RE: [ba-unrev-talk] NYTimes.com Article: An Uncertain Trumpet
Is this e-mail a joke?! If the US would no longer use any of the world's
resources, have no negative impact on global climate, would no longer
meddle around in client and other states politics, would not use foreign
wars to cover up domestic problems, THEN you can withdraw from the world
and do your own thing! (01)
Since this is clearly not the case, the US have a practical and moral
obligation to convince the other 95% of humanity of the wisdom of its
policies through - admittedly imperfect - discussion and negotiation
structures like the UN, not through cynical powerplay! (02)
Aldo (03)
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, John Maloney wrote: (04)
> Greetings --
>
> I applaud the USA standing-up for her sovereignty!
>
> These phony envirocrats are as sickening as the demented free-trade
> purists.
>
> The NY Times bashing republican administrations is about as original as
> cold toast. Give us a break and something with intellectual or editorial
> merit.
>
> When the world stuck its finger in the eye of America on 9/11, at the
> World "Trade" Center and other places, it became clear that less
> internationalism and globalism is the correct path for the country.
>
> Active participation in meta-government like the UN, leads to more
> terror, war, poverty and destruction across-the-board.
>
> Let arrogant Finnish environmental blowhards slam the USA all they want,
> but do not, never, allow the USA to be subsumed by the globalists,
> particularly with supra-governmental boondoggles like Johannesburg.
>
> Ironically, it is the counterfeit, unelected diplomats and their
> free-trade minions that have created, and indeed, sustain global poverty
> and environmental destruction.
>
> Sometimes, the smallest things help create the greatest, most
> significant lift and change. It is time that the greater USA follow the
> lead of the mighty LaVerkin, Utah (pop. 3,400). This is truly an
> unfinished revolution. To wit,
>
> "Most city councils focus on potholes rather than peacekeeping, but this
> Fourth of July, civic leaders in LaVerkin, fired another shot heard
> round the world. By a vote of 3 to 2, the City Council of this tiny
> Western town made history by declaring independence - from the United
> Nations.
>
> Neighboring Virgin, Utah (pop. 400) passed a similar measure July 19.
>
> Under the new ordinance, city property will not bear UN symbols, no
> resident will participate in the "involuntary servitude" of UN
> operations, and municipal funds will not be spent to support UN
> activities. Those who disagree must register with the city and post yard
> signs that read, "United Nations work conducted here."
>
> Opponents worked overtime to caricature the resolution's backers as
> conspiracy-peddling, gun-toting zealots still disappointed that Y2K
> fizzled.
>
> Not so. They're average citizens of a state where 83% of land belongs to
> the federal government, and residents of a town near Zion National Park,
> a site already requisitioned by the UN's World Heritage Committee.
> LaVerkin understands encroachment. "We live in the West and we see parks
> now where part of the fees that they earn go to the UN because it is a
> biosphere," Councilman Al Snow said. "I can see our country's
> sovereignty slowly slipping away."
>
> The pundit chorus clucks that the move is symbolic ploy with a short
> shelf-life. More likely, LaVerkin is cresting the first wave of a global
> sea change.
>
> Mayor Dan Howard hopes "LaVerkin is the crucible to get the rest of the
> cities and the national government to listen."
>
> They're already listening, Mr. Mayor. From Ireland and Denmark where
> voters just sent the EU back to Brussels to other small towns in
> Washington and New Mexico considering "UN free-zones" of their own,
> sovereignty is back in the saddle.
>
> Had our forefathers returned to fete our nation's founding, they would
> have been gratified by the Capitol fireworks and Philadelphia
> performances.
>
> But the brave souls who transformed themselves from King George's
> subjects to freedom's champions might have enjoyed LaVerkin more. For in
> that Utah corner, the patriots who staked their sacred honor on the
> first declaration would have recognized a familiar insouciance and felt
> right at home in the country they left us."
>
> -jtm
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org
> [mailto:owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org] On Behalf Of
> garyrichmond@rcn.com
> Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 5:33 PM
> To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org
> Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] NYTimes.com Article: An Uncertain Trumpet
>
>
> This article from NYTimes.com
> has been sent to you by garyrichmond@rcn.com.
>
>
> The lead editorial of today's New York Times shows that at least one
> wing of the American press is capable of soundly criticizing Bush--even
> on the eve of the 9/11 tragedy.
>
> Jack Park wrote:
>
> From: elohimjl <elohimjl@mail.zserv.tuwien.ac.at>
>
> From: Ari Lampinen <ala@cc.jyu.fi>
> To: Inesnet <inesnet@fy.chalmers.se>
> Subject: 9/11/02: USA evolved as #1 rogue nation
>
> USA Today had a cover story on August 14 2002 on the sentiments of Bush
> administration policy across the world. It included a photo of a
> demonstration in London with a large US map with text "#1 ROGUE NATION".
>
> Orwellian language was also used by International Herald Tribune in its
> editorial on September 7-8 2002 on the results of the Johannesburg World
> Summit on Sustainable Development: they quoted somebody as calling USA
> and OPEC alliance as "AXIS OF OIL". Behind this, as the editorial puts
> it was that "the conference was diminished by the unenthusiastic
> participation of the United States" and the OPEC/USA cartel succeeded in
> their goal "to oppose clear and binding targets to increase the use of
> solar and wind power".
>
> The renewable energy issue was the last one to be agreed in the WSSD
> Plan of Implementation. It was the most important thing for the Bush
> administration not to have any targets and timetables for the energy
> sector transformation towards sustainable development. Because the
> opposite was a top priority for the EU this issue was settled only after
> US succeeded in getting G77, i.e. the group of virtually all developing
> countries to support its stand in exchange of having targets included
> for health sector, another major theme of the summit where US had
> blocked concrete action until the tradeoff.
>
> As one EU negotiator put it, the USA is the main stumbling block of
> international negotiations.
>
> The continuation of the selfish unilateralism of the Bush administration
> and its faithful mate Australia was recognized by the audience of the
> final plenary of the WSSD in September 4, in the reactions to the
> speeches of parties given after the adoption of the Plan of
> Implementation. All except the two countries received applauds.
> Australia was the only country whose final speech received total
> silence. And the USA was the only one that was greeted with spontaneous
> boos from the audience of ministers, diplomats and stakeholders from
> almost 200 countries. This was the second time I witnessed this code of
> diplomatic conduct: in Bonn climate conference last year, when the
> political concensus of the Kyoto protocol details was reached with USA
> the only country out of 179 parties to disagree, the US speech was the
> only one receiving booing and all the other were applauded to.
>
> In its intervention after the adoption of the WSSD Plan of
> Implementation USA made several reservations including:
> - USA does not recognize the Rio principle #7, i.e. common and
> differentiated responsibilities. It means that USA regards unfair that
> they would be expected to do more than developing countries to fight
> environmental and development problems.
> - USA does not recognize the United Nations target of 0.72232140f GDP to
> official development aid, or any other ODA target.
> - USA interprets that the text regarding corporate accountability
> improvements does not require any new actions.
> - USA announces that it will not accept any of the biodiversity text to
> evolve into legally binding commitments. And they also gave the
> impression that this applies to rest of the text as well.
> And USA announced that they take sustainable development very seriously.
>
> The official plenary speech of Colin Powell earlier the same day had the
> same attitude and it was interrupted several times by loud booing. The
> Wall Street Journal described in its editorial September 6-8 these
> incidents the following way: "How little interest some of the delegates
> had in a rational discussion of their first principles was on display
> Wednesday, when US Secretary of State Colin Powell was jeered and
> interrupted as he attempted to address the US approach to environmental
> issues and economic growth." For Wall Street Journal the purpose of the
> WSSD was to "develop international environmental bureaucracy" in the
> name of "phantom threats" with the result of "keeping the poor from
> improving their lot".
>
> It is necessary to note that the business and industry sector did not
> share the US views in the WSSD. On the contrary, they strongly promoted
> corporate accountability and targeted actions in most areas.
>
> Thus, it is exceptionally small minority of people that the Bush
> administration has so strongly devoted to serve, with exceptionally
> little consideration of the rest.
>
>
> Regards,
> Ari Lampinen
> Finnish society for environmental sciences
>
> (05)
--
==========================================================================
---/// e-mail: ademoor@uvt.nl
IN|F/OLAB phone +31-13-4662914/3020, fax +31-13-4663069
|/// home page: http://infolab.uvt.nl/people/ademoor (06)
Dr. Aldo de Moor
Infolab, Dept. of Information Systems and Management - Tilburg University
PO Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands
========================================================================== (07)