Posted on 09/03/2002 4:01:18 PM PDT by asneditor
Why did the United Nations (UN) and even UK Prime Minister Tony Blair try to cajole President George Bush into attending the Earth Summit meeting in Johannesburg, South Africa? The answer is the very essence of every United Nations meeting I have attended since 1995: follow the money trail.
During the 1992 Earth Summit, Secretary-General Maurice Strong cleverly devised the issue of the environment as a means of soaking the rich countries to pay the poor, while ignoring the graft and corruption of Third World governments that are the main cause of their peoples¹ sufferings. This current meeting is a follow-up to the 1992 Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit.
Since the environment affects all peoples, everywhere, all the time, it became the obsessive cause of the old line Marxists including former communist dictator Mikhail Gorbachev. Gorbachev is the president of the International Green Cross, an organization he founded in 1993 to prevent the world from committing ³eco-suicide² with headquarters in San Francisco. Some call it the watermelon effect because it is green on the outside and red on the inside.
Gorbachev and Strong have been unrelenting in their long march to achieve the redistribution dreams for absolute equity for the masses in hopes of positioning themselves and their friends as the ruling elite. And they have had a lot of help from wealthy American Steven Rockefeller who joined in writing and then pushing with evangelical zeal this redistribution agenda in a constitution-like document for a New World Order called the Earth Charter (http://www.earthcharter.org ).
This over-arching plan is the reason why the muesli-munching, environmental-wacko crowd will never be satisfied with the ideals of clean air and water. As a matter of fact, those essentials to good health are the carrot in the proverbial carrot and stick game; the stick is a series of UN treaties aiming to globally redistribute wealth.
America got caught in the game when former President George Bush attended the Rio Earth Summit and signed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) treaty that was then ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1992 before he was voted out of office.
The UNFCCC morphed into the infamous 1997 Kyoto Protocol that was binding only on developed nations with the aim of taxing them to produce energy by buying credits from Third World nations, thereby redistributing wealth from rich nations to poor ones.
President George W. Bush was prudent to decline attending this nine-ring circus in Johannesburg and astute to rebuff the Kyoto Protocol. While he is being criticized for his absence, he would come under greater criticism if he were here because it would give credibility to the very people who are out to do him in, just as they did his father¹s presidency.
Here are a few examples of the monotonous calls for wealth redistribution at this Earth Summit II:
Example: Population, Environment and Development, UN Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs: The two defining characteristics of global economic growth in the latter half of the twentieth century have been its unprecedented pace and its unequal distribution between countries and regions. Energy consumption is a function of economic growth and level of development and is therefore very unequally distributed in the world.
Response: Since three of the longest rivers in the world, the Nile, Zambezi and Congo, are on the African continent, it is not for a lack of resources that they cannot produce energy. It is also interesting to note that even though the Biblical record reveals that wells have been dug with primitive means for millennia, your tax dollars are now being used to dig wells for drinking water in Africa.
Example: Summit Star (8-28-02), Farm Subsidies exact a tragic toll. Massive farm subsidies given to First World farmers were among the main reasons behind as many as 20,000 debt-ridden Indian peasant farmers committing suicide in recent years, delegates to the World Summit on Sustainable Development were told yesterday.
Response: It is doubtful that 20,000 farmers have committed suicide. Suicide cannot be blamed on farm subsidies.
Example: The Earth Negotiations Bulletin, The EU energy initiative for poverty eradication and sustainable development, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Danish Prime Minister and President of the EU, advocated combating poverty through promoting sustainable economic growth and increasing development assistance to reach the 0.7% GNP target.
Response: The U.S. is the largest donor of the 173 contributors to the Global Environment Facility, $107.5 million annually. President Bush has requested $70.3 million from Congress annually for the next three years to pay off U.S. arrears. In addition, he has asked Congress for an additional $5 billion for foreign aid, totaling about $15 billion annually. The 0.7% called for by Rasmussen would grow that amount to about $70 billion.
Nonetheless, a non-governmental organization called World Development Movement claimed this week, This Summit has failed to tackle the causes of poverty. The U.S. tried to sabotage the talks and the EU failed to deliver on previous promises to tackle world poverty.
The UN is indeed using the environment to globally redistribute wealth, and each global meeting brings the world closer to their Marxist ideals.
Their problem is a lack of cultural resources (to put it kindly).
I see what you're saying, but that's a bit to simple. At one point, Western Europe was considered to be culturally backwards.
At any rate, most of Africa's problem is Marxism. Second, they lack the know-how. Even if the "know-how" could be shown to them, the only ones who would benefit over there are communist regimes.
Marxism is the foremost problem in African nations. That's not surprising seeing that every country that has practiced it produces poverty, misery, and death.
And it was indeed backwards. But they eventually extricated themselves.
At any rate, most of Africa's problem is Marxism. Marxism is the foremost problem in African nations
Are not the adoption of political philosophies (like Marxism) that run counter to human nature a sure sign of a people lacking "cultural resources?"
Yes, they did. But it took knowledge and cultural influences from elsewhere. They didn't just create it out of whole cloth or the thin air.
Are not the adoption of political philosophies (like Marxism) that run counter to human nature a sure sign of a people lacking "cultural resources?"
I don't know if I'd go that far. The former Soviet Union was culturally backwards (in a number of ways), but they definitely weren't technologically backwards.
Then again, look at those who hold the Marxist line right here in the U.S. We're not culturally backwards, yet Marxism thrives among the intelligensia.
Worth repeating
BTTT
So what's preventing Third World nations from obtaining the knowledge necessary to extricate themselves from their technological darkness? This is the information age, is it not?
Then again, look at those who hold the Marxist line right here in the U.S. We're not culturally backwards, yet Marxism thrives among the intelligensia.
Among the intelligensia, yes. But not among the general populace. If it did, we wouldn't be a fraction as successful as we've been.
Yes it is the information age. But who has access to the information? It's useless if you can't get to it. And since when did communist nations allow free inquiry and thought?
Among the intelligensia, yes. But not among the general populace. If it did, we wouldn't be a fraction as successful as we've been.
You're right. Thankfully, the body politic doesn't embrace Marxism, and if we did, we'd be a shell of our former selves.
But being culturally backwards does not neccesarily flow to becoming a Marxist nation. Those with the weapons dictate these terms. If you were already poor and uneducated, what are you going to do when Marxist revolutionaries take over your land? Now you're poor, uneducated, and oppressed even more because of the communist government.
Look at Zimbabwe. Mugabe lost the last election, but he didn't give up power. Those whites who were in the former Rhodesia spread enough of a thought of freedom to where the overall population now doesn't want communism. But like Mao said, all power flows from the barrel of a gun. If you're weaponless, you have no hope.
Communist African nations offer no hope to those people. It has nothing to do with culture, but pure power.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.