http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703574604574500580285679074.html?mod=googlenews_wsj#printMode
We can only hope that world leaders will do nothing more than
enjoy a pleasant bicycle ride around the charming streets of
Copenhagen come December. For if they actually manage to wring out
an agreement based on the current draft text of the Copenhagen
climate-change treaty, the world is in for some nasty surprises.
Draft text, you say? If you haven't heard about it, that's because
none of our otherwise talkative political leaders have bothered to
tell us what the drafters have already cobbled together for leaders
to consider. And neither have the media.
Enter Lord Christopher Monckton. The former adviser to Margaret
Thatcher gave an address at Bethel University in St. Paul,
Minnesota, earlier this month that made quite a splash. For the
first time, the public heard about the 181 pages, dated Sept. 15,
that comprise the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—a rough draft of
what could be signed come December.
So far there have been more than a million hits on the YouTube
post of his address. It deserves millions more because Lord
Monckton warns that the aim of the Copenhagen draft treaty is to
set up a transnational "government" on a scale the world has never
before seen.
The "scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the
Convention" that starts on page 18 contains the provision for a
"government." The aim is to give a new as yet unnamed U.N. body the
power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and
environmental affairs of all the nations that sign the Copenhagen
treaty.
The reason for the power grab is clear enough: Clause after
complicated clause of the draft treaty requires developed countries
to pay an "adaptation debt" to developing countries to supposedly
support climate change mitigation. Clause 33 on page 39 says that
"by 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in
developing countries must be [at least $67 billion] or [in the
range of $70 billion to $140 billion per year]."
And how will developed countries be slugged to provide for this
financial flow to the developing world? The draft text sets out
various alternatives, including option seven on page 135, which
provides for "a [global] levy of 2 per cent on international
financial market [monetary] transactions to Annex I Parties." Annex
1 countries are industrialized countries, which include among
others the U.S., Australia, Britain and Canada.
To be sure, countries that sign international treaties always
cede powers to a U.N. body responsible for implementing treaty
obligations. But the difference is that this treaty appears to have
been subject to unusual attempts to conceal its convoluted
contents. And apart from the difficulty of trying to decipher the
U.N. verbiage, there are plenty of draft clauses described as
"alternatives" and "options" that should raise the ire of free and
democratic countries concerned about preserving their
sovereignty.
Lord Monckton himself only became aware of the extraordinary
powers to be vested in this new world government when a friend
found an obscure U.N. Web site and searched through several layers
of hyperlinks before discovering a document that isn't even called
the draft "treaty." Instead, it's labelled a "Note by the
Secretariat."
Interviewed by broadcaster Alan Jones on Sydney radio Monday,
Lord Monckton said "this is the first time I've ever seen any
transnational treaty referring to a new body to be set up under
that treaty as a 'government.' But it's the powers that are going
to be given to this entirely unelected government that are so
frightening." He added: "The sheer ambition of this new world
government is enormous right from the start—that's even before it
starts accreting powers to itself in the way that these entities
inevitably always do."
Critics have admonished Lord Monckton for his colorful language.
He has certainly been vigorous. In his exposé of the draft
Copenhagen treaty in St. Paul, he warned Americans that "in the
next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your
freedom, your democracy and your prosperity away forever." Yet his
critics fail to deal with the substance of what he says.
Ask yourself this question: Given that our political leaders
spend hundreds of hours talking about climate change and the need
for a global consensus in Copenhagen, why have none of them talked
openly about the details of this draft climate-change treaty? After
all, the final treaty will bind signatories for years to come. What
exactly are they hiding? Thanks to Lord Monckton we now know
something of their plans.
Janos Pasztor, director of the Secretary-General's Climate
Change Support Team, told reporters in New York Monday that with
the U.S. Congress yet to pass a climate-change bill, a global
climate-change treaty is now an unlikely outcome in Copenhagen.
Let's hope he is right. And thank you, America.
Ms. Albrechtsen is a columnist for the
Australian.