[antisocial]

Maybe you in your great wisdom can refute this:

In the last days of the 106th Congress, the U.S. Senate ratified 34 treaties - without debate, without a vote, and almost without notice. Most of the treaties were between the U.S. and a single other nation, having to do with treatment of criminals, stolen vehicles, and other single-issue matters. Two of the treaties, however, have much broader implications: the International Plant Protection Convention, adopted at the World Conference on Food and Agriculture in Rome in 1997, and the Convention on Desertification, adopted in Paris, in 1994.

These two treaties are an integral part of the global environmental agenda contained in Agenda 21, adopted in Rio de Janeiro, at the 1992 Earth Summit II. The Convention on Climate Change, and the Convention on Biological Diversity, are also a part of the process through which the non-binding, "soft-law" Agenda 21, is converted into legally binding international law. These two newly ratified treaties further entangle the United States in the United Nations' web of environmental policy.

Consider how easily this was accomplished. On October 18, Senator Craig Thomas (R-WY), was recognized by the Senate President:

(Congressional Record: Page: S10658)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following treaties on today's Executive Calendar. They will consist of Nos. 20 through 53.

I further ask unanimous consent that the treaties be considered as having passed through their various parliamentary stages up to and including the presentation of the resolutions of ratification; all committee provisos, reservations, understandings, declarations be considered and agreed to; that any statements be printed in the Congressional Record as if read; further, that when the resolutions of ratification are voted upon, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be notified of the Senate's action, and that following the disposition of the treaties, the Senate return to legislative session.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the clerk report each treaty by title prior to the vote on each treaty, and further I ask for a division vote on each resolution of ratification.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. The treaties will be considered to have passed through their various parliamentary stages up to and including the presentation of the resolutions of ratification, which the clerk will report.

For each treaty ratified, there was entered into the record a Resolution of Ratification. This resolution sets forth conditions, understandings, and reservations, which is always the case with international treaties. What this means, is an open question.

Since 1992, almost all U.N. treaties contain a specific Article that prohibits reservations. Article 37 of the Convention on Desertification is such an Article. In such cases, the United Nations, and the other parties to the Convention, do not recognize or honor such reservations.

When the United States ratified the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in June, 1992, it attached a laundry list of reservations. Other parties to the treaty began filing their rejections of the U.S. reservations. What this means is unclear, since at the present time, the United Nations has no enforcement mechanism. Decisions of the International Court of Justice are non-binding.

This situation is changing dramatically with the creation of the International Criminal Court, adopted in Rome, in 1998 - over the objection of the United States. The purpose of this new court is to prosecute violations of "human rights," which are presently defined in the Court's Charter to be limited to war crimes, genocide, international terrorism, and the like. The Court, though, has the authority to redefine its jurisdiction at will, well beyond the reach of U.N. Security Council veto.

Use of the death penalty in the United States is considered to be a violation of human rights within the United Nations community. American pilots have been denounced as war criminals by United Nations Human Rights officials. Delegates to the U.N. Climate Change conferences have accused the United States of human rights violations for its so-called global warming emissions.

The point is, we are witnessing the restructuring of the United Nations system which is posturing to acquire the ability to enforce international law. International law is not modified by any reservations that the U.S. Senate may include in a resolution of ratification. International law, and certainly, international attitude, is rarely in the best interest of the United States.

When the Convention on Desertification was introduced, Tom McDonnell of the American Sheep Industry Association, and a Director of Sovereignty International, analyzed the document, looking specifically for potential impact on U.S. policy. In March, 1998, McDonnell spoke to the Trans-Texas Heritage Association, pointing out some of the plans the U.N. has for water use. In July, 1998, eco-logic reported the creation of a new U.N. Commission on Water (M). The new Commission met in New York in 1999, to discuss the issues related to global water use management. The discussions included the need to integrate the other Agenda 21 Treaties into the new, emerging U.N. treaty on water. The Convention on Desertification is one of those treaties.

Neither the Convention on Desertification, nor the International Plant Protection Convention, is designed to benefit the United States. Our ratification only benefits other nations who have demonstrated willingness, and desire, to bring our nation under the control of an international power.

The ill-advised ratification of these two U.N. treaties - without review, comment, debate, or even a recorded vote - makes a mockery of the advise and consent responsibility placed upon the Senate by our Constitution. Further, it subjects the citizens of the United States to the increasing reach of global governance by the United Nations.

[hedgetrimmer]

For discussion:

City Council Effort to Save Local Authority from Corporate Rule
By unanimous consent, the Berkeley City Council adopted the "Resolution to Preserve Local Sovereignty and Oppose CAFTA" Tuesday night because the Central American Free Trade Agreement would usurp local authority in the interests of corporate profit. Negotiated by the office of President Bush's appointed U.S. Trade Representative without meaningful input from those likely to be adversely affected, CAFTA "undermines more than two centuries of American constitutional values," per the California State Senate Select Committee on International Trade Policy.

Berkeley, CA (PRWEB) November 19, 2004 -- The Berkeley City Council adopted the "Resolution to Preserve Local Sovereignty and Oppose CAFTA" by unanimous consent Tuesday night. Negotiated by the office of Pres. Bush's appointed Trade Representative without meaningful input from those likely to be adversely affected, the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) "undermines more than two centuries of American constitutional values," per the California State Senate Select Committee on International Trade Policy.

The Resolution came via Berkeley's Peace & Justice Commission. Ann Fagan Ginger, director of Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute and the Commission's first chair, says "This Resolution is a very important step for the people of Berkeley to participate directly in saving jobs and the environment from international corporate control."

Berkeley's Resolution to Preserve Local Sovereignty and Oppose CAFTA urges the U.S. Congress to defeat CAFTA because it negates local and state purchasing preferences if based on factors such as recycled content, vendors with a competent track record, a living wage, or avoidance of goods made with child labor or in sweatshops. Two thirds of Americans oppose trade policies that usurp environmental protections (Gallup poll, July.) Corporations use trade agreements to sue governments for lost profits resulting from laws that protect the environment or public health.

A Canadian corporation has sued California for nearly $1 billion, using the North American Free Trade Agreement's Chapter 11, for banning the carcinogenic gas additive, MTBE. Congress did not discuss NAFTA's Chapter 11 before approving it.

CAFTA would expand NAFTA and promote the Free Trade Area of the Americas, dubbed "NAFTA on steroids." Boston, Philadelphia and Austin have passed resolutions opposing the hemisphere-wide FTAA. Numerous labor, fair trade, environmental, women's, faith-based, human rights and reclaim democracy organizations have mobilized in the U.S. and in Central America.

Jesse Swanhuyser, director of the California Coalition for Fair Trade and Human Rights, is a Berkeley resident who waitied patiently at the packed meeting to speak during Public Comment. He says, "The new generation of trade agreements sets policy far outside the traditional scope of 'trade,' and increasingly restricts the democratic process at the local and state level. Berkeley has long led struggles like these."

Congresswoman Hilda Solis, the only Congressperson of Central American descent, released a statement when CAFTA was signed saying it, "will mean more job loss and wage decline for American workers...a gift to corporate interests....Our trade policies should lift people out of poverty, not keep them in it....CAFTA is bad for American workers and bad for Central America."

The Resolution is posted on the web at www.ReclaimDemocracy.org/CAFTA

The RESOLUTION to PRESERVE LOCAL SOVEREIGNTY & OPPOSE CAFTA:

WHEREAS, Berkeley Municipal Code Section 3.68 establishing the Peace and Justice Commission, states that the Commission shall "(A) Advise the Berkeley City Council on all matters relating to the City of Berkeley's role in issues of peace and social justice, including, but not limited to support for human rights and self-determination throughout the world;...[and (C) Help develop proposals for the City Council in furtherance of the goals of peace and justice...;" and

WHEREAS, Berkeley, by its Human Rights Ordinance No. 5985 and Precautionary Principle Resolution No. 62,259, promotes “higher standards of living, full employment, and... a safe and healthy environment” for every Berkeleyan and “seeks to prevent harm;” and

WHEREAS, the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) requires basing purchasing decisions on price, thereby negating state and local preferences regarding factors such as recycled content, small businesses, minority and women-owned businesses, vendors with a competent track record, a living wage, and avoidance of goods made with forced child labor; and

WHEREAS, CAFTA fails to preserve the traditional powers of state and local governments by failing to assure transparency in negotiating trade agreements; by failing to accord state and local officials timely access to negotiating documents to assess potential impacts on their authority and on their constituents; by failing to inform them of suspected adverse impacts; and by failing to invite them to participate in the negotiation, approval, and adjudication processes; and

WHEREAS, CAFTA expands corporate power and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) whose rules have been used 27 times to challenge public health, workplace safety and environmental laws, for example enabling Methanex Corporation to demand $970 million for potential future lost profits stemming from California's ban of MTBE*, a carcinogenic gasoline additive that is polluting the state’s groundwater; and NAFTA has cost the United States over 750,000 jobs**; and

WHEREAS, CAFTA will increase foreign investor rights and shift power away from state and local government, challenging zoning and protection of ground water and other natural resources, and will discourage local businesses but encourage commercial flight to low-wage areas, without allowing meaningful input by those adversely affected; and

WHEREAS, democracy requires participation, representation, and debate. Federalism requires a clear delineation of powers shared between the state and federal governments. International trade agreements blur these distinctions, and grant foreign investors rights, participation, and representation superior to that of U.S. citizens.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Berkeley, to protect its citizens and defend Berkeley’s right of local sovereignty and oversight, oppose CAFTA and further urge that the United States Congress defeat it.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager is directed to post this Resolution on the World Wide Web and to send copies of this Resolution to our elected representatives in the California State Legislature: Assemblymember Loni Hancock and Senate Majority Leader Don Perata; our elected representatives in the U.S. House and Senate: Representative Barbara Lee and Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein; and the appointed U.S. Trade Representative, Robert B. Zoellick.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* www.state.gov/s/l/c5818.ht
** Statement of Congresswoman Hilda Solis Opposing CAFTA, May 28, 2004


http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2004/11/prweb180913.htm