Well, aren't WE stakeholders in any of this?
Or did I misunderstand what you tried to explain?
I have yet to figure out how they decide who is a 'stakeholder' and who isn't. Citizenship actually precludes you from the debate sometimes, in my experience.
Clinton used the idea of 'stakeholders' to get around property rights when he created the president's council on sustainable development and his environmental justice EO. Because the law was clear, you could only sue a property owner if you or your property was directly harmed by something that property owner did, he had to change it.
By introducing 'stakeholders' to the legal argument, a 'stakeholder' even if unharmed by a property owners actions could sue. 'Stakeholders' could also be brought into a community to get involved in local issues and be used to force changes there and get control out of the hands of local voters, property owners etc.
New Orleans has plenty of examples, in the discussions about how to rebuild. They would set up charettes in different neighborhoods. The meeting may have some property owners but plenty of 'stakeholders' would arrive, some from as far away as New England. They were used to push 'smart growth' development plans in new orleans and negate the right of the property owner to build what he wanted or do with his property what he wished.
This is from a backgrounder on private property and the United Nations.Please take note of the last paragraph:
(b) Adopt strategic frameworks that allow the integration of both developmental and environmental goals; examples of those frameworks include...the World Conservation Strategy, Caring for the Earth...."2
Between 1976 and 1992 a new strategy for land use control was devised. It is subtle, sinister, and successful. Reread 10.6(e) above: "Encourage the principle of delegating policy-making to the lowest level of public authority consistent with effective action and a locally driven approach." The reference to "public authority" here is not to elected city councils or county commissions. The reference is to newly constituted "stakeholder councils" or other bodies of "civil society" that consist primarily of professionals functioning as representatives of NGOs affiliated with national and international NGOs accredited by the United Nations. This strategy is becoming increasingly effective.
The official report of the UN-funded Commission on Global Governance, Our Global Neighborhood, calls for placing "the global commons" under the direct authority of the UN Trusteeship Council, and defines "global commons" to be: "The atmosphere, outer space, the oceans beyond national jurisdiction and the related environment and life-support systems that contribute to the support of human life."6
Moreover, the UN Trusteeship Council is to be selected from "civil society" representatives. The Commission on Global Governance also calls for the creation of a new "Petitions Council" which would receive petitions from "Stakeholder Councils" in each nation for the purpose of directing the petitions to the correct UN agency for resolution and enforcement actions.
The election process and representative government created by the U.S. Constitution is clearly unacceptable to the PCSD, which wants "civil society" (read: NGO dominated stakeholder councils) to become the local authority for not only land use decisions, but for a variety of other policy decisions as well.