Europe in the vice.

The structure of the European Union is such that power will ebb inexorably away from national governments and flow to Brussels. European Union laws supersede national laws and can be enacted to some degree free of control by national legislatures. This bodes ill for Europe.

Any hope that there are strong constituencies within the European Union willing to safeguard democratic control of government cannot but be dashed when there is such evident contempt for voters in European political circles as evidenced by the manner in which they are attempting to implement the defunct E.U. Constitution.

First, the structure of the E.U. that facilitates centralization:



[L]aws in the EU are made by the Council of Ministers, i.e. the committee of 27 ministers for whichever subject is being voted on, EU integration means that governments receive wide-ranging law-making powers.



This is, of course, incompatible with the principle of the separation of powers. According to that principle, the executive power (the government) should be separate from, and accountable to, the legislature (the national parliament) and of course the judiciary. Dictatorship is precisely the form of government in which the executive is not so constrained, and this is also the case in the EU. Because the EU represents a dramatic and constant transfer of legislative power from national legislatures to national executives (sitting in the Council of Ministers), it can also be dubbed “a permanent coup d’état”. . . . The fact that the Council of Ministers, the EU’s legislature, meets and votes in secret only makes the fundamentally anti-democratic character of the European construction even clearer.[1]



The structure of the European Union thus favors a dangerous transfer of power to a Council of Ministers meeting and voting in secret.

The conduct of the E.U.'s proponents, as opposed to its structure, shows similar contempt for democratic governance. Witness the underhanded way in which the previously rejected-by-voters E.U. constitution is being foisted back on the people of Britain and Europe by merely breaking apart the same constitution and attaching those parts to existing treaties. This is being done by a process of amendment, which amendments deliberately use impenetrable hypertechnical language and require the interested observer to plough back through the extant treaties to understand how a disembodied amending provision relates back.

Then there's always the aboveboard contempt for European voters. From Valery Giscard d'Estaing, former president of France:



The rejection of the constitution [by the voters in referendums] was a mistake which will have to be corrected [by more sagacious people].[2]

And:



"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly [...] All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.[3]



This drift toward a powerful and unconstrained executive in the European Union is deathly serious. It is the opposite approach taken by our founding document, which should be as useful a guide to Europeans as it is -- or might be -- to us.

Alas, European political leaders now flirt with centralization of power in a manner demonstrating that the preeminent political lesson of the twentieth century was not learned. They thus risk laying the foundation for an oppressive superstate. How far this process will go before Europe slides back into black fascism or red fascism is no small question.

Tragically, at the same time, these political leaders remain blind to – or cowed by -- the totalitarian menace growing in their midst, but which has its roots not in the twentieth but in the seventh century.

Europe is now effectively caught between the arms of a vice.

Notes
[1] "Why Europe’s National Politicians Sign Away National Sovereignty." By John Laughland, The Brussels Journal, 12/19/07 (emphasis added).
[2] "The Betrayal of Freedom in Europe: Back in the EUSSR." The Brussels Journal, 12/19/07.
[3] Id. (Emphasis added.)

posted by Col. B. Bunny at 12/19/2007

Scientists doubt climate change

Washington Times


December 21, 2007


By S.A. Miller - More than 400 scientists challenge claims by former Vice President Al Gore and the United Nations about the threat of man-made global warming, a new Senate minority report says.

The scientists — many of whom are current or former members of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Mr. Gore for publicizing a climate crisis — cast doubt on the "scientific consensus" that man-made global warming imperils the planet.

"I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting — a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the IPCC number — entirely without merit," said Dutch atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, one of the researchers quoted in the report by Republican staff of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

"I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached," Mr. Tennekes said in the report.

Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, said the report debunks Mr. Gore's claim that the "debate is over."

"The endless claims of a 'consensus' about man-made global warming grow less-and-less credible every day," he said.

After a quick review of the report, Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said 25 or 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobil Corp.

Exxon Mobil spokesman Gantt H. Walton dismissed the accusation, saying the company is concerned about climate-change issues and does not pay scientists to bash global-warming theories.

"Recycling of that kind of discredited conspiracy theory is nothing more than a distraction from the real challenge facing society and the energy industry," he said. "And that challenge is how are we going to provide the energy needed to support economic and social development while reducing greenhouse-gas emissions."

The Republican report comes on the heels of Saturday's United Nations climate conference in Bali, Indonesia, where conferees adopted a plan to negotiate a new pact to create verifiable measurements to fight global warming in two years.

In the Senate report, environmental scientist David W. Schnare of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said he was skeptical because "conclusions about the cause of the apparent warming stand on the shoulders of incredibly uncertain data and models. ... As a policy matter, one has to be less willing to take extreme actions when data are highly uncertain."

The hundreds of others in the report — climatologists, oceanographers, geologists, glaciologists, physicists and paleoclimatologists — voice varying degrees of criticism of the popular global-warming theory. Their testimony challenges the idea that the climate-change debate is "settled" and runs counter to the claim that the number of skeptical scientists is dwindling.

The report's authors expect some of the scientists will recant their remarks under intense pressure from the public and from within professional circles to conform to the global-warming theory, a committee staffer said.

Several scientists in the report said many colleagues share their skepticism about man-made climate change but don't speak out publicly for fear of retribution, according to the report.

"Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media," atmospheric scientist Nathan Paldor, professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said in the report.

The IPCC has about 2,500 members.

HEATED DEBATE

The following are comments from some of the more than 400 scientists in a Republican report on global warming:

•"Even if the concentration of 'greenhouse gases' double, man would not perceive the temperature impact."

Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences

•"I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting — a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the [U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] number — entirely without merit. ... I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."

Atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, former research director at the Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute

•"The hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The [greenhouse-gas] hypothesis does not do this. ... The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."

David Wojick, expert reviewer for U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

•"The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming."

Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo-Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

•"There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried."

Anton Uriarte, a professor of physical geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain

Source: Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee

Boiling down the UNCLOS "debate"

UN Dispatch



November 5, 2007


Email | Digg | Del.icio.us



While Gail Collins's shtick on the political attention being paid to the Convention on the Law of the Sea does her readers a bit of a disservice considering its actual importance, her column in Saturday's Times does a pretty good job of boiling down the "debate."



Bill Clinton wanted the treaty, but gave up trying to find 67 votes in the Senate. Nothing much has happened since, except 155 other countries have ratified it, including several that didn't exist when it was first passed. The United States, of course, is not the only nation holding back because of well-considered reservations. I hear Libya made some excellent points. And our side also includes all the parts of the Axis of Evil we have yet to invade.

...



While the pros will tell you all about the importance of having a rational system for arbitrating disputes over the Alaskan continental shelf, the cons spin up conspiracy theories about how the International Seabed Authority will force us to give up our cars and cancel the war on terror.



Just take my word. The Navy wants the treaty. Greenpeace wants the treaty. The oil and gas industry wants the treaty. George W. Bush wants the treaty.





The fact that the U.S. Navy backs the treaty is a point that the "Captain" seems to have missed. And while Pejman Yousefzadeh feels better that Tyler Cowen has reservations about UNCLOS, I'm a little more comforted by the fact that everybody who has a dog in this fight -- the military, the environmentalists, industry, the President, and rational thinkers in general -- supports the convention.



The number of people who really care about stopping the treaty is not large. But even if there were only 200, what if 120 of them go to the Iowa caucus? John McCain, who used to support the treaty, recently waved the white flag on a conservative Web site. "I think that we need a Law of the Sea," he blogged. "I think it's important, but I have not frankly looked too carefully at the latest situation as it is, but it would be nice if we had some of the provisions in it. But I do worry a lot about American sovereignty aspects of it, so I would probably vote against it in its present form."

...



The other candidates have issued statements that seem to reflect an inability to come up with any rational arguments. Rudy Giuliani said he "cannot support the creation of yet another unaccountable international bureaucracy that might infringe on American sovereignty and curtail America's freedoms," and Fred Thompson roused himself long enough to announce that "the efforts of treaty proponents would be better spent reforming an ineffective, unaccountable and corrupt United Nations." Mitt Romney's spokesman just said Mitt has "concerns."





Posted by Matthew Cordell - November 5, 2007 12:04 PM - Validators

The Precautionary Principle in the Law of the Sea

Ecologic (Germany)

Book: The Precautionary Principle in the Law of the Sea - Modern decision Making in International Law

By Simon Marr, lawyer with Ecologic Legal (2003)



Publisher: Martinus Nijhoff, Den Haag/London
Pages: 253
Language: English
ISBN: 90 411 2015 7










The purpose of this study is to examine the present status of implementation of the precautionary principle in the law of the sea and to extract evidence of its acceptance as part of customary international law.

The thesis examines the precautionary principle in the law of the sea. The precautionary principle is a risk management tool for policy makers which has been broadly implemented in international environmental law in a variety of different sectors and formulations. It is best described in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration which states that "Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation".



For example, it is commonly applied in the area of health, the environment and sustainable development. Despite the fact that it has been implemented in a number of international treaties as well as national laws, its content and status is still highly debated and various questions arise which make further examination of the precautionary principle necessary. Questions such as: its status as a rule of customary international law including its scope, addressee, triggering threshold, precautionary action measures, and eventually limits of the precautionary principle still have not been clarified, and it seems as if vagueness and ambiguity preclude a more detailed evaluation of these questions.



Thus, the purpose of this study is to examine the present state of affairs regarding the implementation of the precautionary principle in the law of the sea and to extract evidence of its acceptance as part of customary international law.



The scope of this study is limited by its primary focus upon the precautionary principle in different sectors in the law of the sea, i.e. pollution of the marine environment, conservation and management of marine living resources, and transboundary transports of radioactive and hazardous wastes. To this end, it is deemed important to scrutinize the precautionary principle on a sector-by-sector basis, discovering whether it has been implemented in different sectors differently.

As environmental protection is difficult to restrict to specific sectors, however, in some cases the scope has been extended to areas not directly linked to marine environment, i.e. air emissions of hazardous substances. Furthermore, this study is not meant to be exhaustive, focusing only on the most pertinent international or national implementations of the precautionary principle in the relative sectors.

Moreover, Chapter 4 draws upon national court decisions dealing in most cases with the licensing requirements of the relative authorities and which have no direct bearing on marine pollution. This study takes these licensing requirements into account since the overall sector in which the courts decided was that of environmental protection. Hence, they are secondarily related to the marine environment and could serve as an indicator for the justiciability of the precautionary principle in national jurisprudence.



Chapter 1 sets out the history and some basic considerations of the precautionary principle. Chapter 2 identifies the key to the precautionary principle: science and its implications. Chapter 3 formulates limits to the precautionary principle. The subsequent chapters then turn to the state practice in different sectors: Chapter 4 - pollution of the marine environment, Chapter 5 - marine biodiversity, Chapter 6 - dumping of radioactive and hazardous substances and incineration, Chapter 7 - conservation and management of marine living resources, and Chapter 8 - transboundary movements of radioactive and hazardous substances, where the implementation of the precautionary principle in international agreements, national legislation and its application in litigation as far as available will be scrutinized. Chapter 9 sets out the prerequisites for state practice as accepted custom, which would also be the applied standard for finally evaluating whether the precautionary principle has evolved into a rule of customary law. Last but not least, Chapter 10 will draw some preliminary conclusions.



Key conclusions


One key conclusion of this thesis is the fact that the precautionary principle has developed from a "soft law" instrument with only guiding qualities for policy makers to a "hard rule" of customary international law in the sectors of pollution of the marine environment and conservation and management of living marine resources. This thesis demonstrates that as a minimum standard the precautionary principle as a rule of customary international law is best reflected in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration. It also shows that there is an emerging practice of law which makes the precautionary principle subject to a proportionality test which includes a cost-benefit analysis. In addition to these findings, this thesis shows which sectors of the law of the sea the precautionary principle is being applied to in a common way. To this end, it indicates that there is also an emerging practice of international law, which includes, inter alia, to make GMOs subject to a strict risk analysis, discharge ballast water on the high seas, decommission disused offshore platforms on land or make the transit passage of ships carrying radioactive or hazardous waste dependent on prior notification or authorization.



Furthermore, this thesis argues that in relation to procedural matters, the precautionary principle as a rule of customary international law includes the switch of the burden of proof. Accordingly, the onus of proof for the harmlessness of the effects of an environmentally sensitive activity lies with the one wanting to pursue the activity. To this end, under certain conditions the application of the precautionary principle as a rule of customary law can also have an impact on the provisional measures according to Art. 290 (5) of the Law of the Sea Convention.

Why Europe’s National Politicians Sign Away National Sovereignty

Brussels Journal

By John Laughland

Created 2007-12-19 15:15



I have often compared the European Union to a cartel – a cartel of governments, engaged in a permanent conspiracy against their own electorates and parliaments. This analysis seems to have been dramatically confirmed by the Lisbon Treaty, signed last week, which replaces the defunct “constitution” rejected in referenda in France and the Netherlands in 2005.

Although a lot of anti-EU rhetoric rightly concentrates on the overweening power of the unelected European Commission – which indeed generates far too many laws and has an institutional self-interest in augmenting its own power – what many Eurosceptics overlook is that European integration also, and crucially, favours the power of national governments over that of their respective national parliaments. Because laws in the EU are made by the Council of Ministers, i.e. the committee of 27 ministers for whichever subject is being voted on, EU integration means that governments receive wide-ranging law-making powers.

This is, of course, incompatible with the principle of the separation of powers. According to that principle, the executive power (the government) should be separate from, and accountable to, the legislature (the national parliament) and of course the judiciary. Dictatorship is precisely the form of government in which the executive is not so constrained, and this is also the case in the EU. Because the EU represents a dramatic and constant transfer of legislative power from national legislatures to national executives (sitting in the Council of Ministers), it can also be dubbed “a permanent coup d’état” (to use the phrase François Mitterrand used in 1965 to attack the powers of the Fifth Republic, long before he was happy to wield them himself). The fact that the Council of Ministers, the EU’s legislature, meets and votes in secret only makes the fundamentally anti-democratic character of the European construction even clearer.

It is for this simple reason that all establishment politicians, whether of Left or Right, are in favour of the EU. It increases their power and their room for manoeuvre. How much easier it is to pass laws in a quiet and secret meeting with your twenty-seven colleagues, than it is to do so in front of a fractious parliament where there is usually an in-built opposition which will attack whatever you do! How much more comfortable to engage in a bit of mild horse-trading with like-minded politicians from other countries, than to have to argue your case in the glare of public criticism! How much better to be able to vote an unpopular law and then blame “Europe” for it instead!

For many decades, this conspiracy worked wonderfully, mainly because Europe adopted and stuck to the so-called “Monnet method”. Named after the European Community’s brilliant if vain founder, Jean Monnet, the Monnet method consists in sapping power away from national parliaments on the quiet. This is achieved by pretending that the powers thus alienated are non-political – technical things like coal and steel, the common market, the single currency. This impression that the powers transferred are merely technical is reinforced by the fact that the transfers are usually effected by means of impenetrable treaties written in a language no one can understand.

There have been only two occasions when this principle has been abandoned, and on both occasions it had led to failure. The first was after the signature of the Maastricht treaty in December 1991. That treaty was conceived as a geopolitical quid pro quo for German unification: France agreed to the reunification of Germany on the basis that it would subsume its deutsche mark hegemony into that of the euro. In other words, it was a big political project which was presented to the electorate as such and as a great leap forward for European unification in general. It was rejected by Danish voters in June 1992. France responded by declaring that she too would hold a referendum, which in turn was very nearly rejected in September of that year. The Danes were forced to vote again in 1993, and so Europe’s pet project, the euro, passed by only a whisker.

The second time that Europe announced a big political project was when it drew up the constitution. However little interest people took in the details of treaty law, the word “constitution” was politically resonant. It focussed attention on the federal vocation of the EU, hitherto hidden from view by the Monnet method. People understood that it meant the permanent alienation of power from their nation-states, but it also allowed people to project their other worries clearly onto the EU, especially about excessive deregulation, competition from cheap labour countries in Eastern Europe, and of course the prospect of a new wave of immigration from Turkey if ever that country is admitted as an EU member.

Voters in France and the Netherlands, two founder members of the EU, therefore rejected the proposed constitution.

As a result of that rejection, Europe’s leaders have now decided to put behind them their foolish flirtation with democracy and return instead to the tried and tested method of doing things behind closed doors. Rather than announcing a big political project in a language which most people can understand, the new Lisbon Treaty goes back to the old method of formulating only amendments to previous treaties. You simply cannot understand the text unless you go back through the previous treaties to see what articles are amended, which few people have the time or the inclination to do. Whereas the constitution at least had the merit of clarity, the new treaty displays all the old EU vices of opacity and legalese. This is quite deliberate. Europe’s leaders know that such a difficult text will never attract the same hostility as the old constitution because it is simply too difficult to understand.

How do we know that this is deliberate? We know because the author of the defunct constitution, the former French president, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, has told us so. In an article in Le Monde in October, Giscard wrote that the new treaty had been composed “by jurists” who had taken the content of the old constitution and simply re-formulated it in terms of amendments to existing treaties. “They started with the text of the constitution,” he wrote, “took its elements apart one by one, and made them correspond by means of amendments to the two existing treaties, Rome (1957) and Maastricht (1992) […] What is the purpose of this subtle manoeuvre? First and above all to escape from the constraint of having to hold a referendum by dispersing the articles and by renouncing the constitutional vocabulary.”

As I say, the EU is a cartel of governments and a conspiracy by them against their electorates. It is an affront to democracy and should be dissolved.

Belien: Back in the 'EUSSR'

The following excerpt was taken from an article prepared by former George Mason University educator Eleanor Duckwall. It appears on “Eleanor Duckwall’s Spotlight” blog, which analyzes current events and exposes anti-Americanism of all forms.



http://sixthcolumn.typepad.com/duckwalls/2007/12/belien-back-inhtml#more



From an agreement on the coal and steel industries in 1951 to a totalitarian state, all within my lifetime:

Last Thursday, the heads of government of the 27 member states of the European Union convened in the Portuguese capital Lisbon to sign the EU Reform Treaty. That "Treaty of Lisbon" is almost identical to the European Constitutional Treaty, the so-called EU Constitution, which was rejected two years ago in referendums in major EU member states.

The EU rules stipulate that treaties only become effective when they have been ratified in all 27 member states. The "no" votes in the 2005 referendums killed the constitution, which would have transformed the EU from a supranational organization of 27 sovereign member states into a genuine single European federal state with 27 provinces. It was clear from the outset, however, that the peoples of the various European states were not willing to renounce their national sovereignty for a "United States of Europe."

Nevertheless, the European leaders are determined, no matter what their electorates say, to transform the EU into a USE. As Jean-Claude Juncker, the prime minister of Luxembourg, said prior to the referendums: "If the vote is yes, we will say: We go ahead. If it is no, we will say: We continue." Or as the former president of France, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, the chairman of the so-called convention, which drew up the constitution, said: "The rejection of the constitution [by the voters in referendums] was a mistake which will have to be corrected."

In order to correct the voters' mistake the reform treaty was drafted. This treaty is a copy of the constitution, with the articles in a somewhat different order, with many additions to deliberately complicate the text and without references to a national flag or anthem. As Mr. Giscard explained in June to the Paris leftist paper Le Monde: "Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly... All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way."

Or as Guiliano Amato, the foreign minister of Italy and the former vice chairman of the convention, said about the document that the European leaders signed last week: "They decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception."

The EU leaders agreed that none of the member states (apart from Ireland, which is obliged to do so under its own constitution) will hold a referendum about the new treaty. Instead, the national parliaments will ratify the treaty. "There is a cleavage between people and governments," admitted French President Nicolas Sarkozy. "A referendum now would bring Europe into danger. There will be no treaty if we had a referendum in France."

Once the Lisbon Treaty is ratified in all member states, the legal nature of the EU will change into that of a state. The national constitutions and the national parliaments will be subordinate to the EU, which will be enabled to unilaterally increase its own powers.

Europe's politicians are very eager to sell out their national sovereignty to the EU because the Brussels-based EU governing bodies are either unelected (the commission) or unaccountable (the council). Moreover, the European Parliament is not a real parliament. It cannot reject the so-called EU directives, which the national parliaments are obliged to incorporate into their national legislation. Even today, up to 70 percent of the legislation in the various 27 EU member states emanates from Brussels.

Former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky has coined the term "EUSSR" to refer to the EU. He claims Europe is on its way to developing into a totalitarian state. In the early 1990s Mr. Bukovsky was given permission to research the secret documents of the Soviet leadership. To his amazement he found a transcript there of a conversation held during a visit in January 1989 of Mr. Giscard to then-Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. In this conversation the former declared to the latter that "within 15 years Europe is going to be a federal state." The USE project was delayed a bit by the 2005 referendums, but European politicians have managed to get it back on track in Lisbon. "Today's situation is really grim. Major political parties have been completely taken in by the new EU project. None of them really opposes it. They have become very corrupt. Who is going to defend our freedoms?" Mr. Bukovsky asks...

UN Dispatch

October 11, 2007

The UNCLOS Battle

Email | Digg | Del.icio.us

At the Heritage Foundation's in house blog, Andrew Grossman admits ignorance to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Nothing wrong about that--you have to be fairly plugged in to know what the Convention is all about.

The problem is, he looks to Doug Bandow for enlightenment. Bandow, you may recall, was the syndicated columnist who resigned from CATO last year after it was revealed he was secretly on the take from Jack Abramoff, who paid Bandow $2,000 per column to shill on behalf of his clients. Bandow was picked up by an outfit called the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which apparently does not mind if one its "experts" used to accept cash to promote the clients of a now convicted felon.

Meanwhile, over at the Washington Note, Scott Paul offers some smart commentary on what is really at stake with the UNCLOS ratification battle:

The conventional wisdom is that multilateral treaties are dead on arrival in the Senate. If we're interested in promoting the International Criminal Court, a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, or the Conventions on women's rights, children's rights, landmines, or biological diversity, we've got to get the Law of the Sea done.

My colleague Don Kraus sums it up:

"Think about it. If a Senate with a Democratic majority can not muster the 66 votes to pass a treaty supported by a Republican president, what is the possibility of doing so under a potential Democratic president who will face much stiffer Republican opposition?

"If the U.S, cannot join an agreement supported by environmental groups, petroleum trade associations, peace groups, the Coast Guard, Navy, departments of State, Commerce, and the Interior (just to name a few) -- what is the chance that we engage on other agreements?

"One senate staffer I talked to recently has been yelling at groups coming to talk with him about climate change. He's been telling them that he doesn't want to talk to them unless the first words out of their mouth are "Law of the Sea," because "if we can't get this one through, none of the other agreements are going to get through."

The stars are aligning on UNCLOS' behalf. As Scott and Don like to say UNCLOS is "low hanging fruit." Perhaps this helps explain why folks like Bandow and Frank Gaffney are on a mission to make UNCLOS into a boogey monster. (To wit: this ad, flagged by Matt Yglesias, from "America's Survivial," which is an outfit dedicated to opposing international treaties.) The stakes are high for the knee-jerk anti-UN crowd. UNCLOS' wide support from diverse constituencies could mean ratification. And from there it is only a slippery slope to the moment when UN tax collectors come knocking at their door the United States becomes more positively engaged in multilateral institutions that advance American interests by promoting the rule of law.

Posted by Mark Leon Goldberg - October 11, 2007 10:04 AM - Critic Watch

UN Convention on the Law of the Sea

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZpVRbRIJOU&feature=user



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZpVRbRIJOU

Throw out LOST

Washington Times


December 21, 2007


By George Allen –



We must protect United States sovereignty. We must not blissfully give control of 2/3 of the earth's surface to an unelected, unaccountable, unrepresentative, burdensome, taxing, regulating and adjudicating global bureaucracy. I am referencing the negotiations of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea or the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). President Ronald Reagan rejected the efforts to create an international authority that would ultimately control the world's sea beds.

LOST is back. Twenty-five years later, LOST is demanding our attention again. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee recently approved a revised version of the treaty and recommended it to the full Senate for ratification. With the support of the Bush administration, this treaty was recently passed through the Committee without adequate hearing from opponents. Opponents are now being heard, and Mr. Reagan's reasons for objecting to LOST are still very much at issue.

In rejecting LOST, Mr. Reagan saw the underlying dangers of the United States ceding its own authority and interests as a maritime power to an unaccountable international organization. Like its godfather, the United Nations, it would be controlled by countries which may have no maritime power and are often opposed to American interests. In 1994, the Clinton administration led efforts to revive LOST by making changes to the most objectionable parts of the treaty, and President Clinton signed it. But the 1994 amendments did not resolve many of the problems cited by Reagan and, in fact, there is a serious legal question as to whether the amendments actually altered the original treaty.

LOST creates an international regulatory structure that bears many of the hallmarks of a nascent global government, including the power to tax, regulate business interests and the environment, and exercise judicial authority.

Taxation.The International Seabed Authority (ISA) created by LOST has the authority to grant or deny permits for deep seabed mining, after exacting fees just to apply for permits and to collect part of the profits of such mining for redistribution to developing countries and "national liberation movements."

Economic Regulation. One of the ISA's stated purposes is to "protect land-based mineral producers in the third world from adverse economic effects of seabed production." Given the ISA's authority to grant or deny permits and to redistribute profits, this sounds an awful lot like the kind of cartel-style price-fixing and central planning that have proved disastrous in other economic sectors.

Technology Transfer. LOST requires all state parties to the treaty to "cooperate in promoting the transfer of technology and scientific knowledge" regarding deep sea mining. This mandate has already been used by China to obtain sonar technology from American companies in the 1990s when the Clinton administration said that the United States should abide by the technology-transfer requirements of LOST, even though the Senate had not ratified it.

Judicial Authority. We have already seen the extension of environmental regulation playing out in the judicial branch created by LOST, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Ireland has brought a case there seeking to halt opening of a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant on land in Great Britain on the claim that it would raise water temperatures in Irish waters and pose a hazard to marine life. One can easily imagine the plethora of lawsuits that could be brought by states and international groups seeking economic advantage or to stymie U.S. interests.

An overarching danger of LOST is the precedent it would create: the concession of authority for governmental functions to an international organization over which the United States has little or no control. It would also give credence to an outmoded and failed redistributionist economic scheme where the people of those nations who innovate and invest are forced to relinquish revenue and technology to nations standing on the sidelines. To ratify this treaty would diminish the sovereignty of the United States and would enhance the authority of a remote, unaccountable supranational government over the seas and seabed.

The original purpose of LOST was to codify the laws of navigation and freedom of the seas. If it had stuck to its goals, instead of trying to break new ground in global governance and wealth redistribution, LOST would have been ratified years ago. U.S. maritime interests are currently functioning under the customs of international law and should continue to do so until we are ready to lead an effort to throw out LOST and start over. As Ronald Reagan said, "We have the means at our disposal to protect our oceans interests and we shall protect those interests if a comprehensive treaty eludes us."

Former Sen. George Allen, who also served as Virginia's governor, is the Reagan Ranch presidential scholar for Young America's Foundation.

The Analyst Centre – Czech Republic

We must cure Brussels of its centralising fever

15.06.2007

by Lüder Gerken and Roman Herzog Europe's World The inappropriate centralisation of political power by the EU is one of the main reasons people mistrust it, argues former German President Roman Herzog. He and Lüder Gerken prescribe four curative measures to cure the ailment

People are increasingly ill-at-ease, and even downright sceptical about the European Union. One of the main reasons is that they cannot shake off the feeling of an ever-stronger and inappropriate centralisation of its competences. These are concerns that must be taken very seriously because they have not been simply dreamed up.

In the world of politics, of course, the reason for this centralisation is that politicians and civil servants at EU-level have striven for more influence. Also, Brussels is frequently used as a backdoor for introducing legislation that a national ministry fears would meet too much resistance at home. And then there is the phenomenon in which member states' representatives in the Council of Ministers frequently bundle together totally unrelated projects and forge alliances to make up a voting majority.

What can be done to halt this trend towards inappropriate centralisation? First, we need to draw up a list that stipulates the precise scope and limits of EU competences. The proposed constitutional treaty does not contain such a list, even though this was specifically demanded by some people during the constitutional negotiations of the European Convention.

What's more, the constitution would in many policymaking areas entail a changeover from unanimity in the Council of Ministers to majority voting. If implemented the constitutional treaty would thus even reinforce the EU's gradual process of centralisation, however inappropriate that often is, simply by making the European decision-making process more straightforward.

The idea of introducing the listing of competences to clearly differentiate between EU competences and those of the member states was rejected by the European Convention chiefly on the grounds that it would impair the "dynamic ability of the EU to develop". Yet that is exactly the point of such a list. And in any case a list of this kind can be amended whenever it would be appropriate to extend the EU's competences.

The so-called discontinuity principle must also be introduced at EU level. This would entail the automatic expiry of prospective legislation if it has not been adopted within a legislative period, so that the procedure has again to begin from scratch in the new legislative period. This is a matter of course in Germany, but not in the EU. EU bodies repeatedly have to deal with legislative initiatives that are 10 years old or more, but the proposed constitution nevertheless abstained from introducing the discontinuity principle into EU legislation.

EU member states need to be given the right through the European Council to withdraw competency for a particular area of policy from European level and restore it to the national level. This would clearly reduce the risk of structural contents of EU competences being developed in a way that is contrary to the preferences of most member states, and would in particular remove the risk of measures being taken by the EU that turn out in the end not to be covered by the competences that had been granted to it.

If this is even just a possibility, it is in the interests of both the Commission and the European Parliament to exercise, with reservation and without excess, the powers that have been granted to them to prevent any risk of their being withdrawn completely. Having said that, it is also true to say that for this threat to be a real one, the right to restore any of the EU's present competences to the national level has to be based on a majority vote rather than a unanimous one.

The draft constitutional treaty doesn't contain the possibility of restoring individual competences to national level as a way of breaking the centralisation trend. Instead, it counts on the same one-way street as before, which leaves the EU heading towards ever-greater centralisation.

The combination of these three institutional measures could successfully counteract the shift towards inappropriate forms of centralisation that originate from day-to-day politics in Europe. So far as most policies are concerned, the three measures would take over the function of "subsidiarity controller", which up to now has been the Council's job and which it was incapable of performing effectively, witness the developments of the last 15 years.

Quite apart from the political realities that have caused the sorts of inappropriate centralisation we have outlined here, there is a fourth cause that although very influential has been generally overlooked. This involves the legal practices of the European Court of Justice, whose verdicts on competence issues reveal a systematic tendency to decide in favour of the EU in this area whenever it can find any justification at all.

A good example would be the verdict handed down in November 2005, when the European Court of Justice declared null and void the possibility of concluding temporary employment contracts with older employees that had been contained in Germany's Hartz-I package as a core element of Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's labour market reforms. The German measures had been aimed at reducing long-term unemployment amongst older people, but in the face of amazed expert opinion, the European Court of Justice came up with the justification that the "prohibition of discrimination on account of age" is a "general principle of Community law".

Another example has been the January 2006 verdict on so-called E-101 certificates, documents that say an employee temporarily working in another EU country remains insured in the social security system of his home country, and is therefore exempt from paying social security contributions in the country of temporary residence. A major problem here is that social security fraudsters often advance incorrect information so as to obtain E-101 certificates abroad, and escape from having to pay social security contributions at home.

The European Court of Justice, however, has now categorically refused national courts any judicially viable means of checking whether an E-101 certificate could have been obtained by fraud. This prohibition means that German social security fraudsters, who have falsely claimed to have sent employees abroad, must be acquitted in any German court. With this verdict, the European Court of Justice has created the need to establish new European regulation in an area that actually belongs to the member states' core competences.

The increasing centralisation of powers in the EU through legal practice that is determined by the European Court of Justice is something that must be stopped. To do so would entail setting up an independent Court for Competence Issues that would operate in parallel to the European Court of Justice and deal solely with questions of distinguishing between competences that belong at European level and those that are properly at member state level.

To be independent, this Court for Competence Issues would have to be made up of members from the constitutional courts of the member states. This court should be able to judge not only the legal instruments and political measures of the Commission and the European Parliament but also the verdicts of the European Court of Justice.

It is not just EU bodies and its member governments that should have the right to sue, but national parliaments too. While the proposed constitutional treaty includes the possibility of national parliaments and the Committee of the Regions taking action following any alleged violation of the EU's subsidiarity principle, this right still risks vanishing into thin air because in addressing such action to the European Court of Justice as an EU institution, any corresponding verdict will probably interpret the competence regulations in favour of the EU whenever possible. That's why this independent court is so vital.

As it stands, the EU's constitutional treaty makes no provision for any of the four institutional measures proposed here. But in the now very likely event of a revision of the draft constitution, these are measures that should definitely be incorporated.

Precautionus Principilitis:

A Psychosocial Disorder Causing Luddite Psychobabble ©




By Lawrence A. Kogan, Esq. and Robert Stein, PhD [1]*





Precaution as a Way of Life


The moral, social and environmental cognoscenti of the new communitarian[2] movement for global governance hold the precautionary principle as a doctrinal article of faith. The philosophy advocates a ‘Better Safe than Sorry’ ethos to modern day living. One public relations expert remarked several years ago that Europe’s unilateral efforts to establish the precautionary principle as an absolute global legal standard reflects a deeper institutional and cultural aversion to risk not found in the United States. Sharp demographic differences between the two powers appear to support this fact; “European electorates are aging must faster than America’s, making Europeans more risk averse.”[3] As a result, geriatric Europeans reflexively fear the myriad uncertainties surrounding new technologies and industrial processes, especially unfathomable risks that populate the distant future, and potentially affect their health and environment, even though no actual proof of imminent risk of harm is present. Because of this fear, European elites and like-minded American Europhiles argue that such advances should be shunned, even if it means grinding global societal progress to a halt.



The notion of ‘precaution’ has been repeatedly extolled in a number of scientific reports adopted by the EU Commission. It has been implemented in the form of regulations and product standards, and then exported around the world through various bilateral and international fora. Collectively, these reports conclude that, due to the ethical and cultural values underlying European quality of life considerations, government regulators (risk managers) should make them explicit prior to risk assessors’ collection and analyses of data.[4] In effect, precaution should “be employed in the [pre-risk assessment] screening of [all potential but unknowable] threats for properties of seriousness or uncertainty [‘hazards’] in order to determine their subsequent treatment in regulatory appraisal and management.”[5] The implication: subjective unsubstantiated popular fears and perceptions of unknowable future potential hazards (not risks) are fanned and exploited by social and environmental demagogues as a (false) pretense for greater global regulation of human economic affairs. This is preferred to reliance on objective empirical science, quantitative risk assessments, economic cost-benefit analyses and rational risk management techniques in the formulation of government policy.



In no uncertain terms, this message is preached by neo-luddite sycophants who prophesize against sinful indulgences and predict the imminent demise of the old American dream; simultaneously, they glorify ‘the new European Dream’, which envisions a better ‘quality of life’ in place of expansive affluence. According to these missionaries of utopianism,[6]



“Europe…offers significant quality-of-life advantages. For most Europeans, the community's quality of life is more important than an individual's financial success. The more communities you join, the more options you have for living a full and meaningful life. Belonging -- not belongings -- is what brings security…the European sense of togetherness… Where the American Dream emphasizes economic growth, the European Dream focuses on sustainable development…[e]nvironmental awareness…[T]he European vision…[is]…one of a new type of power, based not on military strength but on economic cooperation and the construction of communities of conscience, a new kind of superpower based on waging peace…” (emphasis added). [7]



“[Within such ‘moral’ communities,] the ‘precautionary principle’ [is to be used to] regulat[e]…science and technology innovation and the introduction of new products into the marketplace…[It] is the most radical idea for rethinking humanity's relationship to the natural world since the 18th-century European Enlightenment…The EU is attempting to establish a radical new approach to science and technology based on the principle of sustainable development and global stewardship of the Earth's environment…[And,] [a]t the heart of the precautionary principle is a radical divergence in the way Europe has come to perceive risks compared to the US…" In Europe, intellectuals are increasingly debating the question of the great shift from a risk-taking age to a risk-prevention era” (emphasis added). [8]



Most profoundly disturbing about this trend, however, is that allegedly secular Europeans are religiously proselytizing precaution and a risk-averse negative brand of ‘sustainable development’ to impoverished developing countries as a moral prophylactic to be donned against the perceived excesses of American globalization. Arguably, the EU is abusing the United Nations Human Development Reports, which literally reflect a negative doctrine of overpopulation and excess consumption akin to that advanced by Thomas Malthus, and also exaggerating the significance of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Reports which warn us of the remote possibility of an impending global environmental ‘crisis’ - all as a legitimating ‘cover’ (i.e., as a false pretense) for more and more precautionary regulation.[9]



For example, in his 1999 address to the World Council of Churches, just prior to the start of the new millennium, United Nations Under-Secretary-General and UN Environment Program Executive Director, Klaus Topfer endeavored to imbue precaution and environmental sustainability with a sense of religious urgency.



“We have entered a new age. An age where all of us will have to sign a new compact with our environment…and enter into the larger community of all living beings. A new sense of our communion with planet Earth must enter our minds” (emphasis added). [10]



A year later, in his letter of introduction to the newly published UNEP book entitled, “Earth and Faith – A Book of Reflection for Action”, Adnan Z. Amin, the Director of the UNEP’s New York Office, evoked these same religious overtones.



“As we enter a new century, characterized not only by sweeping and fundamental changes and immense new opportunities, but also by greatly increased risks, the need to foster a new spirit of international cooperation has never been greater. As trade, economic and physical barriers among countries have progressively fallen and as wealth has increased in some countries, poverty and misery continue to be the lot of a large and growing segment of humanity. It is in this context that we increasingly witness new challenges to the security and sustainability of the planet. At the same time, we also are witnessing an era where the fundamental lessons for humanity contained in the religious and faith traditions of the world are increasingly coming to the fore and guiding and motivating our actions to meet those challenges. One of those challenges environmental sustainability, is based on the realization that we can no longer blindly trust in the regenerative capacity of ecosystems…UNEP’s “Global Environment Outlook 2000” confirms that the environmental crisis facing humanity in the new millennium is a world threatened, either because people have too much, or too little. The continued poverty of the majority of the planet’s inhabitants and excessive consumption by the minority are the two major causes of environmental degradation” (emphasis added). [11]


Obsessing Over Precaution


Since Europeans precautionary principle proponents advocate that ‘quality of life’ considerations, moral values, and social and environmental group (communal) concerns should serve a predominant role in international policy-making to address future potential public harms, it is incumbent upon all other nations to question the source of these beliefs. They must demand strict transparency and accountability from those who argue in favor of changing the current ‘risk-based’ global paradigm to a new ‘precautionary principle’ hazard-based paradigm, which dictates the extent to which all societies may use and rely upon science in evaluating potential future public dangers. After all, is it not the advocates of precaution who bear the burden of proving to the world that a paradigm shift focusing primarily on the ‘unknowables’ of life is actually necessary? Mustn’t they prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that this utopian vision can not result in greater harms to global society than those they are intended to eliminate? And, isn’t it they who must demonstrate that the assumptions underlying these beliefs reflect a reasoned rather than a desperate, pessimistic view of reality?



Arguably, Europe’s need to constantly focus global attention on future hypothetical health and environmental hazards posed by daily human activities, and its clandestine use of ‘soft power’ to establish the precautionary principle as an absolute norm of customary international law, manifests an obsession constituting a serious psychological disorder. Their persistent, disturbing preoccupation with potential future harms is consistent with common obsessive symptoms such as compulsive hand-washing and checking and other preoccupations common to a variety of anxiety disorders. However, when these opinions are based not on objective science but distorted anecdotal evidence and loose associations, as exemplified in observations of “unusual weather” as proof of global warming, even were temperatures to show an absolute decline, they are more suggestive of the inexorable logic present in a delusional disorder. Judging from Europe’s continued impassioned pleas for precaution in the face of scientific uncertainty concerning unknown imaginary potential future hazards that may never materialize into provable risks, reasonable people may conclude that such behavior is indicative of the distorted reality testing common in the more profound psychological disorders.



But if so, is this disorder treatable? Psychologists typically first undertake a journey of analysis that probes the inner workings of the minds of their psychologically and emotionally challenged patients prior to making this determination.



Analyzing the Obsession


According to economic theorists Yergin and Stanislaw, as the EU’s borders have gradually expanded to accept new members, it has become increasingly difficult for Europeans to explain the complex matrix that defines their collective psyche. “[E]verything is coming under the microscope: old identities are being reevaluated; traditional values are being revisited and re-appraised. Europe’s very philosophical underpinnings, the core of what it means to be European, are being reexamined and transformed.”[12]



Arguably, an expanding and evolving Europe is suffering from moments of self-introspection and self-doubt associated with revolutionary continent-wide changes. Reflexively in such instances when identity is threatened, individuals commonly seek security through the use of ego defense mechanisms (personal blinders which distort reality) in order to view changes as less threatening. The drawback, however, is that increased reliance on distorted interpretations of reality create greater vulnerability, resulting in a vicious cycle of anxiety. Given the pathological origins of the precautionary principle, how can the world permit such a ‘values-charged’ concept to govern international rules of conduct? Is not a thorough examination of this patient and its ailing psyche necessary to correctly identify, diagnose and treat the source of the problem?



Indeed, a cursory review of the historical and philosophical bases for contemporary European political and social thought may improve our understanding of EU societal and cultural preferences. It can reveal how they have manifested themselves, with the help of ideological social and environmental groups, in current European regulatory institutions and practices. It also can highlight the relationship between Europe’s past and present thinking. And, this can enable us to answer why these groups are so pathologically against globalization and obsessed with precaution. Perhaps it may even allow us to feel and ease their pain.



As the writings of self-proclaimed EU advisor Jeremy Rifkin argue, EU health and environmental policy arguably reflects a cultural and institutional aspiration towards constructing a society around the notion of an ethical utopian ideal or ‘the good’ (sustainable development). As in Plato’s utopian republic, European regional policy is crafted by an exceptionally educated class of ‘guardian philosophers’ namely, EU Commissioners, who love the vision of truth. This vision consists both of that which is known to be real and that which is believed/ perceived to be real. These philosophers are selected and overseen by a legislator (the EU Parliament and the Council of Ministers review laws proposed by the Commission). To the extent the guardians carry out the intent of the legislator, their rule will remain unchecked by the other citizens (e.g., the social and environmental non-governmental organizations) whose interests are represented in the Parliament and the Council. In the end, the European public (i.e., the man and woman on the street whose interests are not so represented) must trust that well-intentioned EU Commissioners, prodded by these ideologues, will adequately protect their interests. Notably, the common people and soldiers of Plato’s Republic were likewise obliged not to question their guardian philosophers, who retained the sole political power to pursue ‘justice’ for the social ‘good’ of the community. The EU Commissioners believe, as the ancient philosophers did, that they can prove their proposed ideal society is ‘good,’ and it is difficult for those who disagree to prove that it is not.[13]



The European cultural aversion to risk and reliance on the precautionary principle to prevent possible future risks of harm in the absence of scientific certainty can be attributed, in part, to the process of doubt employed by the French philosopher Renee Descartes. Pursuant to that process “Descartes proceeded to deny the existence of everything about which he was not certain. He eventually discovered that the only thing he could be certain about was his own existence”, grounded ultimately on a perception of his own thoughts. [14] Arguably, the premise underlying the precautionary principle (risk perception) is being applied by the EU Commission at the behest of European social and environmental groups in a manner similar to the logical progression employed by Descartes in the infamous cogito ergo sum – ‘I think therefore I am’. A Cartesian construct of the precautionary principle would thus be ‘I fear, therefore I shall ban!’



European skepticism regarding the safety or harmfulness of modern manufacturing processes, techniques, technologies and activities (e.g., industrialized agriculture, high volume chemicals, biotechnology, nanotechnology) and EU institutional reluctance to embrace hard science (classical risk assessment) as an effective risk evaluation tool also has roots in English philosopher David Hume. It is arguable that the EU has embraced Hume’s modern philosophy of causation, which posits that human knowledge of future cause and effect relationships is a futile and finite enterprise; it cannot be derived other than from empirical knowledge or custom. Hume was “concerned with ‘uncertain knowledge’, such as is obtained from empirical data by inferences that are not demonstrative. It includes all our knowledge as to the future…” According to Hume, “causation alone enables us to infer some thing or occurrence from some other thing or occurrence…[however,] we can only know cause and effect from experience not from [logical] reasoning or reflection.” In Hume’s opinion, “belief [perception] is more properly an act of the sensitive (senses) than of the cogitative (reason) part of our natures’” (emphasis added). [15] Thus, by incorporating risk perceptions into the risk assessment process via application of the precautionary principle, as a means of preventing unique unknown harms, the EU Commission and their ideologue advisers are simultaneously embracing and rejecting Hume’s skepticism![16]



The Commission’s pursuit of sustainable development as an absolute moral duty i.e., as an end-in- itself, and embrace of the precautionary principle as a means to that end, may, also be traced to the moral/ethical system developed by German philosopher Immanuel Kant. Arguably, several European rights and obligations are related to the use of precaution and this evolving cultural notion of morality. The absolute right of citizens to know through product labeling the ingredients of and processes by which the products they use and consume are made, when potential health and environmental harms are believed/perceived to be posed by them is one such example. And, the right of all citizen stakeholders to participate in the Commission’s health and environmental policy formulation process as part of a pre-risk assessment screening and to be informed about planned commercial activities potentially affecting the environment, even if they are to take place on private property (as required by the Aarhus Convention[17]) before they may proceed is another. In addition, the Commission has embraced the ideologue’s pursuit of ‘social and environmental justice’ for the ‘good’ of the European Community and of the world. Such communalism demonizes individualism as reflected in the activities of global industry (globalization) and seeks the internalization of environmental and social costs of production and consumption, which serves only to raise consumer goods and services prices around the world. Such an ideology endeavors to incorporate the precautionary principle in multilateral environmental treaties, national regulations, product standards and developing country trade and aid agreements. Its overall objective is to satisfy the categorical imperative of achieving sustainable development, no matter the costs to civilization.[18]





Moreover, it may be argued that certain EU Commission practices shaped by these social and environmental groups reflect the philosophy of political expediency and deception championed by Niccolo Machiavelli. This utilitarian philosophy, above all else, prioritizes “the means to assigned ends, regardless of whether the ends are considered good or bad” in themselves. [19] This is apparent in the way the EU has masterfully crafted its nontransparent strategy to unilaterally export its version of the precautionary principle internationally, as a means to both achieve the ends of sustainable development and to protect the means of its ailing, lagging or underdeveloped regional industries and technologies. The Commission has carefully selected particular international fora to work within and weak, economically dependent developing country trading partners to work with. It employs or supports indirectly the communitarian movements of prominent European and American-based environment and social groups possessing global reach and influence, the focus of which is to wage anti-globalization, anti-technology, and reputation disparagement campaigns against multinational corporations and individualists. And it has been able to accomplish this feat primarily through use of two EU governance mechanisms: ‘co-regulation’ and ‘self-regulation’.[20]

.

Considering that the ends justify the means, it is irrelevant whether these influential campaigns are factually and morally baseless. Similarly, it is irrelevant that the means the Commission has employed (incentives) to persuade developing countries to embrace the precautionary principle (financial aid, technical assistance and foreign direct investment) – EU ‘soft’ power – will likely foster their continued dependence on European aid (welfare dependence), and enhance only the welfare of European industry.



Lastly, the Commission’s political decision, to replace the current paradigm of exposure-based risk evaluation enshrined in WTO and U.S. law, with a formal precautionary principle that favors pre-risk assessment screening based on hazard profiles and public risk perceptions seemingly addresses an existential problem previously analyzed by French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre. He attributes this problem, to the feeling of individual and collective helplessness arising from the perception that one lacks control over one’s destiny and choice of outcomes. In the present case, anxieties experienced by older European citizens have arisen because of the public’s perceived inability to detect or control unknown health and environmental risks associated with their use of and exposure to industrial activities, new technologies and the products derived therefrom. This message has been brilliantly crafted by the social and environmental ideologues.



According to Sartre, however, human imagination and emotion have the power to transcend the perceived limitations of the contemporary world (i.e., they can isolate ‘nothingness’ from ‘being’) in order to realize the ‘infinite unrealizables’. This means that the Europeans, if they so choose, could come to terms with their individual fears, perceptions and feelings of helplessness. It also means that the European public could collectively challenge its legislative representatives to develop a more pragmatic, sensible and balanced approach to risk management than the precautionary principle. And it means Europeans could choose to ignore the factually bereft hyperbolic arguments currently advanced by politically influential social and environmental interest groups whose raison d’etre is solely to pursue narrowly focused ideological agendas, regardless of whether they benefit European society at large. Europeans must realize that the precautionary principle will lessen Europe’s future quality of life by slowing down European economic growth, retarding European innovation and reducing the number and types of opportunities that will exist for future generations of Europeans. They must recognize, therefore, before it is too late, that a precautionary principle-based regulatory model runs counter to the vision underlying the Lisbon Strategy of neoliberal economic reform.[21]



Brussels’ compulsion to establish precaution as part of the European public ‘social and moral conscience’ through mandatory (regulatory) rather than voluntary market controls can arguably be traced back to the nineteenth century abuses of capitalism, as experienced within Germany and England, from which Europe seems not to have recovered.



[During the] “latter part of the nineteenth century…cartels and monopolies developed unchecked by the state in the new German Reich, leading to greater and greater concentrations of economic and political power and ultimately to totalitarianism…” Following World War II, a German economic group calling itself the Ordoliberals believed that “Government’s responsibility was to create and maintain a framework that promoted competition and prevented cartels. Competition was the best way to prevent private or public concentrations of power, thus constituting the best guarantee of political liberty, as well as providing a superior economic mechanism. Yet, the Ordoliberals’ vision was not simply laissez-faire. The ‘Ordo’ captured their sense of order – ‘a certain hierarchy or ‘natural form’ of society’ – deliberately meant to be linked to the medieval idea of natural order. They believed in a strong state and a strong social morality. As Wilheim Ropke explained it: ‘We want no restriction of the market economy of competition and of the freely floating price mechanism. Nor do we want a mixed economy…We also well know that if we seek a pure free market economy based on competition, it cannot float freely in a social, political, and moral vacuum, but must be maintained and protected by a strong, social, political, and moral framework. Justice, the state, traditions and morals, firm standards and values…are part of this framework as are the economic, social and fiscal policies which, outside the market sphere, balance interests, protect the weak, restrain the immoderate, cut down excesses, limit power, set the rules of the game and guard their observance’” (emphasis added). [22]



[In industrial England] “poverty and slums [were] spawned by industrialization and …the economic crises and busts of the business cycle...” During such times, “…the response of those…who were appalled by poverty took the form, in varying degrees of a commitment to reform and social justice, a search for efficiency, a growing belief in the responsibility of government towards its citizens, and an embrace of the British brand of socialism” (emphasis added)[23]



Europe’s need to establish a cultural identity grounded in social and moral justice that is enforced by regulatory precaution was also clearly evident during the recent privatization era of the 1990’s and the economic and political integration era that has continued to take place since Maastricht.



“The march to the euro and the Maastricht criteria helped accelerate huge changes in the structure of the European economies...National borders no longer provide sanctuary and protection, and companies are responding by restructuring themselves and consolidating to gain scale. Increasingly, large companies will be ‘European’ rather than ‘French’ or ‘German’ or ‘British’... The dynamics of the single market force change as well…Privatization is leading to major new growth industry in Europe: regulation. When governments owned companies, there was no need for independent regulation. The ministry set the prices for such services as telephone, water, natural gas, and electricity. But the newly privatized companies are now in charge, and they set the prices and the terms of operation. Government’s role has, therefore, changed. Its job is to protect consumers by ensuring competitive prices, safety, and standards of quality. To do this requires designing new institutions to regulate prices and practices” (emphasis added).[24]



Indeed, Europeans have taken great pride in their evolved version of the welfare state, which promotes the need for government regulation as a matter of reflex to protect consumers from the unknown health and environmental hazards and perceived inequities posed by individual forms of private property ownership and the relatively unregulated activities of American free markets.



“…Europeans remain deeply committed to the idea of the welfare state, nor have they repudiated the notion of the public sector. Rather European governments are looking for new and innovative ways of dealing with the problems, just as they are seeking to reinterpret the welfare state’s traditional values…[D]espite the troubles besetting it, the welfare state is seen by Europeans as one of the continent’s greatest achievements, an essential element of a civilized society and the foundation of social consensus” (emphasis added). [25]



According to Yergin and Stanislaw, it is unfortunate that “the essence of this belief is unlikely to change soon”, at least without sufficient prodding or challenge.



“Europe’s first convergence after World War II – long before Maastricht – was on the mixed economy [characterized by strong, direct governmental involvement in the economy…The mixed economy, it was felt, would deliver full employment and growth. A significant part of that growth would, in turn, be redistributed through social spending that would ensure security and social peace…The model lasted for four decades…[Although what] was confront[ed] in Western Europe…in the mid-1990’s…[was] ‘the end of the welfare state in its classical form,’ observed Karl-Otto Pohl, ‘it cannot be reversed completely. You can’t undo developments of the last hundred years.” [26]



The reader, at this point, should not overlook the indelible impression that the philosophy of eighteenth century Frenchman, Claude Adrien Helvetius had left on the European social behaviorists of his time, and apparently, now, the politicians of today. Helvetian-favored communalism and utilitarian logic are most definitely the driving force behind the current indoctrination climate under which European cultural preferences are being converted into an almost universal and unquestioning acceptance of national, regional, and potentially, supranational governmental mandates to employ the hazard-based precautionary principle in every day economic life. Helvetius “advocated legislation...as the means by which happiness for the greatest number would be achieved.” [27]



“Men develop according to the cultural pressures to which he is subject. Education accounts for all differences between individuals and must be utilized to realize ‘the ideal of general intelligence, virtue, and happiness’... In [Helvetius’] system, the only pleasure that is immoral is one that conflicts with the pleasure of the greatest number... The final test of any action, then, is its utilitarian value - its use to the public. The ideal government, he believed, would bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number, and universal education would make children useful to such a society. He advocated legislation of punishments and rewards to force men to contribute to public welfare. Under such a system, he felt only madmen could prevent themselves from being good citizens. Individual preferences and rights are lost to Helvetius in the all-consuming importance of public interest” (emphasis added). [28]



Hence, the wisdom of Helvetius has permeated the Brussels bureaucratic mindset, which has recognized how cultural pressures influenced by individual perceptions of others’ preferences and by the educational power of universally applicable (national, regional and international) laws, regulations and standards can help shape societal behavior in ways that may facilitate government’s fulfillment of socially and politically desirable policy objectives. It is therefore only in this light that one can truly appreciate why people would ever clamor for more rather than less regulation and taxation.



Regretfully, European governments’ inclination towards providing centralized ‘soft’ socialist solutions to perceived market failures has only become more pronounced following the fall of the Berlin Wall. And, it is this institutional predilection for more and more governmental control and oversight over private lives that has now seized the imagination of a militant European environmental and social movement whose ideological bias against globalization, industry and individualism is rooted largely in the ‘eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments’ brought to the movement by discredited pro-Soviet western groups.[29]



Diagnosing the Obsession



In essence, some sort of blurring or unnatural fusion may have occurred between the multitude of values and phobias long submerged within Europe’s collective psyche and the extreme, almost religious utopian ideologies of post-communist European social and environmental groups. This convolution of European fears, ideals and hypothetical realities has manifested itself in the form of the precautionary principle. If its underpinnings indeed manifest a disease (i.e., Precautionus Principilitis), its symptoms and diagnosis would be quite telling: a disorder induced by stress and repressed feelings of inferiority and desperation, marked by extreme luddism, incoherent babbling, disorientation, and a shared form of delusion. But what is worse, instead of suffering this disturbance in private, the European regionalists seek to convert the entire world to their disordered understanding of reality. They are driven to do this, as a means of denying the guilt attendant with the sociopathic manner in which they are manipulating the rest of the world, while injecting their own shortcomings into a world system over which they now claim moral superiority. Although Precautionus Principilitis may not be curable it may, hopefully, be treatable with the proper medication and tender loving care. But only time and patience will tell.



Rejecting Obsession-Based Precaution as a Global Standard


When viewed in this light, as arguably they should be, the beliefs and perceptions underlying the precautionary principle are unworthy of being projected onto the world stage and concretized as an absolute international legal standard that binds all nations. It is one thing for the world to empathize with the painful soul searching Europeans are experiencing, incident to their quest for deeper regional and cultural integration and union. One may even understand the motivations underlying the European Commission’s political need to respond to the psychosocial pressures imposed by the high priests of the environmental and global governance movements. It is quite another thing, however, for the world to sit idly by and permit the untested utopian European cultural experiment and the pseudo-science called for by these philosopher kings to dictate the terms of the future global (social and economic) agenda.









--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] * Lawrence A. Kogan is an international business, trade and regulatory attorney who has advised international businesses, associations and governments for approximately 20 years. He is President and CEO of the Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development Inc. (ITSSD), a Princeton, New Jersey-based non-partisan non-profit international legal research and educational organization that examines international law and policy as it relates to trade, industry, innovation and positive sustainable development around the world (). Mr. Kogan is also an adjunct faculty member of the John C. Whitehead School of Diplomacy and International Relations at Seton Hall University, South Orange, NJ USA, where he teaches a graduate-level course on international trade law and policy. Robert Stein is a licensed psychologist specializing in school and clinical psychology. A psychology adjunct for 15 years, he has taught courses ranging from Abnormal to Lifespan Development. Dr. Stein obtained his Masters of Arts in Diplomacy and International Relations at the John C. Whitehead School of Diplomacy, at Seton Hall University. Dr. Stein is also a member of the ITSSD’s national Board of Advisors.

[2] “‘Communitarianism’, as a group of related but distinct philosophies, began in the late 20th century, opposing individualism while advocating phenomena such as civil society. Not necessarily hostile to social liberalism or even social democracy, communitarianism emphasizes the interest of communities and societies over those of the individual.” See Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communitarianism See also “Communitarianism”, Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy (Dec 28, 2004) at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/communitarianism ; Roger Scruton, “Communitarian Dreams” (Autumn 1996) at: http://www.city-journal.org/html/6_4_communitarian.html

[3] See Rachel Thompson, “Transatlantic Business in an Era of Crisis and Change”, at: (http://www.apcouk.com/pc/news_content.asp?ID=43 ). Fear and risk aversion to radical interpretations of Islam have also played a role in the decision not to produce children. “[S]ecular Europe, including the sad remnants of the former Soviet Union, is so desiccated by secular anomie it no longer cares enough about its future to produce children.” See Spengler, BOOK REVIEW The inside story of the Western mind Twentieth-Century Catholic Theologians by Fergus Kerr, Asia Times Online (Nov. 6, 2007) at: http://wwwatimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/IK06Aa01.html

[4] See, e.g., “Final Report on Setting the Scientific Frame for the Inclusion of New Quality of Life Concerns in the Risk Assessment Process”, adopted April 10-11, 2003, European Commission, Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General.

[5] “The Application of the Precautionary Principle in the European Union, EU-Project: ‘Regulatory Strategies and Research Needs to Compose and Specify a European Policy on the Application of the Precautionary Principle’ (PrecauPri)”, at p. 4.

[6] “Utopia – literally ‘nowheresville’ – was the name of an imaginary republic described by Thomas More in which all social conflict and distress has been overcome. There have been many versions of Utopia over the years, many of them visions of socialist society. Although Marx and Engels defined their own socialism in opposition to Utopian Socialism (which had many advocates in the early nineteenth century), they had immense respect for the great Utopian socialists like Charles Fourier and Robert Owen. By describing how people would live if everyone adhered to the socialist ethic, utopian socialism does three things: it inspires the oppressed to struggle and sacrifice for a better life, it gives a clear meaning to the aim of socialism, and it demonstrates how socialism is ethical, that is, that the precepts of socialism can be applied without excluding or exploiting anyone.” See “Utopian Socialism” at: http://www.marxists.org/subject/utopian/index.htm ; “Marxists Internet Archive” at: http://www.marxists.org/index.htm

[7] See Jeremy Rifkin, “America, Wake Up to the European Dream”, Op-ed, The Washington Post (Oct. 31, 2004).

[8] See Jeremy Rifkin, “A Precautionary Tale”, Op-ed, The Guardian (May 12, 2004), at: (http://www.guardian.co.uk/analysis/story/0,3604,1214638,00.html ).

[9] See, e.g., Rebecca M. Blank and William McGurn, “Is the Market Moral? A Dialogue on Religion, Economics & Justice”, Pew Forum Dialogues on Religion & Public Life, The Brookings Institution and Georgetown University © 2004 , at pp. 62-89.

[10] Klaus Topfer, United Nations Under-Secretary-General and Executive Director, UN Environment Program in an address to the World Council of Churches (10/31/99) in Bonn, cited in Earth and Faith – A Book of Reflection for Action, Libby Bassett, Ed., John T. Brinkman and Kusumita P. Pedersen, Co-Eds., Interfaith Partnership for the Environment, United Nations Environment Prgramme (UNEP) © 2000.

[11] Ibid.

[12] See Daniel Yergin and Joseph Stanislaw, The Commanding Heights – The Battle for the World Economy, Touchstone Publishers © 1998, 2002, at p. 336.

[13] See Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy, Simon and Schuster © 1945, 1972, at pp. 108, 111, 115, 117, 118, 120, 121 and 126, explaining Plato’s Republic.

[14] Ibid., at pp. 564-656, explaining Renee Descartes, Discourse on Method and the Meditation.

[15] Ibid., at pp. 663, 664, 666, 671, 673, explaining David Hume, Treatise of Human Nature.

[16] If we perceive that serious harm can be expected from a particular substance or product that we have not previously encountered, and the science we would employ to evaluate the risk is uncertain (we lack empirical evidence of our ability to manage the risk), we cannot rely on the science. Thus we must employ precaution and ban it. If we ban a product or substance because we perceive, based on a risk profile of other products or substances sharing similar intrinsic characteristics (rather than on empirical evidence) that it poses serious risks, we have engaged in the act of induction - inferring harm from other than experience or custom.

[17] See “Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters”, done at Aarhus, Denmark on 25 June 1998.

[18] Ibid., at pp. 710-712, explaining Immanuel Kant, Metaphysics of Morals.

[19] Ibid., at pp. 507-511, explaining Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince.

[20] See “Josefin Almer and Matilda Rotkirch, “European Governance – An Overview of the Commission’s Agenda for Reform”, at pp. 59-61 (2004); 2003/2131 (ACI), European Parliament, Committee on Constitutional Affairs, “Draft Report on the Conclusion of the Agreement Between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on Better Law-Making” 8/14/03); COM(2002) 278, “Communication from the Commission – Action Plan ‘Simplifying and Improving the Regulatory Environment’ (6/5/02), at pp. 11-13; COM(2001) 428 final, “European Governance – A White Paper – Executive Summary”, at pp. 18-21.

[21] “In March 2000, the European Council in Lisbon set out a ten-year strategy to make the EU the world's most dynamic and competitive economy.” See “The Lisbon Strategy for Economic, Social and Environmental Renewal”, Europa website at: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/lisbon_strategy/index_en.html ).

[22] “Thus, to the Ordoliberals, there was nothing inconsistent between their commitment to free markets and their support of a social safety net – a system of subsidies and transfer payments to take care of the weak and disadvantaged. All this added up to what they were to call the ‘social market economy’…Ludwig Erhard, [who] belonged to…the Ordoliberals…wrote not long before becoming [Germany’s] economic director [in the postwar years, that] “Our people will be truly fortunate…if we can realize an economic order that makes room for free economic activity that is cognizant of its social responsibility instead of the prevailing and universally detested bureaucratic formalism” (emphasis added). See Yergin and Stanislaw, supra at pp. 16-17.

[23] Ibid., at p.5. This led to “violent conflict between employers and wage-earners, which gave rise to trade-unionism and socialism…that grew in strength…[as it]…rebelled against …the existing economic order.” Bertrand Russell, at p. 724.

[24] See Yergin and Stanislaw, supra at pp. 328-329. In effect, it can be argued that, “much of Europe’s drive to regulate international trade stems from a [fundamental] mistrust of the free market” (emphasis added). See: James Sheehan, “Trashing Free Trade: The Basel Convention’s Impact on International Commerce”, (1996), at p. 6.

[25] See Yergin and Stanislaw, supra at pp. 3, 328-329, and 333-335.

[26] Ibid.

[27] See Eric Samuelson, A BRIEF CHRONOLOGY OF COLLECTIVISM (1997) at:

http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/samuelson.html#preserve%20the%20rights

[28] Ibid., citing Mordecai Grossman, THE PHILOSOPHY OF HELVETIUS 16 (1926).

[29] See Patrick Moore, “Environmental Movement Has Lost its Way – Scare Tactics, Disinformation Go Too Far”, Miami Herald (1/30/05), at: (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/10761673.htm?1c ); Patrick Moore, “Hard Choices for the Environmental Movement”, Leadership Quarterly 5(3/4) 1994.

New Study Explodes Human-Global Warming Story

Philip V. Brennan , 10 December 2007





As much of the U.S. is being blasted by vicious ice storms, a blockbuster report published in a prestigious scientific journal insists that the evidence shows that climate warming is both natural and unstoppable and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant.

Writing in the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society, professor David H. Douglass (of the University of Rochester), professor John R. Christy (of the University of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson and professor S. Fred Singer (of the University of Virginia) report that observed patterns of temperature changes ("fingerprints") over the last 30 years disagree with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability.

The conclusion is that climate change is "unstoppable" and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.



According to Dr. Douglass:



"The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."



One of his co-authors, Dr. John Christy, added:



"Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater.



"We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide."


And the third co-author, Dr. S. Fred Singer, said:



"The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals.



"The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth's atmosphere.



"In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth's surface- and thus the climate.



"Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless - but very costly."

Pentagon: Sea Treaty in U.S. Interests

Military.com | By Bryant Jordan | December 11, 2007

The U.S. is not about to go to war with Canada over the possibility our northern neighbor will bar liquid natural gas tanker ships from passing through Canadian waters to New England -- a restriction that would impose a severe hardship on the region.

Nor is the administration going to invade Australia, even though our down-under ally demands the right to put an Aussie pilot aboard any ship -- including American -- passing through the Torres Straits running between the island continent and Papua New Guinea.

But with the U.S. facing these prospects the only way to resolve them is by the country signing onto the Law of the Sea Treaty, which 155 countries already have joined, according to Navy Capt. Patrick J. Neher, director of the Navy’s International and Operational Law Office of the Judge Advocate General.

"This is pretty serious stuff," Neher said during an interview with military bloggers Dec. 10. He said Australia is asserting a regulatory right over the waterway improperly, and threatens that any violator is subject to arrest and their ship held.

"Now we're not going to roll the 7th Fleet into Sydney Harbor to compel Australia to roll back their illegal [regulation]," he said. "But what we can do if we were party to the [treaty] is use the dispute resolution process ..