(William F Jasper) The official draft text of the climate treaty for the soon-to-start UN Climate Summit in Paris proposes to establish a global Supreme Court that would rule on issues such as “climate justice,” “climate finance,” “technology transfers,” and “climate debt.”
Tucked away on page 19 of the 34-page document is the call for establishing an International Tribunal of Climate Justice. The text, which is still heavily bracketed with text that hasn’t been completely resolved and agreed upon, reads:
An International Tribunal of Climate Justice as][A] [compliance mechanism] is hereby established to address cases of non-compliance of the commitments of developed country Parties on mitigation, adaptation, [provision of] finance, technology development and transfer [and][,] capacity-building[,] and transparency of action and support, including through the development of an indicative list of consequences, taking into account the cause, type, degree and frequency of non-compliance.
Courting Climate Tyranny
With all of the world’s politically correct politicians and all of the world’s “progressive” journalistas and Big Media commentariat daily hyperventilating over the ever-growing list of alleged threats and catastrophes caused by global warming, it might be expected that there would be some mention of this planned environmental judicial system for the planet. However, since the text was released on October 20, there has been a virtual blackout in the major media regarding this revolutionary development. The only mentions one is likely to find with search engines are alarms being sounded by critics, the climate realists who reject the apocalyptic predictions (and discredited pseudo-science – see: here, here, and here) of the multi-billion dollar global warming lobby.
The censoring of any coverage of the planned UN Climate Tribunal by the major media is not surprising; they have been completely over the top in their promotion of anthropogenic (manmade) global warming (AGW) hysteria and would not want to jeopardize the globalist agenda by drawing attention to the dangers of establishing a planetary judicial authority.
This follows a distinctive pattern: We have seen a similar media censorship of the regional and global tribunals that la and WTO treaties. It was only years later, when these courts began assaulting U.S. sovereignty by over-ruling U.S. laws and U.S. court decisions, that the subversive nature of these judicial bodies became apparent. Then the erstwhile supporters of these treaties (such as Senator John Kerry, now Obama’s Secretary of State and a promoter of the climate treaty) claimed that they had no way of knowing that these international courts would eventually subvert U.S. sovereignty. These claims of invincible ignorance don’t wash, of course, because this magazine, among other critics, warned repeatedly that this is precisely what would happen.
The same pattern is screamingly evident in the case of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) agreements to merge the United States, respectively, with Pacific Rim countries and the European Union. The so-called mainstream media have seen fit to censor any criticism of (and virtually any mention of) the dangerous tribunals (here and here) that would be established by these treaties.
As we reported, in February of this year, the International Tribunal of Climate Justice comes to us courtesy of the Marxist regime of Bolivia’s President Evo Morales, a close comrade of Cuba’s Fidel Castro and an ardent admirer of Communist China’s founder/mass-murderer Mao Tse-tung. “In April 2010,” we reported, “Comrade Morales convened the ‘World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth’ in Cochabamba, Bolivia, which drew thousands of true believer Red-Green activists from across the planet. The outcome of that confab, the ‘Cochabamba Statement,’ calls for ‘the equitable allocation [of] atmospheric space between developed countries and developing countries during the period 1750 to 2050 based on the principles of equity and historical responsibility, and the needs of developing countries in order to achieve their economic and social development and poverty.’”
Like the Cochabamba Statement, the UN’s draft text states (repeatedly) that the new global “decarbonization” program will be carried out “in accordance with common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.” Which is, simply, the UN’s way of channeling Karl Marx’s famous dictum, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” into global policy for effecting the confiscation and transfer of gigantic portions of the planet’s wealth.
We noted at the time that the negotiating text said it “establishes the International Climate Justice Tribunal in order to oversee, control and sanction the fulfillment of and compliance with obligations of Annex I and Annex II Parties under this agreement and Convention.” We reported further that it called for establishing a Compliance Committee and a Compliance Mechanism to “enforce” compliance. Its stated: “In order to ensure compliance for developed countries and facilitate developing countries in their implementation,” a Compliance Committee will be created. And, the text informs us, “The Compliance Committee shall have two branches, namely an enforcement branch and a facilitative branch.” The enforcement branch would be aimed at the developed countries (especially the U.S. and EU), and the facilitative branch would function as a mechanism to transfer the wealth from the middle classes of the developed countries to the globalists and their ruling class comrades in the developing countries. The new text released on October 20 contains almost identical enforcement and compliance language (page 20) as the earlier version of the document.
During the United Nations Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development in 2012, Morales told delegates that capitalism “is a new colonialism,” and he urged them to “put an end to the capitalist system.” The assembly responded with enthusiastic applause and cheers. That should surprise no one; the General Assembly of the UN is dominated by countries whose ruling regimes are members of the Socialist International, the radical Marxist organization of communist and socialist parties. Moreover, as we’ve reported extensively, leaders of the Socialist International occupy many of the top posts in UN agencies and have been in charge of the UN’s socialist green agenda for decades (see here, here, and here).
Bolivian President Evo Morales is the head of the country’s Movement for Socialism Party (MAS, Movimiento Al Socialismo), which, along with other former members of the Socialist International, broke away to form the even more radical international Progressive Alliance. MAS is also a member party of the Sao Paulo Forum, the Castroite organization whose annual conferences are a platform for Marxist regimes and terrorists. While members of the Progressive Alliance and the Socialist International may spar over differences in Marxist doctrine, they are united in their common goal of destroying free enterprise and property rights. And they see the UN green agenda as one of the most powerful tools imaginable for the “complete transformation” of the world.
One of the organizations that has been in the forefront of blowing the whistle on this UN deception is the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), which, among other things, publishes Marc Morano’s always-informative Climate Depot website.
In an October 23 posting, CFACT’s Craig Rucker reported: “Over 130 developing nations led by South Africa and instigated by China and India are insisting that they will not sign a climate agreement in Paris unless it contains massive redistribution of wealth from developed to poor nations. Now they want the power to haul the U.S. and its allies before a UN Star Chamber to enforce compliance.”
“If the climate tribunal becomes the focus of public scrutiny, watch for the negotiators to pull a switch behind closed doors and try and accomplish the same thing by re-branding it an enforcement ‘mechanism’” Rucker wrote. “Whatever they call it, countries who sign onto this agreement will be voting to expand the reach of the UN climate bureaucracy, cede national sovereignty, and create a one-way street along which billions will be redistributed from developed to poor nations,” notes Rucker. “Developed nations would be expected to slash their emissions while the ‘poor’ countries expand theirs. China, which holds a trillion dollars in U.S. debt, would be counted among the poor. China and India are delighted. They would like nothing better than a world where the West cedes the competitive advantages their free-market economies created. They hope for a future where Asia does the manufacturing and the United States and Europe do the importing — until their wealth runs out, anyway.”