Global governance erupts at The Hague


By Henry Lamb
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

THE HAGUE -- Jacques Chirac, president of France,
told the delegates negotiating the Kyoto Protocol in The
Hague, that the Protocol is an important step toward
global governance. Most of the 8,000 delegates and
observers enthusiastically embrace the idea of a United
Nations agency mandating energy policy for 38
developed nations. There are a few notable exceptions.

The U.S. congressional delegation was on hand to hear
the French president link the Protocol to the U.N.'s
global governance agenda. In private conversations after
the day's business was concluded, Sen. Chuck Hagel had
sharp words of disapproval of attempts to transform the
U.N. into a world government.

The Protocol, as conceived, though not yet fully
negotiated, would give the U.N. body a double-whammy
club to beat up on 38 developed nations. First, by setting
emissions targets, the U.N. body would be able to
effectively dictate the fossil fuel energy that a developed
nation might use. Second, the U.N. would have the
authority to "enforce" compliance, using procedures,
sanctions and penalties that have not yet been defined.

Americans would not likely stand for an international law
that openly gives the U.N. the power to set energy-use
limits. So instead of attacking the input end of the energy
pipe, the politically astute U.N. machinery is attacking the
output end of the energy pipe. "Controlling emissions" is
said to be the goal, and is presented as necessary to save
the planet. Controlling energy use is the actual goal, and
is necessary for the redistribution of wealth, with little or
no impact on the planet.

The penalty for non-compliance has presented a
particularly thorny problem, because most of the 38
developed nations will be unable to meet their agreed
targets. This means that most of the affected nations will
have to pay the costs -- whatever they are -- once the
decision is taken. Consequently, compliance negotiations
go on behind closed doors, with periodic reports that
"some progress has been made." These negotiations have
been ongoing for three years -- since the Kyoto Protocol
was adopted in 1997.

Chirac's global governance announcement could be the
straw that breaks the back of the entire Protocol. After
eight days of intense negotiations, there has been little
movement on three major issues that must be resolved:
emissions trading, carbon sinks and penalties for
non-compliance. Add to these unresolved issues the
implications of global governance, and the entire process
could easily unravel.

Perhaps this would be the best possible outcome of COP
6 -- admission by the delegates that the Protocol they
pieced together in Kyoto is simply unworkable.

One of the many problems with this fatally flawed
Protocol is that it attempts to do two things at once: 1)
reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere and
2) empower the United Nations to enforce those
reductions. Either of these two objectives is a formidable
undertaking. As the delegates have struggled over the last
six years, it has become increasingly apparent that
empowering the U.N. has become more important than
reducing emissions.

Having heard Jacques Chirac say, not once, but twice,
during his presentation, that global governance is the
larger objective, the congressional delegations will have a
new dimension to report to their colleagues when they
return to Washington.

Regardless of the decisions that are taken -- or not taken
-- during this two-week session, the delegates will find
some way to save face. One scenario being discussed in
the halls is the "Kyoto scenario." This is a situation -- as
occurred in Kyoto -- in which no agreement was reached
until the last day, several hours after the scheduled
adjournment. Delegates could again go into closed
session late in the week, and stay in session until the last
minute, and then simply announce that agreement has
been reached on some of the important issues.

Credence was attached to this scenario when rumors
spread through the halls that the U.S. would cave-in on
up to 60 percent of the outstanding questions about
carbon sinks. The European Union and the U.S. have
been at odds on this issue since Kyoto. Environmental
extremists have been lobbying heavily for the delegates to
reject the U.S. position.

Adding to the uncertainty here is the uncertainty in the
U.S. Presidential race. Some speculation has emerged
that should George Bush be declared the winner, the
U.S. delegation might withdraw resistance to all
outstanding issues in order to advance the Protocol as far
as possible before a new slate of delegates is appointed
by a new administration.

Publicly, the U.S. delegation says that the present
administration will be in place until Jan. 20, and the
elections struggle has no effect on their negotiating
positions. Traditionally, the rumors in the halls tend to be
very accurate.

By the end of the week, the delegates will prove or
disprove the rumors, and some kind of face-saving
document will be applauded as progress. It will not likely
repeat Jacques Chirac's reference to global governance.
But like a stone once thrown, his words cannot be
recalled, and his words will have an impact wherever
they land. His words will land in the U.S. Congress, and
they will land across America.

Those skeptics who have been unwilling to believe that
the U.N. is, indeed, contriving a world government need
only to listen to the president of France.
=================================================================
This is no time for appeasement.
We must all speak for America
http://www.firstliberties.com/peggys_call_to_arms.html 

Henry Lamb