Jaunary / February 1996

Report of the Commission on Global Governance:
Our Global Neighborhood

About the Commission on Global Governance

The Environmental Conservation Organization's National Conference
Global Environmentalism: Agenda 21's Impact on America
March 21 - 23, 1996

Following the Money (still)

Is it time to withdraw for the U.N.?
Commentary by Henry Lamb

HR 2535

From the Internet...

About this edition...

This edition may contain the most important article we have ever published: The Report of the Commission on Global Governance. We have known for years that global forces were moving toward world government, but not until this report have we seen the comprehensive plan published in an official document offered to the world. The recommendations are arrogantly bold and frighteningly serious.

The plan is to convene a World Conference on Global Governance in 1998 (similar to the Earth Summit in 1992) to present the treaties and agreements for adoption and implementation by the year 2000. The global environmental agenda is the catalyst for global governance.

Because of the urgency of global events, we have scheduled a national conference in March to bring together the leading experts in America to demonstrate the impact Agenda 21 is having on American life. If global governance is to be prevented, Americans must know - and act - before the 1996 elections.

The program and registration information is provided. Space is limited, and so are the scholarships. Please get your registration form returned as quickly as possible.

Still on the money trail, we have shared recent funding information about the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and some of the 1995 grants awarded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

Congressman John Scarborough (R-FL) has introduced a bill (HR2535) which calls for the withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations. The entire Bill is printed on page 22. Thoughts on withdrawal are offered in a commentary.

From the Internet provides valuable insight into how the Sierra Club sees Washington, and the prospects for the new year.

1996 may be as important for America as 1776; get ready!

Report of the Commission on Global Governance:
Our Global Neighborhood

The Commission on Global Governance has released its recommendations in preparation for a World Conference on Global Governance, scheduled for 1998, at which official world governance treaties are expected to be adopted for implementation by the year 2000. Among those recommendations are specific proposals to expand the authority of the United Nations to provide:

Global taxation;

A standing UN army;

An Economic Security Council;

UN authority over the global commons;

An end to the veto power of permanent members of the Security Council;

A new parliamentary body of "civil society" representatives (NGOs);

A new "Petitions Council;"

A new Court of Criminal Justice;

Binding verdicts of the International Court of Justice;

Expanded authority for the Secretary General.

These proposals reflect the work of dozens of different agencies and commissions over several years, but are now being advanced by the Commission on Global Governance in its report entitled Our Global Neighborhood (Oxford University Press, 1995, ISBN 0-19-827998-3, 410pp).

The Commission consists of 28 individuals, carefully selected because of their prominence, influence, and their ability to effect the implementation of the recommendations. The Commission is not an official body of the United Nations. It was, however, endorsed by the UN Secretary General and funded through two trust funds of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), nine national governments, and several foundations, including the MacArthur Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Carnegie Corporation.

The Commission believes that world events, since the creation of the United Nations in 1945, combined with advances in technology, the information revolution, and the now-global awareness of impending environmental catastrophe, create a climate in which the people of the world will recognize the need for, and the benefits of, global governance. Global governance, according to the report, "does not imply world government or world federalism." Although the difference between "world government" and "global governance" has been compared to the difference between "rape" and "date-rape," the system of governance described in the report is a new system. There is no historic model for the system here proposed, nor is there any method by which the governed may decide whether or not they wish to be governed by such a system. Global governance is a procedure toward defined objectives that employs a variety of methods, none of which give the governed an opportunity to vote "yes" or "no" for the outcome. Decisions taken by administrative bodies, or by bodies of appointed delegates, or by "accredited" civil society organizations, are already implementing many of the recommendations just published by the Commission.

The Foundation for Global Governance

The foundation for global governance is the belief that the world is now ready to accept a "global civic ethic" based on "a set of core values that can unite people of all cultural, political, religious, or philosophical backgrounds." This belief is reinforced by another belief: "that governance should be underpinned by democracy at all levels and ultimately by the rule of enforceable law."

The report says: "We believe that all humanity could uphold the core values of respect for life, liberty, justice and equity, mutual respect, caring, and integrity." In the fine print, these lofty values lose much of their appeal. Respect for life, for example, is not limited to human life. "Respect for life" actually means equal respect for all life. The Global Biodiversity Assessment (Section 9), prepared under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme, describes in great detail the biocentric view that "humans are one strand in nature's web," consistent with the biocentric view that all life has equal intrinsic value. Some segments of humanity may balk at extending to trees, bugs, and grizzly bears the same respect for life that is extended to human beings.

"Next to life, liberty is what people value most," the report says. It also says: "The impulse to possess turf is a powerful one for all species; yet it is one that people must overcome." It also says: "global rules of custom constrain the freedom of sovereign states," and "sensitivity over the relationship between international responsibility and national sovereignty [is a] considerable obstacle to the leadership at the international level," and "Although states are sovereign, they are not free individually to do whatever they want." Maurice Strong, a member of the Commission, and a likely candidate for the position of Secretary General, said in an essay entitled Stockholm to Rio: A Journey Down a Generation: "It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation-states, however powerful. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the imperatives of global environmental cooperation."

The core value of "justice and equity" is the basis for sweeping changes in the UN as proposed by the Commission. The Commission has determined that: "Although people are born into widely unequal economic and social circumstances, great disparities in their conditions or life chances are an affront to the human sense of justice. A broader commitment to equity and justice is basic to more purposeful action to reduce disparities and bring about a more balanced distribution of opportunities around the world. A commitment to equity everywhere is the only secure foundation for a more humane world order.... Equity needs to be respected as well in relationships between the present and future generations. The principle of intergenerational equity underlies the strategy of sustainable development."

"Mutual respect" is broadly defined as "tolerance." "Some assertions of particular identities may in part be a reaction against globalization and homogenization, as well as modernization and secularization. Whatever the causes, their common stamp is intolerance." Individual achievement and personal responsibility are counter to the value of "mutual respect" as suggested in the UN's World Core Curriculum, authored by Robert Muller, Chancellor of the UN University and former Deputy Secretary General to three UN Secretaries General. The Robert Muller School World Core Curriculum Manual (November, 1986) says: "The idea for the school grew out of a desire to provide experiences which would enable the students to become true planetary citizens through a global approach to education." The first principle of the curriculum is to: "Promote growth of the group idea, so that group good, group understanding, group interrelations and group goodwill replace all limited, self-centered objectives leading to group consciousness."

The value of "caring" is institutionalized in the Commission's proposals: "The task for governance is to encourage a sense of caring, through policies and mechanisms that facilitate co-operation to help those less privileged or needing comfort and support in the world." "Integrity" is defined to be the adoption and practice of these core values and the absence of corruption. As the world adopts these core values, the Commission believes a "global ethic" will emerge. Global governance will "Embody this ethic in the evolving system of international norms, adapting, where necessary, existing norms of sovereignty and self-determination to changing realities." The effectiveness of this global ethic "will depend upon the ability of people and governments to transcend narrow self-interests and agree that the interests of humanity as a whole will be best served by acceptance of a set of common rights and responsibilities. Without the objectives and limits that a global ethic would provide, however, global civil society could become unfocused and even unruly. That could make effective global governance difficult."

Among the "rights" such a global ethic would bestow upon all people are:

A secure life;

An opportunity to earn a fair living;

Equal access to the global commons.

The right to "a secure life" means much more than freedom from the threat of war. "Human security includes safety from chronic threats such as hunger, disease, and repression, as well as protection from sudden and harmful disruptions in the patterns of daily life. The Commission believes that the security of people must be regarded as a goal as important as the security of states." Herein lies a significant expansion of the responsibilities of the United Nations. Until now, the UN's responsibility was limited to its member states. The Commission's proposals will give to the UN responsibility for the security of individuals within the boundaries of member states. This shift is extremely significant as we shall see when we examine proposed changes in the structure and authority of UN organizations.

The right to a secure life also means the right to live on a secure planet. "Human activity...combined with unprecedented increases in human numbers...are impinging on the planet's basic life support systems. Action must be taken now to control the human activities that produce these risks.... In confronting these risks, the only acceptable path is to apply the `precautionary principle'." Clearly, the Commission sees the UN as the global authority for protecting the environment.

The right to earn a "fair living" carries with it far-reaching implications. The Commission discusses at length what is "fair" and what is not. It is not fair, for example, for the developed countries, which contain 20 percent of the population, to use 80 percent of the natural resources. It is not fair for the permanent members of the Security Council to have the right of veto. In general, it is not fair for one segment of the population to be rich while another segment of the population is poor. "Unfair in themselves, poverty and extreme disparities of income fuel both guilt and envy when made more visible by global television. They demand, and in recent decades have begun to receive, a new standard of global governance." The right to earn a fair living implies that there must be some kind of a job available from which people may earn their living. Under the auspices of a new Economic Security Council, which we will discuss later, the Commission would give the UN responsibility for seeing that all people would have "an opportunity to earn a fair living."

The Commission sees pollution of the global atmosphere and the depletion of ocean fisheries as inadequacies of global governance. "We propose, therefore, that the Trusteeship Council...be given the mandate of exercising trusteeship over the global commons. Its functions would include the administration of environmental treaties.... It would refer any economic or security issues arising from these matters to the Economic Security Council or the Security Council." Trusteeship over the global commons provides the basis to levy user fees, taxes and royalties for permits to use the global commons. Global commons are defined to be: "the atmosphere, outer space, the oceans, and the related environment and life-support systems that contribute to the support of human life." This broad definition of the global commons would give the UN authority to deal with environmental matters inside the borders of sovereign states, and on privately owned property.

The foundation of global governance is a set of core values, a belief system, which contains ideas that are foreign to the American experience, and ignores other values and ideas that are precious to the American experience. The values and ideas articulated in the Commission's report are not new. They have been tried, under different names, in other societies. Often, the consequences have been devastating. These values, under new names, have been emerging in UN documents since the late 1980s, and have dominated international conferences, agreements, and treaties since 1992. This set of core values underlies Agenda 21 adopted in Rio de Janeiro. Virtually every international treaty and agreement introduced during this decade reflects this set of core values. The Commission's recommendations to achieve global governance seek to enforce these values through the programs authorized and implemented by a global bureaucracy growing from a revitalized and restructured United Nations system.

The Structure of Global Governance

The UN Security Council is the supreme organ of the United Nations system. Originally, the Council had eleven members, of which China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States were permanent members with veto power. The other six positions rotated in two- year terms among the remaining members of the UN General Assembly. The Council now has 15 members which would be increased to 23. The proposal stops short of recommending the elimination of permanent status, but does recommend that the remaining members serve as "standing members" until a full review of member status can be conducted, including the permanent members, "in the first decade of the next century." A phase-out of the veto power of permanent members is recommended.

Perhaps more important are the proposed new principles under which the Security Council may take action. We propose that the following be used as norms for security policies in the new era:

All people, no less than all states, have a right to a secure existence;

Global security policy should be to prevent conflict and war and to maintain the integrity of the planet's life-support systems by eliminating the economic, social, environmental, political and military conditions that generate threats to the security of people and the planet;

Military force is not a legitimate political instrument except in self-defense or under UN auspices.

The production and trade in arms should be controlled by the international community.

The Commission believes and recommends "that it is necessary to assert...the rights and interests of the international community in situations within individual states in which the security of people is violated extensively. We believe a global consensus exists today for a UN response on humanitarian grounds in cases of gross abuse of the security of people."

Subtle, carefully crafted language significantly expands the mission and authority of the UN Security Council to intervene in the affairs of sovereign states when it determines that the security of individuals is in jeopardy. Security of individuals, under the set of core values and the new global ethic, includes an opportunity to earn a fair living, and equal access to the global commons. This expanded authority includes military intervention - as a last resort.

The Security Council would also be empowered to raise a standing army. Article 43 of the UN Charter authorizes such a force, but has never been activated. The Commission says: "It is high time that this idea - a United Nations Volunteer Force - was made a reality." Such a force would be under the exclusive authority of the UN Security Council and under the day-to-day command of the UN Secretary General. It would maintain its own support and mobilization capabilities and be available for "rapid deployment" anywhere in the world. The Commission envisions a small, highly trained, well equipped force of 10,000 troops for immediate intervention while more conventional "peace keeping" forces are assembled from member nations.

A Restructured Trusteeship Council

The Trusteeship Council is an original principal organ of the United Nations system. Created to oversee nations in transition from colonies to independence, its work was concluded in 1994 when the last of the colonies, Palau in the South Pacific, gained its independence. The Commission has proposed amending Chapters 12 and 13 of the UN Charter to give the Trusteeship Council authority over the global commons, and to reconstitute the Council with a fixed number of members including qualified members from "civil society." This proposal is another extremely significant step in the creation of a new form of governance. A "qualified member from civil society" means a representative from an accredited NGO (non-government organization). The status of NGOs is elevated even further in the Commission's recommendations which we will be see later. Here, however, for the first time, unelected, self-appointed, environmental activists are given a position of governmental authority on the governing board of the agency which controls the use of atmosphere, outer space, the oceans, and, for all practical purposes, biodiversity. This invitation for "civil society" to participate in global governance is described as expanding democracy.

The work assigned to the Trusteeship Council is now the responsibility of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), which was an original principal organ of the UN system. The Commission proposes that ECOSOC be retired and all the agencies and programs under its purview be shifted to the Trusteeship Council. The United Nations Environment Programme, along with all the environmental treaties under its jurisdiction, would ultimately be governed by a special body of environmental activists, chosen only from accredited NGOs appointed by delegates to the General Assembly who are themselves appointed by the President. The Commission says: "The most important step to be taken is the conceptual one that the time has come to acknowledge that the security of the planet is a universal need to which the UN system must cater." The environmental work program of the entire UN system will be authorized and coordinated by this body. Enforcement will come from an upgraded Security Council, and from the new Economic Security Council.

The New Economic Security Council

Described as an "Apex Body," the Economic Security Council (ESC) is proposed to have "the standing in relation to international economic matters that the Security Council has in peace and security matters." The new ESC would be a deliberative, policy body rather than an executive agency. It would work by consensus without veto power by any member. "The time is now ripe - indeed, overdue - to create a global forum that can provide leadership in economic, social and environmental fields." According to the Commission, the new ESC would:

Continuously assess the overall state of the world economy;

Provide a long-term strategic policy framework to promote sustainable development;

Secure consistency between the policy goals of the international economic institutions (World Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization, Global Environment Facility, and others);

Study proposals for financing public goods by international revenue raising. (Public goods are defined to be: "The rules and sense of order that must underpin any stable and prosperous system.... It is in their nature not to be provided by markets or by individual governments acting in isolation").

The agenda to be addressed by the ESC includes: "long-term threats to security in its widest sense, such as shared ecological crises, economic instability, rising unemployment...mass poverty...and with the promotion of sustainable development."

The Commission recommends that the ESC have no more than 23 members, that it be headed by a new Deputy Secretary-General for Economic Co-operation and Development, and that the gross domestic product (GDP) of all member nations be measured by and based upon "Purchase Power Parity (PPP)." PPP is an accounting device, which (according to a chart on page 163 of the report) transforms the 1991 U.S. trade deficit of $28 billion into a trade surplus of $164 billion.

Both the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the International Labor Organization (ILO) would be brought under the authority of the new ESC. The Commission believes: "for economic growth to raise the living standards of the poor and be environmentally sustainable, trade has to be open and based on stable, multilaterally agreed rules." The ESC would be given authority over telecommunications and multimedia. Since the atmosphere and outer space are "global commons" assigned to the Trusteeship Council, businesses that use the air waves and satellites would be subject to the policies of the ESC. The Commission says: " Civil society itself should try to provide a measure of global public service broadcasting not linked to commercial interests. The highest priority should be given to examining how an appropriate system of global governance can be created for overseeing the `global information society' through a common regulatory approach." The Commission calls on the WTO to give poor countries preferential treatment in license allocations and to create rules to counter the influence of "national monopolies."

Without this high-level ESC, the Commission fears that "the global neighborhood could become a battleground of contending economic forces, and the capacity of humanity to develop a common approach will be jeopardized." The ESC is expected to address the problem of tariffs and quotas, and, "A wide range of what used to be considered purely as national concerns: nationally created technical and product standards, different approaches to social provision and labour markets, competition policy, environmental control, investment incentives, corporate taxation, and different traditions of commercial and intellectual property law, of corporate governance, of government intervention, and of cultural behavior."

The ESC is designed to centralize and consolidate policy making for not only world trade, but also for the international monetary system and world development. The Commission says: "there is a broad consensus on many of the elements: an understanding of the importance of environmental sustainability; financial stability; and a strong social dimension to policy, emphasizing education (especially of women), health, and family planning." To deal with third-world debt, the Commission recommends that a system be established "akin to corporate bankruptcy, whereby a state accepts that its affairs will, for a while, be placed under the management of representatives of the international community and a fresh start is made, wiping much of the slate clean." The ESC is expected to facilitate "technology transfer" which is "crucial to development" in developing countries. The ESC is expected to establish immigration policies because "there is an underlying inconsistency - even hypocrisy - in the way many governments treat migration. They claim a belief in free markets (including labour markets), but use draconian and highly bureaucratic regulations to control cross-border labour migration."

Environmental policies are to be under the authority of the Trusteeship Council, but implementation and enforcement of those policies will largely be a function of the ESC. Implementation measures will be coordinated through UN organizations and NGOs. The Commission recognizes that: "Non-governmental organizations, such as the World Conservation Union (IUCN), the World Resources Institute (WRI), and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), have also made important contributions by creating a climate conducive to official action to improve environmental governance." (Co-chair of the Commission on Global Governance is the immediate past president of the IUCN, Shirdath Ramphal; the IUCN created the WWF in 1961, and the WWF created the World Resources Institute in 1982. The immediate past president of WRI, Gustave Speth, is now head of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), and WRI's chief policy analyst, Rafe Pomerance, is now Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment, Health and Natural Resources).

The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD), created as a result of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), (headed by Maurice Strong) is expected to be "the focal point within the UN system for coherence and co-ordination of programmes undertaken by various UN agencies. The CSD should not, however, be seen simply as an administrative co-ordinating body. It exists to give political leadership more generally in the field of sustainable development, in particular in implementing Agenda 21 as agreed at Rio."

The Commission recognizes that: "sustainable development cannot be achieved solely through government action or market forces. The growing reliance on non-governmental organizations and institutions as partners with government and business in achieving economic progress is leading to more participatory development. Involving agents of civil society leads to programmes and projects that are more focused on people and more productive." To insure greater involvement by "civil society," the Commission has formalized proposals to elevate the status of NGOs.

The Machinery of Global Governance

The Commission recommends the creation of two new bodies: (1) an Assembly of the People, and (2) a Forum of Civil Society. "What is generally proposed is the initial setting up of an assembly of parliamentarians, consisting of representatives elected by existing national legislatures from among their members, and the subsequent establishment of a world assembly through direct election by the people." The Forum of Civil Society would consist of "300 - 600 representatives of organizations accredited to the General Assembly...." The Forum would meet annually prior to the meeting of the UN General Assembly. "The considered views of the Forum would be a qualitative change in the underpinnings of global governance."

NGO participation in global governance is an essential feature, and is, in fact, the dimension of governance that is totally new. It is no longer just an idea. It is a demonstrated fact of life which the Commission now seeks to institutionalize through legal status. It is the machinery of global governance which is organized and coordinated from the highest chambers of governance at the United Nations, to the most local bodies of governance, including County Commissions, City Councils, and even to local watershed councils.

The idea of NGO participation in global governance is as old as the United Nations. Julius Huxley, who founded the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), in 1946, also founded the IUCN in 1948. It was the IUCN that effectively lobbyied the UN General Assembly in 1968 to adopt Resolution #1296, which establishes a policy for "accrediting" certain NGOs. The IUCN is accredited to at least six different UN organizations. Moreover, it is the premier international NGO claiming a membership of 53 international NGOs, 550 national NGOs, 100 government agencies, and 68 sovereign nations. The current president of the IUCN is Jay Hair, former president of America's largest NGO, the National Wildlife Federation.

The IUCN created the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) which in turn, created the World Resources Institute (WRI). These three NGOs share publication credit with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) on virtually every major document on the environment that has been released since 1972. As of 1994, there were 980 accredited NGOs. These NGOs are accredited because of their demonstrated support of issues being advanced by the United Nations. A single NGO is selected to coordinate activities within each issue area. In addition to the Internet, NGO coordination information is published by the WRI in a publication called Networking. Activity of non-accredited NGOs is coordinated through membership in the IUCN. The IUCN Annual Report for 1993 claims more than 6000 "experts" in their network who serve as volunteers "on Technical Advisory Committees, Regional Advisory Councils, Working Groups and Task Forces. Taken together, these voluntary groups are an immense strength of the Union."

According to the Commission's report, 28,900 international NGOs are known to exist, and many are directly involved in advancing the agenda of global governance. At UNCED, for example, 7,892 NGOs were certified to participate in the "civil society forum" which preceded the actual conference. Many of the NGOs participated in the preliminary Preparatory Committee Meetings, or "PrepComs," and were prepared and present to lobby the official delegates to the conference. This procedure is followed at virtually every global and regional conference.

This procedure is now being applied to domestic policy. Members of the international NGO community have strong national constituencies, and enormous staff and money capabilities. Global issues, such as the Biodiversity Treaty, which require national or local action, become the focus of the domestic agenda for national NGOs. The structure and mechanics of "civil society" participation in global governance is further revealed in a variety of documents originating from the UN organizations and from the IUCN, WWF, and the WRI.

Most often, the term "Public/Private Partnerships" is used to describe and define "civil society" participation. At the lowest, "on-the-ground" level, NGOs are present and prepared to lobby on issues relating to a particular watershed, or a particular project under consideration by a local zoning board. Public/Private Partnerships encourage the creation of "boards" or "councils" which are supposed to represent the interests of all the "stakeholders." In reality, these boards are encouraged because well-prepared NGOs are most often able to dominate the outcome. At the local level, NGOs are frequently full-time professionals, paid by a not-for-profit organization, funded through the coordinated efforts of the Environmental Grantmakers Association or the federal government. The other "stakeholders" in these partnerships are business people who work for a living and simply want to take care of the environment, but have too little time to become experts on the issues.

Within the broader agenda, NGOs within these local partnerships coordinate with NGOs assigned to multi-county, or regional councils. The NGOs that are assigned to regional councils and partnerships coordinate with the NGOs that set the national agenda. And they are, of course, the same NGOs that are accredited to the UN, or are members of the IUCN. Deep within the 1,100 or more pages of the Global Biodiversity Assessment, there is a discussion of this procedure which, ideally, would culminate with a "Bioregional Council," consisting of "stakeholders," but dominated by affiliates of "accredited" NGOs, that would have ultimate authority over all local land and resource use decisions.

To further strengthen the participation of NGOs, the Commission recommends the creation of "a new `Right of Petition' available to international civil society." The recommendation calls for the creation of a Council for Petitions, "a high-level panel of five to seven persons, independent of governments and selected in their personal capacity. It would be appointed by the Secretary-General with approval of the General Assembly. It should be a Council that holds in trust `the security of people' and makes recommendations to the Secretary-General, the Security Council, and the General Assembly." This new mechanism provides a direct route from the local, "on-the-ground" NGO affiliates of national and international NGOs to the highest levels of global governance. Although this mechanism has not yet been formally incorporated into the UN system, the procedure is being used. For example, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, a group of affiliated NGOs, recently petitioned the World Heritage Committee of UNESCO asking for intervention in the plans of a private company to mine gold on private land near Yellowstone Park. The UNESCO Committee did intervene, and immediately listed Yellowstone as a "World Heritage Site in Danger." Under the terms of the World Heritage Convention, the United States is required to protect the park, even beyond the borders of the park, and onto private lands if necessary.

Enforcing Global Governance

"From the outset, the World Court was marginalized...states were free to take it or leave it, in whole or in part. The rule of law was asserted and, at the same time, undermined." The Commission intends to remedy this situation. Historically, scholars have argued that international law was not really law because there was no international legislature to create it, nor an international police force to enforce it. The Commission's recommendations remedy these problems.

The UN International Law Commission (ILC), a little-known subsidiary organ of the General Assembly created in 1947, is expected to expand its activity to include developing and drafting proposed international law. The IUCN now provides this service through its Environmental Law Centre.

The Commission recommends that treaties and agreements be written to include binding adjudication by the World Court, and that all nations "accept compulsory jurisdiction of the World Court." The WTO is a step in this direction. Members agree in advance to accept WTO decisions and not seek bilateral resolution of disputes. "The very essence of global governance is the capacity of the international community to ensure compliance with the rules of society."

The New International Criminal Court

The ILC has already developed the statutes necessary to create a new International Criminal Court. The example used to justify this court is Lybia's refusal to extradite the accused terrorists responsible for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie. "An International Criminal Court should have an independent prosecutor or a panel of prosecutors....Upon receipt of a complaint, the prosecutor's primary responsibility would be to investigate an alleged crime. The prosecutor would, of course, have to act independently and not seek or receive instructions from any government or other source."

The Commission recognizes that these recommendations may encounter opposition, and warns that "internal political processes within nation-states...may become obstacles to adoption of international standards. In the contemporary world, populist action has the potential to strike down the carefully crafted products of international deliberation....Yielding to internal political pressure can in a moment destroy the results of a decade of toil."

Although not explicitly referenced, this revealing commentary likely points to the outpouring of grassroots opposition to the Biodiversity Treaty when presented to the Senate for ratification in the 103rd Congress. The treaty - signed by President Clinton, approved by the Democratically-controlled Foreign Relations Committee, championed by virtually all the accredited NGOs, and expected to be approved by a wide margin, - never reached the floor for a vote because of "populist action."

The Commission does not discuss why the activity of accredited NGOs and their affiliates is "expanding democracy" through civil society participation, while at the same time, activity of non-accredited civil society is "political pressure," and "populist action."

Financing Global Governance

The Commission says: "Past reports recommending globally redistributive tax principles have received short shrift. The time could be right, however, for a fresh look and a breakthrough in this area. The idea of safeguarding and managing the global commons - particularly those related to the physical environment - is now widely accepted; this cannot happen with a drip-feed approach to financing. And the notion of expanding the role of the United Nations is now accepted in relation to military security."

Currently, total UN expenditures are slightly more than $11 billion annually, although not all the costs of peacekeeping activities are reflected through the UN system. The cost of implementing Agenda 21 was estimated in 1992 to be $600 billion per year. The proposed expansion of the UN system, and the proposals to expand programmatic responsibility suggest staggering costs. Currently, UN costs are paid by member nations in the form of assessments and voluntary contributions. The UN Charter says the costs will be paid by member nations as apportioned by the General Assembly, with no nation paying more than 25 percent. The United States is assessed 25 percent, contributes substantially to the volunteer programs, and ultimately pays more than 30 percent of the peacekeeping costs.

Because the UN has no power to enforce payment of either assessments or voluntary contributions, the Commission says "the industrialized countries...have severely constrained the exercise of the Assembly's collective authority. A start should be made in establishing practical, if initially small-scale, schemes of global financing to support specific UN operations." The United States has often withheld payment as a means of influencing UN policy. The Commission is careful to avoid giving the UN direct taxing power. "We specifically do not propose a taxing power located anywhere in the UN system. User charges, levies, taxes - global revenue-receiving arrangements of whatever kind - have to be agreed globally and implemented by a treaty or convention." Such an arrangement appears in the Law of the Seas treaty which authorizes a UN organization to charge application fees and royalties to companies wishing to mine the sea bed - even though the United States has not ratified the treaty.

The Commission's refusal to recommend taxing power for the UN while advancing dozens of global revenue-raising schemes is similar to declaring that "global governance" is not "world government." The Commission says "It would be appropriate to charge for the use of some common global resources. Another idea would be for corporate taxation of multinational companies." The favored scheme was first advanced by Nobel Prize winner, James Tobin. He has proposed a tax on international monetary exchange which would yield an estimated $1.5 trillion per year. "Charges for use of the global commons have a broad appeal on grounds of conservation and economic efficiency as well as for political and revenue reasons." The Commission supports a $2 per barrel tax on oil, which automatically escalates to $10 per barrel in 10 years. "A carbon tax introduced across a large number of countries or a system of traded permits for carbon emissions would yield very large revenues indeed."

Other recommendations for global revenues include:

A surcharge on airline tickets for use of the global commons

A charge on ocean maritime transport

User fees for ocean fishing

Special user fees for activities in Antarctica

Parking fees for geostationary satellites

Charges for user rights of the electromagnetic spectrum

"We urge the evolution of a consensus to help realize the long discussed and increasingly relevant concept of global taxation."

Conclusion

Many of the recommendations contained in this report have already been incorporated into treaties, agreements, and proposals initiated by the international community. Some have already been implemented. The Commission has called for the General Assembly to schedule a World Conference on Governance in 1998. Preparatory work has already begun. PrepComs will be conducted to develop documents on global governance - similar to the procedure used to develop the documents presented at Rio - which are to be adopted at the 1998 Conference and ratified for implementation by the year 2000. Only "accredited" NGOs will be allowed to participate in the PrepComs. Only accredited NGOs and their affiliates will participate in the adoption strategy.

More importantly, only delegates appointed by the President of the United States will be able to cast a vote on all the issues that so dramatically affect every American. The current Presidential appointees are the very people who helped develop the proposals from their various positions with accredited NGOs.

The NGO machinery of global governance is at work in America. Their activity includes agitation at the local level, lobbying at the national level, promoting the celebration of the UN's 50th anniversary, producing studies to justify global taxation, and paying for television ads that elevate the image of the UN. The strategy to advance the global governance agenda specifically includes programs to discredit individuals and organizations that generate "internal political pressure" or "populist action" that fails to support the new global ethic. The national media has systematically portrayed dissenting voices as right-wing-extremist, militia-supporting fanatics. Consequently, the vast majority of American citizens have no idea how far the global governance agenda has progressed. This year, 1996, may be the last opportunity the world has to avoid, or at least to influence the shape of global governance. The United States is the only remaining power strong enough to influence the United Nations. Those voices now speaking for all Americans in the United Nations are cheering the forces that would diminish national sovereignty and render individual liberty and property rights relics of the past. If the current voices representing the United States continue to push for global governance, the world will be committed to a course which will truly transform society more dramatically than the Bolshevik revolution transformed Russia.

The recommendations of the Commission, if implemented, will bring all the people of the world into a global neighborhood managed by a world-wide bureaucracy, under the direct authority of a minute handful of appointed individuals, and policed by thousands of individuals, paid by accredited NGOs, certified to support a belief system, which to many people - is unbeievable and unacceptable.

(Our Global Neighborhood: The Report of the Commission on Global Governance
may be obtained from Oxford University Press.
Call (919) 677-0977; paperback, $14.95, ISBN 0-19-827997-3, 410 pages.)

About the Commission on Global Governance

Former West German Chancellor, Willy Brandt, called a group of prestigious, international leaders to Konigswinter, Germany in January 1990. They asked Ingvar Carlsson (then Prime Minister of Sweden), and Shirdath Ramphal (Secretary General of the Commonwealth and President of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), and Jan Pronk (Minister for Development Co-operation of the Netherlands) to prepare a report on the opportunities for global governance. The report was presented in April, 1991, in Stockholm, and Carlsson and Ramphal were asked to co-chair the new commission the report recommended. The Co-chairmen met with Boutros Boutros-Ghali, UN Secretary General, in April, 1992, to secure his endorsement of the effort. By September, the Commission was established with 28 members and funding from two trust funds administered by the United Nations Development Program, nine national governments, and private foundations.

Meet the Commissioners

Ingvar Carlsson, Sweden Prime Minister of Sweden 1986-91, and Leader of the Social Democratic Party in Sweden.

Shirdath Ramphal, Guyana Secretary-General of the Commonwealth from 1975 to 1990, President of the IUCN, Chairman of the Steering Committee of the Leadership in Environment and Development Program; Chairman, Advisory Committee, Future Generations Alliance Foundation, Chancellor, University of the West Indies, and the University of Warwick in Britain, member of five international commissions in the 1980s, and author of Our Country, The Planet, written especially for the Earth Summit.

Ali Alatas, Indonesia Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia since 1988; permanent representative to the United Nations.

Abdlatif Al-Hamad, Kuwait Director-General and Chairman of the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development in Kuwait. Former Minister of Finance and Minister of Planning; member of the Independent Commission on International Development Issues; Board member of the Stockholm Environment Institute.

Oscar Arias, Costa Rica President of Costa Rica from 1986 to 1990; drafted the Arias Peace Plan which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize; founded the Arias Foundation for Peace and Human Progress.

Anna Balletbo i Puig, Spain Member of the Spanish Parliament since 1979; member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and on Radio and Television; Executive Committee of the Socialist Party in Catalonia; General Secretary of the Olof Palme International Foundation; President of Spain's United Nations Association; and activist on women's issues since 1975.

Kurt Biedenkopf, Germany Minister-President of Saxony since 1990; member of the Federal Parliament; Secretary General of the Christian Democratic Union of Germany.

Allan Boesak, South Africa Minister for Economic Affairs for the Western Cape Region; Director of the Foundation for Peace and Justice; Chairman of the African National Congress (ANC); President of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches and a Patron of the United Democratic Front.

Manuel Camacho Solis, Mexico Former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Mayor of Mexico City; Mexico's Secretary of Urban Development and Ecology.

Bernard Chidzero, Zimbabwe Minister of Finance; Deputy Secretary-General of UNCTAD; Chairman of the Development Committee of the World Bank and the IMF; and member of the World Commission on Environment and Development.

Barber Conable, United States President of the World Bank from 1986 to 1991; Chairman of the Committee on US-China Relations; Senior Advisor to the Global Environment Facility; member of the House of Representatives from 1965 to 1985; member of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution; and Trustee and member of the Executive Committee of Cornell University.

Jacques Delors, France President of the European Commision since 1985; Minister for Economics, Finance and Budget; Mayor of Clichy; and member of the European Parliament.

Jiri Dienstbier, Czech Republic Chairman of the Free Democrats Party; Chairman of the Czech Council on Foreign Relations; and Deputy Prime Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Enrique Iglesias, Uruguay President of the Inter-American Development Bank since 1988; Minister of External Relations; Executive Secretary of the UN Economic Commission for Latin America; President, Central Bank of Uruguay; and Chairman of the Conference that launched the Uruguay Round of Trade Negotiations resulting in the World Trade Organization.

Frank Judd, United Kingdom Member of the House of Lords; Member of Parliament; Under-Secretary of State for Defence; Minister for Overseas Development; Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth; and Director of Oxfam from 1985 to 1991.

Hongkoo Lee, Republic of Korea Deputy Prime Minister; Minister of National Unification; Ambassador to the United Kingdom; Professor of Political Science at Seoul National University; Director of the Institute of Social Sciences; and Chairman of Seoul's 21st Century Committee.

Wangari Maathai, Kenya Founder and co-ordinator of the Green Belt Movement in Kenya; Chair of the National Council of Women of Kenya and spokesperson for non-government organizations at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio.

Sadako Ogata, Japan United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees since 1991; Director of the International Relations Institute; Representative to the UN; member of the Independent Commission on International Humanitarian Issues; and Chairman of the Executive Board of UNICEF.

Olara Otunnu, Uganda President of the International Peace Academy in New York; Foreign Minister from 1985 to 1986; Permanent Representative to the UN; and Chaired UN Commission on Human Rights.

I.G. Patel, India Chairman of the Aga Khan Rural Support Programme; Governor of the Reserve Bank of India; Chief Economic Adviser to the Indian Government; Permanent Secretary of the Indian Finance Ministry; Director of the London School of Economics and Political Science; Executive Director of the International Monetary Fund; and Deputy Administrator of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP).

Celina Vargas do Amaral Peixoto, Brazil Director Getulio Vargas Foundation; Director-General of the Brazilian National Archives; Director of the Center of Research and Documentation on Brazilian History.

Jan Pronk, Netherlands Minister for Development Co-operation; Vice Chairman of the Labor Party; Member of Parliament; Deputy Secretary-General of UNCTAD; and Member of the Independent Commission on International Development issues.

Qian Jiadong, China Deputy Director-General of the China Centre for International Studies; Ambassador and Permanent Representative in Geneva to the United Nations; Ambassador for Disarmament Affairs; and member of the South Commission.

Marie-Angelique Savane, Senegal Director of the Africa Division of the UN Population Fund; Director of the UNFPA in Dakar; Advisor to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees; team leader at the UN Research Institute for Social Development; President of the Association of African Women for Research and Development; and member of the UNESCO Commission on Education for the 21st Century.

Adele Simmons, United States President of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; member of the Council on Foreign Relations; member of the UN High Level Advisory Board on Sustainable Development; member of President Carter's Commission on World Hunger; and member of President Bush's Commission on Environmental Quality.

Maurice Strong, Canada Chairman and CEO of Ontario Hydro; Chairman of the Earth Council; Secretary-General of Earth Summits I and II; and member of the World Commission on Environment and Development. (See ecologic, November/December, 1995)

Brian Urquhart, United Kingdom Scholar-in-Residence at the Ford Foundation's International Affairs Program; United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Special Political Affairs 1972 to 1986; Member of the Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues.

Yuli Vorontsov, Russia Ambassador to the United States; Ambassador to the United Nations; Advisor to President Boris Yeltsin on Foreign Affairs; and served as Ambassador to Afghanistan, France, and India.

- ecologic staff

Global Environmentalism:
Agenda 21's Impact on America

National Conference

March 21 - 23, 1996
DoubleTree Hotel
Kansas City, MO

This conference may be the first time the impact of Agenda 21 has been examined comprehensively in the context of domestic policy and its effect on American life. We have assembled some of the most knowledgeable people in America to examine a wide range of international treaties, agreements and initiatives that are being implemented through federal law and regulations. The international agenda profoundly affects America. This conference is designed to introduce the agenda, the issues that drive the agenda, the mechanisms through which the agenda is being implemented, and analyses of the impact the agenda will have on American values and lifestyles. More than two years of intensive research is condensed into two days of hard work.

The World Heritage Treaty has been invoked to promote a buffer zone around Yellowstone National Park that is nine-times bigger than the park itself. The Ecosystem Management Policy, and the NGO sponsored "Wildlands Project," are being used to implement provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity, even though the U.S. Senate chose not to ratify the treaty. The Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Climate Change has announced plans for a protocol that could reduce energy consumption in America by as much as 60 percent. And the Vienna Convention on Ozone has already stopped the use of freon in America. This is just the beginning of the impact of Agenda 21 in America.

Each registrant will receive a three-ring workbook organized by session, full of documents, articles, and other documentation that represents years of research efforts by dozens of individuals and organizations. Proceedings of the conference will also be published and provided to registered guests.

Please examine the program; this is the "must do" event of the year.

Program Overview

Thursday - March 21

4:00 - 7:30 - Registration
6:00 - 8:00 - Get Acquainted Reception

Friday - March 22

8:00 - 10:00 - Session 1 - Issues That Drive The Global Agenda

Has the earth's carrying capacity been exceeded? Is there a scientific consensus on global warming? Is the planet biologically impoverished? Is social equity a legitimate objective of resource use? Is the "precautionary principle" valid justification for policy decisions? Hear the experts answer these and more questions.

10:00 - 10:30 - Refreshment Break

10:30 - 12:00 - Session 2 - Global Organizational Structure

More than 126 intergovernmental organizations are building a global bureaucracy while implementing various provisions of the global agenda. Thousands of NGOs, funded by prestigious foundations and the U.S. government, advance the agenda through coordinated international, national, and local campaigns. Learn who they are and how they do it.

12:00 - 1:00 - Working Lunch Break

1:00 - 2:30 - Session 3 - Convention on Biological Diversity

Narrowly missed ratification in 1994; expected back soon. It officially sanctions the Wildlands Project and is being implemented without ratification through the Ecosystem Management Policy. It encompasses UNESCO's Man and the Biosphere Program and the World Heritage Treaty to which the U.S. is a party, and the Desertification Treaty now pending ratification. See how local land use problems relate to the global agenda.

2:30 - 3:00 - Refreshment Break

3:00 - 4:00 - Session 4 - U.N. Commission on Population & Development

Treaties are being developed which focus on children, women, poverty, environmental justice, population control, education, and legal standing for NGOs, all couched in the context of "sustainability." Wealth redistribution and behavior modification measures are embedded throughout these developing documents.

4:00 - 5:00 - Session 5 - Global Forum for Spiritual Leaders & Parliamentarians for Human Survival

Initiated by the Temple of Understanding, an official UN "consultative" NGO, housed in the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, also home of the Gaia Institute, now coordinates the National Religious Partnership for the Environment with an outreach to 53,000 American churches. Conducts regular "Roundtables" at the United Nations.

Dinner on your own

7:00 - 9:00 - Networking

Exhibits and material from participating organizations will be available for your review and examination. This is an excellent time to meet and visit with speakers and leaders of the organizations that shape domestic policy.

Saturday - March 23

8:00 - 9:30 - Session 6 - Framework Convention on Climate Change & Vienna Convention on Ozone Depleting Substances

These treaties profoundly affect energy use and refrigeration. The U.S. is a party to both treaties and is bound to the protocols adopted by third-world majorities. Whether climate change is occurring or not, America is being impacted seriously by these treaties.

9:30 - 10:00 - Refreshment Break

10:00 -11:00 - Session 7 - Treaties Affecting International Trade

The World Trade Organization (WTO), Law of the Seas treaty, CITES, the BASEL treaty as well as various fishing treaties all have direct impact on American life. Virtually all are designed to implement a portion of the global environmental agenda.

11:00 - 12:00 - Session 8 - U.N. Commission on Global Governance

Proposals for global taxation to provide independent financing for U.N., a new Economic Security Council, the repeal of the veto power of the United States, a new International Criminal Court, a UN standing army, the creation of a new official NGO body in charge of the "global commons" and a new "right of petition" available to accredited NGOs, are among several recommendations being advanced to empower the U.N. to implement global governance by the year 2000. This session is essential.

12:00 - 1:00 - Working Lunch

1:00 - 2:30 - Session 9 - U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development

This initiative produced the President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD). Eight PCSD Task Forces have produced more than 150 recommendations for policy changes which will implement the global agenda in America. Recommendations range from criteria for local building permits to a national educational curriculum.

2:30 - 3:00 Refreshment Break

3:00 - 5:00 Eight Workshops on PCSD Task Force Recommendations

The Task Force recommendations will be examined in detail in work groups led by experts in the field. The purpose of the workshops is to develop alternative recommendations for presentation to the President and Congress by the Sustainable Freedom Coalition. You will be asked to indicate which of the following Task Force sessions you will most likely attend.

1. Eco-efficiency
2. Energy & Transportation
3. Natural Resources
4. Population & Consumption
5. Principles, Goals, and Definitions
6. Public Linkage, Dialogue, & Education
7. Sustainable Agriculture
8. Sustainable Communities

6:30 - 9:00 - Banquet

Conference Speakers

Kent T. Adair, Ph.D., Rockwell Professor and former Dean of the College of Forestry at Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, Texas.

Dennis T. Avery, Director of Global Food Issues, Hudson Institute, author of Global Food Progress, and Saving the Planet with Pesticides and Plastic.

Dr. Robert C. Balling, Director of the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University, Climate Consultant to the United Nations, and author of several books, including The Heated Debate: Greenhouse Predictions Versus Climate Reality.

Dr. Michael Coffman, President, Environmental Perspectives, Inc., author of Saviors of the Earth? The Politics and Religion of Environmentalism, and The Dawn of Aquarius or the Twilight of a New Dark Age?

Tom DeWeese, President, American Policy Center, publisher of the DeWeese Report, and Insider's Report.

Paula Easley, Congressional Policy Consultant, Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska.

Dr. Jacquelyn Kasun, Professor Emeritus, Humboldt State University and author of The War Against Population.

Cliff Kincaid, Director, American Sovereignty Action Project, author of Global Bondage: The UN Plan to Rule the World; Profiles of Deception; and The News Manipulators.

Henry Lamb, Founder of the Environmental Conservation Organization and publisher of ecologic.

Floy Lilley, J.D., Program Manager, Clint W. Murchison Chair of Free Enterprise, College of Engineering, University of Texas at Austin.

Tom McDonnell, Associate Director of Natural Resources, American Sheep Industry Association.

Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, Department of Climatology, University of Virginia and publisher of World Climate Report.

James Miller, U.S.A. Research Director, Population Research Institute.

Jim Porterfield (Invited), American Farm Bureau Federation.

Terry G. Ross, Center for Energy and Economic Development.

James M. Sheehan, Research Associate, Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Fred Smith, President, Competitive Enterprise Institute

Hotel Information

We have chosen the DoubleTree Hotel at the Kansas City Airport because of its central location and excellent conference facilities. Free shuttle to the hotel is provided. An outstanding restaurant, pub, health club, gift shop, and car rental facilities are available on site. Special room rates of $79 per night, single or double, are offered to conference attendees. Hotel reservations should be made directly, before March 1, 1996:

DoubleTree Hotel
8801 N.W. 112th Street
P.O. Box 20366
Kansas City, MO 64195

(800) 525-6322

Additional area hotels:

Marriott - (800) 228-9290

Embassy Suites - (800) 362-2779

Motel 6 - (800) 466-8356 (no shuttle)

Registration procedure

Registration fees cover the cost of meals, breaks, reception, banquet, Conference Workbook, and the Conference Proceedings (mailed after the event). Please complete the form below, indicating the name(s) of individuals from your organization you wish to register. Each person who registers should indicate in the space provided (W/S #) which of the PCSD Task Force workshops will be attended. Please refer to the information under Session 9 and use the corresponding Task Force number.

Scholarships

There are a limited number of scholarships available for bona fide representatives of grassroots, not-for-profit organizations. If you think you may qualify, please call the ECO office (901) 986-0099 for verification and the amount available to your organization. These scholarships are available on a first-come, first-served basis, so it is important to make your reservations early.

Display Tables

A limited number of display tables will be available for organizations to display their materials. The six-foot tables will be cloth-covered. Displays will be in the primary conference room which will also be used for the networking period on Friday evening. Organizations are encouraged to bring books and materials. Sales and security are the responsibility of the exhibitor. Space is limited and will be allocated on a first-come, first-served basis.

There is a $25 rental fee; display tables will be reserved when registration is received.

Sustainable Freedom Coalition

The Coalition has been working for several months to prepare alternative recommendations to those developed by the President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD). The Task Force

Workshops in Session 9 will provide opportunity for discussion and consensus building on the final recommendations to be advanced to the President and Congress. The PCSD's recommendations were publishsed in the November/December, 1995 ecologic. Prior to the Conference, participants may submit suggestions and recommendations to the Coalition office at P.O. Box 220, Lubec, ME 04652, or FAX to (207) 733-2014; phone (207) 733-5593. Your suggestions will be advanced to Task Force leaders and incorporated into the discussions.

Following the Money (still)

The chart to the right illustrates the magnitude of the environmental grants awarded by the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) in 1995. Below are a few of the grants awarded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund in 1995, to achieve environmental and global governance objectives around the world.

Natural Resources Defense Council $10,000, New York, New York, to prepare a German-language summary of a new study by the International Project for Sustainable Energy Paths describing policies and technologies for cutting carbon emissions in Western Europe, for distribution to journalists at the first Conference of Parties to the Climate Change Convention in Berlin.

Resources Development Foundation $100,000 over 2 years, New York, New York, for its International Fellowship Program in Energy Efficiency, which offers managers in the electric power industry in East Central Europe and developing countries internships at utility companies in the U.S., Canada, and Western Europe.

Alaska Conservation Foundation $200,000 over 2 years, Anchorage, Alaska, renewed support for two projects: the Alaska Rainforest Campaign and the Alaska Marine Conservation Council.

Clean Water Fund $15,000 Washington, D.C., toward a public education campaign on the implications of "takings" proposals, which would obligate government agencies to compensate individuals and businesses for regulatory activities that lower property values.

Institute of Ecosystems Studies $20,000, Millbrook, New York, for its May 1995 conference, "Enhancing the Ecological Basis of Conservation."

Tides Foundation $120,000 over 2 years, San Francisco, California, for its Environmental Media Services project, to assist its efforts to educate journalists.

Union of Concerned Scientists $80,000 over 2 years, Cambridge, Massachusetts, toward its project to mobilize scientists to enter into, and lend credible scientific knowledge to, the public discussion of environmental issues.

Institute for Sustainable Development $275,000 over 3 years, Warsaw, Poland, general support for the institute, an independent policy center devoted to linking environmental concerns with economic development in Poland.

Polish Ecological Club $180,000 over 3 years, Cracow, Poland, to establish an NGO network to monitor multilateral development bank lending and investment practices in East Central Europe.

Synergos Institute $25,000, New York, New York, to cover the travel costs of participants in a preparatory meeting for the United Nations Summit on Social Development.

Trilateral Commission (North America) $75,000, New York, New York, toward its project, "Revitalizing Trilateral Democracies," a study of the problems of governance in liberal democracies in the post-Cold War period.

Carpathian Euroregion $140,000 over 2 years, Debrecen, Hungary, matching support for the Carpathian Euroregion, a voluntary association of local governments bordering the Carpathian Mountains designed to encourage cooperation on economic, cultural, and environmental matters.

The New Press $150,000 over 3 years, New York, New York, continued support for The New Press, a nonprofit, public interest publishing house.

Earthlife Canada Foundation $20,000, Vancouver, British Columbia, for two public symposia to encourage the development of sustainable forestry management practices in British Columbia.

Ecotrust $50,000, Portland, Oregon, to undertake a watershed assessment of part of the Greater Kitlope ecosystem in British Columbia.

Environmental Advantage $50,000, New York, New York, toward a research project to foster the development of sustainable forestry management practices in British Columbia.

Center for Marine Conservation $100,000 for 2 years, Washington, D.C., for general support of its Marine Conservation Biology Project.

Environmental Advocates $60,000 for 2 years, Albany, New York, for a public education campaign on the need to protect the Adirondack Park.

Keystone Center $105,000, Keystone, Colorado, for its National Policy Dialogue on Ecosystem Management, an effort to develop and disseminate information on the emerging practice of ecosystem conservation and protection.

Long Island Pine Barrens Society $35,000, Manorville, New York, to complete a comprehensive management plan for the Long Island pine barrens forest.

Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund $100,000 for 2 years, San Francisco, California, to expand the services it offers for ecosystem conservation and protection.

Earth Island Institute $60,000 for 2 years, San Francisco, California, for its Mangrove Action Project's efforts to halt mangrove forest destruction in Asia.

Pesticide Action Network - North America $40,000, San Francisco, California, to design collaborative activities between Pesticide Action Network and the new Global Integrated Pest Management Facility.

Rainforest Alliance $100,000 for 2 years, New York, New York, for its Natural Resources and Rights Program to study coral reef resource management issues in Indonesia.

Conservation Law Foundation $100,000, Boston, Massachusetts, continued support for its international energy efficiency project.

Environmental Defense Fund $150,000 for 2 years, New York, New York, Continued support for the international component of its global atmosphere program.

Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development $50,000, London, continued support for its climate and energy project.

International Institute for Environment and Development $75,000, London, toward the planning of Blue Planet, an international foundation to address global environmental problems.

Environmental Information Center $150,000, Washington, D.C., toward its efforts to broaden the constituency for climate protection in the U.S.

Tides Center $50,000, San Francisco, California, to its U.S. Climate Action Network to broaden the constituency for climate protection in the U.S.

World Resources Institute $50,000, Washington, D.C., toward its efforts to broaden the constituency for climate protection in the U.S.

Nautilus of America $38,000, Berkeley, California, for a project to provide equipment and training to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea for the establishment of an Internet connection.

Aspen Institute $28,500, Queenstown, Maryland, for a conference on the impact of philanthropy, organized by the institute's Nonprofit Sector Research Fund and held in spring 1996 at the Pocantico Conference Center.

National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America $200,000 for 2 years, New York, New York, in support of its Civic Conversation Program, a partnership of grassroots clergy, policy analysts, advocates, and academicians seeking to promote discussion on complex urban issues among diverse communities in New York City.

Source: Rockefeller Brothers Fund, 1995

- ecologic Staff

Is it time to withdraw from the UN?

Commentary:

By Henry Lamb

The Report of the Commission on Global Governance, Our Global Neighborhood, confirms the worst fears of those who want the U.S. out of the U.N. The claim that "global governance" is not the same thing as "world government," is like claiming that "date rape is not the same thing as rape." The only difference is, one begins with seduction.

The Commission's report is seductive. It lays bare all the world's ills, and attributes them to the inadequacies of global governance and the overindulgence of the United States and other developed countries. As bad as things are, however, they can be cured by adopting the Commission's recommendations, which will result in adequate global governance.

Global governance must be based on a new "global civic ethic" which embraces "respect for life, liberty, justice and equity, mutual respect, caring, and integrity." These familiar, noble terms are twisted by the Commission's recommendations into unfamiliar, ignoble applications. Respect for life means equal respect for all life - including bugs, lizards, and grizzly bears. Liberty means freedom to do those things allowed by the global governors. Justice and equity means that justice occurs when the rich are forced to share their wealth with the poor to achieve equity. Mutual respect means acceptance of every life-style without objection. Caring means not objecting to global taxation to achieve equity. And integrity means supporting the program. The Commission believes that global governance must be based on this new global civic ethic, and imposed, "ultimately, by the rule of enforceable law."

To enforce the emerging international law, the Commission is recommending sweeping changes in the structure and the power of the United Nations system.

The Security Council, the supreme UN body, would be expanded from 15 to 23 members. The veto power of the five permanent members (U.S.; U.K.; China; France; Russia) would be eliminated. All members would be permanent until a review of member status could be conducted in the first decade of the next century.

The Commission recommends a UN volunteer army of 10,000 troops under the authority of the Security Council, and under the day-to-day command of the UN Secretary-General. The troops would be for rapid deployment to prevent or stabilize situations until more conventional peace-keeping forces could be assembled.

New principles of operation are also proposed: "All people, no less than all states, have a right to a secure existence." The report recommends that the UN no longer limit its responsibility to member states, but to embrace the people within member states. The UN would have a new power: to respond to the perceived needs of people inside the sovereign borders of any state: "it is necessary to assert the rights of the international community in situations within individual states in which the security of the people is violated extensively."

Security of the people is defined to include economic security, and freedom from discrimination based on sexual preference, gender, and religion. The UN Security Council would have the authority and the means to intervene in any nation where social, economic, or military situations failed to reflect the new "global civic ethic."

To enforce the global civic ethic without violence, the report recommends the creation of a new Economic Security Council (ESC) to deal with economic and social issues with the same authority and resources that the Security Council has in military matters.

All international monetary systems, all international trade, and all international development would be consolidated under the authority of the 23-member ESC. It would also enforce the various global taxation schemes designed to yield as much as $1.5 trillion per year, nearly 150 times the total current UN expenditures. Taxes on foreign exchange, airplane tickets, energy, shipping, use of satellites in space, and license fees and royalties from multinational corporations are a few of the taxes proposed.

The environment is to be given to a restructured Trusteeship Council, which will consist of "qualified member[s] of civil society," appointed by UN delegates who are themselves appointed. Qualified members of civil society are members of accredited NGOs (non-government organizations). The global commons is defined to be: "the atmosphere, outer space, the oceans, and the related environment and life support systems that contribute to the support of human life." In other words, all natural resources will be declared "the global commons," and a permit, license and fee will be necessary to use any of it. The concept of private property rights vanishes in the face of global commons as defined by the Commission.

The Commission also calls for a new International Criminal Court supported by UN prosecutors and investigative capacity. It calls for a new "Assembly of the People" to support the General Assembly. The new body would ultimately be elected directly by the people.

Global governance, like date-rape, may begin with beguiling seduction. But in the end, there is violence. Global governance, as described in the Commission's report, is not the solution to the problems that arise from a shrinking world. But then, neither is withdrawal and isolationism. Technology is rapidly changing global societies, and the United States has a unique opportunity, and a responsibility, to lead the world into the new millennium.

No nation has known the freedom enjoyed in America during the first 150 years of its history. It is that freedom which enabled America to prosper. It is that same freedom

- and only that freedom - that will empower people, and nations, to solve whatever problems may arise. National or global governance that suppresses freedom, regulates behavior, and manages the economic and personal affairs of people - is not promoting security; it is destroying it. The United Nations must not expand its power to govern; it must not gain the power to tax. It should be restructured - stripped of its regulatory power to govern, and returned to its status as servant of the nations that created it.

The most important function of the United Nations is to serve as a forum where statesmen assemble to discuss and debate the issues that divide them. Dispute resolution should occur between the conflicting parties, not by a vote of the neighborhood - enforced by the neighborhood police force. The UN should help people in need, as determined and funded by the members. Beyond these fundamental purposes, the UN should have no power and no independent resources. Global governance by a global bureaucracy is global violence on the spirit, and ultimately, on the body of humanity.

America is the only power on earth strong enough to prevent this violence. Congressman Joe Scarborough (R-FL) has introduced the "United Nations Withdrawal Act of 1995" (HR 2535). Over four years, the United States would reduce and eliminate funding to the UN, and the UN would be asked to find another landlord. The action is dramatic. Many will call it extreme. With the Commission's recommendations scheduled for adoption in 1998, for implementation by 2000, America must decide whether it wishes to remain a sovereign nation, free to determine its own destiny, or whether it wishes to relinquish its sovereignty and submit to the global governance described by the Commission. And we must decide before November, 1996. The current President and Vice-President, and their appointees to the United Nations are pushing the global governance agenda as hard as they can - despite the public comments to the contrary. If the current appointees to the United Nations remain in place, American citizens will not even have a say in global governance. It will be a done deal before the average person knows what has happened.

In view of the urgency of the threat, there is little choice but to support the United Nations Withdrawal Act of 1995. America needs to generate an outpouring of concern even greater than that which defeated by the Biodiversity Treaty in 1994. Only by making every American aware of the choices - before November 1996 - is there a chance to stop the rape. Without entanglement in the maze of UN bureaucracy, America can exert its influence and leadership and help all nations enjoy the growth and progress that Americans have enjoyed. In so doing, perhaps the UN leadership will realize they cannot sweet-talk Americans out of the freedom that so many have died to defend.

HR 2535

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

October 25, 1995

Mr. Scarborough introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

A BILL

To provide for withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the "United Nations Withdrawal Act of 1995."

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF UNITED NATIONS PARTICIPATION ACT.

(a) Repeal. Effective 4 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 (Public Law 79-264) is repealed.

(b) Closure of United States Mission to United Nations. Effective 4 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the United States Mission to the United Nations shall be closed and all staff and any remaining functions of such office shall be carried out through the Secretary of State and the Department of State.

(c) Notice. Not later than 1 year before the effective date of the repeal under subsection (a), the Secretary of State shall notify the United Nations of the withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations as of the effective date of the repeal under subsection (a).

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF UNITED NATIONS HEADQUARTERS AGREEMENT ACT.

(a) Repeal. Effective 4 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the United Nations Headquarters Agreement Act (Public Law 80-357) is repealed.

(b) Notice. Not later than 1 year before the effective date of the repeal under subsection (a), the Secretary of State shall notify the United Nations that the United States will unilaterally withdraw from the agreement between the United States of America and the United Nations regarding the headquarters of the United Nations (signed at Lake Success, New York, on June 26, 1947, which was brought into effect by the United Nations Headquarters Agreement Act) as of the effective date of the repeal under subsection (a).

(c)Negotiations for New Agreement. It is the sense of the Congress that the President should enter into such negotiations as are necessary for a new agreement with the United Nations for essential and necessary services such as utilities and police protection and compensation for such services. Any such new agreement shall be submitted to the Congress for approval prior to implementation.

SEC. 4. UNITED STATES ASSESSED AND VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE UNITED NATIONS.

(a) Reduction. Except as provided in subsection (c), for the first fiscal year beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act and for each of the 3 subsequent fiscal years, the total amount which is authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for assessed and voluntary contributions of the United States to the United Nations shall be the total amount appropriated or otherwise made available for the previous fiscal year reduced by 25 percent.

(b) Termination. For any fiscal year beginning more than 4 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, no funds are authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for assessed or voluntary contributions of the United States to the United Nations.

(c) Limitation. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any independent or voluntary agency of the United Nations.

SEC. 5. SPECIAL ENVOY.

(a) Special Envoy. Effective 4 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint a special envoy to represent the United States in all matters concerning the United States and the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, who shall have the rank of ambassador.

(b) Prohibition. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the duties and functions of the special envoy appointed pursuant to subsection (a) shall be limited to representation of the United States in matters concerning the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

SEC. 6. UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS.

(a) Reductions. For the first fiscal year beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act and for each of the 3 subsequent fiscal years, the total amount which is authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for United States assessed or voluntary contributions for peacekeeping operations of the United Nations shall not exceed the amount appropriated or otherwise made available for such peacekeeping operations for fiscal year 1995.

(b) Termination. For any fiscal year beginning more than 4 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, no funds are authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for any United States contribution to any United Nations peacekeeping operation.

(c) Limitations on United States Participation in United Nations Peacekeeping Operations. For any fiscal year beginning more than 4 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, no funds may be obligated or expended to support the participation of any member of the Armed Forces of the United States as part of any United Nations peacekeeping operation or force.

SEC. 7. REPEAL OF UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION ACT.

(a) Repeal. Effective 4 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization Act (Public Law 79-565) is repealed.

(b) Notice. Not later than 1 year before the effective date of the repeal under subsection (a), the Secretary of State shall notify the United Nations that the United States will withdraw from membership in the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization as of the effective date of the repeal under subsection (a).

SEC. 8. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED NATIONS HEADQUARTERS PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES.

It is the sense of the Congress that the United States should request the withdrawal of the United Nations headquarters (and its affiliated missions) from the United States.

From the Internet

(Here's what the Sierra Club is telling its people.)

Sierra Club
Defending the Environnmental Agenda
December 21, 1995

Sierra Club Legislative Hotline - 202-675-2394
Sierra Club National Headquarters - 415-776-2211

White House Comment Line - 202-456-1111
Clinton's e-mail - president@whitehouse.gov
Gore's e-mail - vice.president@whitehouse.gov
White House Address - 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington, DC 20500
US Capitol Switchboard - 202-224-3121

IN THE MAIN RING: You, You & You

Because this is the last update you will receive in 1995, we are devoting "The Main Ring" to all of you. This has been an incredibly tough year for us and for Mother Earth. The 104th Congress started the year with a steamroller, intent on decimating 25 years of environmental progress. With the "Contract With America" in their hip pocket, the House of Representatives rushed through their first 100 days with endless assaults on all that we hold dear. Several monstrous bills made it through the House - Takings, Risk Assessment, and the Dirty Water Act - while other disastrous proposals loomed. But by year's end, our protective laws are still on the books. Why? Because of you and the thousands of citizen activists who spent the year fighting back.

Sierra Clubbers everywhere mobilized. Rallies were organized; phones of our legislators and the White House rang off the hook; letters to the editor were published throughout the U.S.; thousands sent Bill Clinton "eco-veto" pens and over 1.2 MILLION AMERICANS signed the Environmental Bill of Rights! Our message was simple and clear: Don't roll back 25 years of progress. And it resonated all over the country.

ON THE FRONT LINE: Budget Impasse

The budget impasse continues between Congressional leaders and President Clinton while environmental protection remains the big loser. The White House issued a statement outlining the impact the government shutdown has on federal programs. Some examples of environmental protections that are curtailed each day due to the shutdown include: $3 million worth of fines or injunctive relief against polluters will be lost and eight federal compliance inspections of polluters' facilities will not be conducted; about 240 calls to EPA's drinking water contamination hotline are going unanswered; and EPA permits to limit air, land, and water pollution cannot be approved.

The President has vetoed many spending bills due to the anti-environmental provisions they contained. But Congressional leaders will continue to bring him proposals to reopen the government while weakening environmental protection. We need everyone to call or fax the President, thanking him for his vetos and asking him to stand tough for the environment.

IN THE NATION: Editorials Speak Out

Editorials continue to run across the country, warning GOP extremists that they are going too far in their attacks on environmental programs. Some highlights: The Wisconsin State Journal's "Republicans Endangered Themselves" The single theater of battle in which the Republican revolution is most likely to frag its own troops is in the fight over environmental legislation...Republicans who support radical bills like Young-Pombo should be warned: Gutting the Endangered Species Act could give Democrats the bulldozer they need to knock the GOP's cozy congressional roost.

The Atlanta Constitution's "Congress Outsmarts Science" In this Congress, the hatred of environmental concerns is so strong, the distrust of science so deep, the paranoia so profound, that some influential members are plotting to repeal the ban on ozone depleters, and in the process undo the progress made on protecting the ozone layer...These are the people in charge of establishing our funding priorities for science. These are the people setting national policy on other environmental concerns, such as global warming. These are our leaders, ladies and gentlemen, the people empowered to direct us into the next technological revolution.

The Washington Post's "A Green Roadblock: The GOP's Environmental Agenda is Having a Tough Time" When the Republicans took over Congress this year, they aimed to revise nearly every major environmental law enacted in the last generation. But facing strong opposition from the administration and division within their own party, they have found consensus a more elusive goal than expected.

The Denver Post's "Congress Has No Mandate to Despoil the Environment" When voters gave the GOP control of Congress, they were signaling a desire to decalcify the system. But Republicans should not misread the mandate as a call to dispose of some popular policies - including the formerly bipartisan consensus on environmental protection. By installing environmental laggards in key posts, the Republicans have shown a collective disdain for

voters, who, according to opinion polls, consistently have asked for stronger environmental protection, not weaker. GOP leaders must now answer publicly for these committee selections.

TOP | HOME

Jaunary / February 1996

Table of Contents

About this edition...

Report of the Commission on Global Governance: Our Global Neighborhood

About the Commission on Global Governance

Meet the Commissioners

Global Environmentalism: Agenda 21's Impact on America

National Conference

Conference Speakers

Following the Money (still)

Is it time to withdraw from the UN?

Commentary:

HR 2535

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

A BILL

From the Internet

(Here's what the Sierra Club is telling its people.)

Report of the Commission on Global Governance:
Our Global Neighborhood

Global Environmentalism:
Agenda 21's Impact on America