force' in the world.
"A United Nations that seeks to impose its presumed authority on the American people without their consent begs for confrontation, and I want to be candid eventual U.S. withdrawal." Mr. Helms facing council members fully aware that he had come to denounce many aspects of the United Nations did not mince words. He opened by saying, "It may very well be that some of the things I feel obliged to say will not meet with your immediate approval if at all." He then lashed the body for charges that the United States is a "deadbeat nation" for not paying more than $1 billion in dues.
[Mr. Helms said that while the United States had agreed, under certain conditions, to pay $926 million toward U.N. arrears of well over $1 billion, it actually spent $8.8 billion last year to support "various U.N. resolutions and peacekeeping operations around the world." "The money we spend on the U.N. is not charity. To the contrary, it is an investment an investment from which the American people rightly expect a return. "They have grown increasingly frustrated with what they feel is a lack of gratitude," he said. Mr. Helms said the United Nations must not only trim its spending, but cease drawing the United States into "entangling alliances." On that topic, too, Mr. Helms left no room for misunderstanding.]
Mr. Helms told the Security Council it had a "mixed record" in recent conflicts. While it "performed admirably" in ending Iraqi aggression against Kuwait in 1990 and 1991, "In the more recent case of Kosovo, it was paralyzed," he said. "The U.N. peacekeeping mission in Bosnia was a disaster, and its failure to protect the Bosnian people from Serb genocide is well documented," he added.
Mr. Helms also took issue with Secretary-General Kofi Annan's calls for increased "global engagement." The United Nations "must respect national sovereignty" and not seek "to impose its utopian vision of international law on Americans." "What the secretary-general calls 'rights beyond borders' we in America call 'inalienable rights,' " the senator said. Quoting the U.S. Constitution, he said those rights were endowed "not by kings or despots, but by our Creator."
The American people, he said, have a "long history of coming to the aid of those struggling for freedom." It is a "fanciful notion that free peoples need to seek the approval of an international body to lend support to nations struggling to break the chains of tyranny and claim their inalienable, God-given rights."
He also lambasted a proposed treaty for an International Criminal Court, which would claim jurisdiction over American soldiers even without ratification from Washington. Mr. Helms said Americans have drawn their own conclusion about the motives of the world body.
"As matters now stand, many Americans sense that the U.N. has greater ambitions than simply being an efficient deliverer of humanitarian aid, a more effective peacekeeper, a better weapons inspector, and a more effective tool of great power diplomacy. "If the United Nations is to survive into the 21st century, it must recognize its limitations," he said.
After Mr. Helms' speech, ambassadors from Russia, France and other countries responded by denouncing U.S. failure to pay all its dues. "All the other members of the United Nations expected the United States to keep its word," said Sergey Lavrov, Russia's representative.
Chinese ambassador Qin Huasun told the staunchly anti-communist senator, in a masterpiece of understatement, that "our views may not be completely identical," adding that the United Nations could be effective only if it respected sovereignty, equality among states and noninterference.
While the day was the height of decorum and diplomacy, there were some fireworks. After Mr. Helms castigated Cuban President Fidel Castro in his speech, the country's U.N. envoy, Bruno Rodriguez, who is not a council member, raced to the front of the hall and said the senator's remarks were "unacceptable and slanderous." U.S. Ambassador Richard C. Holbrooke, who had invited Mr. Helms to address the council, gaveled Mr. Rodriguez into silence.
In another bit of understatement, Mr. Holbrooke delivered a simple post-speech assessment of the senator's performance during the speech, in which Mr. Helm's occasionally banged his hands on the table to emphasize a point: "It was something."
This article is based in part on wire service reports.
http://www.geocities.com/romcath1/UNwatch.html |
| |
|
|
cydoniaquest
Joined: 12 Aug 2000
Posts: 797
Location: nowhere |
|
Tue Dec 12, 2000 9:50 am
|
|
|
DELETED BY THE ARTIST FORMALLY KNOWN AS CYDONIAQUEST
[Edited 2 times, lastly by cydoniaquest on 01-13-2001] |
| |
|
|
Norrin Radd
Joined: 04 Nov 2000
Posts: 90
|
|
Tue Dec 12, 2000 7:20 pm
|
|
|
I agree with almost everything you said. The one point where we differ, seems to be our belief in Bush and Republicans. I do not believe Bush will do anything to stop the UN othe coming one world government. Bush Sr. is a key player in the coming NWO, I just don't think his son is going to do anything to even slow down the powers that be.
No, I don't see why you were banned from CTTUSA. This is wrong and one of the reasons I don't go there as much as I used to.
I believe almost all Republicans and Democrats have sold out the American people. How anyone can believe otherwise is beyond me.
I also believe Ron Paul is possibly the only true Hero in Congress today. He is the only one willing to tell us the truth and the only one who proposes legislation to get us out of the UN.
Alan Keyes is one of the few other politicians that I respect. His position on drugs is one issue we differ on.
Some opinions that I agree with....
Mr. keyes;
Keep some forces abroad, but avoid globalism. (Nov 1999)
Defend human rights & self-govt within national interests. (Nov 1999)
Kosovo sets precedent for more future intervention. (Jun 1999)
Routine military intervention is wrong. (Feb 15)
Panama Canal: Keep US in; keep China Out. (Jan 14)
Africa: No money for AIDS, because money won’t cure AIDS. (Jan 10)
Against paying UN until they reform. (Oct 1999)
Fostered policy of withholding UN funds; UN wastes US taxes. (Oct 1999)
Call to account those responsible for Chinese espionage. (May 1999)
If the UN undermines US sovereignty, we should quit. (Jan 1999)
South Africa: Venture capital instead of foreign aid. (May 1996)
Support Israel on moral grounds, not economic nor strategic. (May 1996)
Rwanda: Humanitarian grounds 150x more than in Bosnia. (Jan 1996)
|
| |
|
|
nodebbunker
Joined: 01 Nov 2000
Posts: 200
Location: Indiana USA |
|
Tue Dec 12, 2000 7:45 pm
|
|
|
Hey Brent. Looks like we agree on just about everything, from the Bushes to Alan Keyes. George W. is taking us for the same NWO ride as the dems, only I don't think he's a radical watermelon. The destination is the same, the ride may be less bumpy if Bush wins, however, I have a bad feeling that won't be the end of it. China's too quiet these days and Russia is attempting to make some new friends. |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is Thu May 17, 2012 1:46 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
