Another example of the unreasonable
demands made by the UN and those nations that consistently vote against the US and not
with us! You know....the ones we give all those millions of dollars to in
the form of foreign aid.
EXCLUSIVE: Rio + 20 conference: Negotiators producing a
mammoth, messy and expensive grab bag of regulations and demands
Published
June 01, 2012
FoxNews.com
Three weeks before the
U.N.-sponsored Rio + 20 summit conference on sustainable development, member
countries that the United States hoped would produce a five-page summary of
goals are instead haggling over a mammoth grab-bag of demands for new planetary
regulation and assertions that industrialized countries, led by the U.S.,
should pay for, among other things, an unprecedented and massively expensive
transfer of technology and funds to the developing world.
At one point, the text being debated by hundreds of negotiators climbed to 171 pages before being cut back by executive fiat to 86 pages—only to start climbing steeply again.
The unwieldy document covers everything from sustainable food strategies to codes of corporate responsibility to technology transfers—on highly favorable terms—to developing countries. Copies of the document are not being made publicly available.
The emergency bargaining session was intended as a last-ditch effort to bring some focus, energy and concision to the text after previous scheduled meetings led only to the current, bloated document.
“We were hoping it would inspire people, get them interested in the issues writ large,” a senior State Department official told Fox News. “ Right now, it’s just a long list of everybody’s projects, which is less valuable. “
The haggling over what will be said at the end of the three day Rio + 20 meeting, which starts on June 21 in Brazil, does not bode well for the summit, which U.N. organizers hope will inaugurate not only a radical overhaul of the world economy but a new and still unspecified era of “global environmental governance.”
The summit is also in danger of being overshadowed by deepening financial clouds over Europe and an economic slowdown between China and the U.S., as well as the ugly confrontation in Syria and an impending U.S. presidential election. As the State Department official put it: “We think the focus should be the future rather than a long negotiated text. Most countries around the world recognize that we are in difficult circumstances. This is not a time to talk about new financial commitments and transfers.”
Nonetheless, that is just the kind of sweeping and open-ended language that many countries evidently feel that the document should contain.
The messy document owes much to the huge, varied and often antagonistic interests that the U.N. decided to bring into the negotiation process, which includes not only national governments but also “civil society” groups ranging from business interests to native peoples to such undefined classes as “women.”
Some of the unmanageable complexity, however, is due to the internal machinations of the U.N. itself, which quietly decided last April to bring together representatives from at least 60 developing countries, “to share good practice on the themes of the conference and to learn from each other on their national preparatory processes for Rio +20. ”
The $2.8 million effort, billed as a “capacity building” exercise, brought together about 80 participants, including “senior officials from relevant ministries,” representatives of business, labor, indigenous people, farmers, “youth,” and “women” among others, along with parliamentarians and media from May 15 to 17 in Dakar, Senegal.
According to an internal Rio + 20 “concept note” describing the process, the aim was “to develop consensus on broad areas of national action, as well as on priorities for regional action and for
international decision at [Rio + 20].
Or, in other words, how to hone and focus their lobbying efforts in advance of the meeting, and their efforts at shaping the outcome afterwards.
The organizers, which included U.N. development agencies and the U.N. Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), which provides the secretariat for Rio + 20, also distilled 10 detailed country studies to offer proof that the whole idea of “sustainable development” works.
The studies were intended to show that the selected countries “have embarked on a more sustainable development path,” and “demonstrate how sustainable development approaches (such as fiscal reform for poverty reduction, economic valuations of natural resources, pro-poor payments for environmental services, as well as institutional and coordination arrangements) can contribute to the sustainable development agenda.”
At one point, the text being debated by hundreds of negotiators climbed to 171 pages before being cut back by executive fiat to 86 pages—only to start climbing steeply again.
The unwieldy document covers everything from sustainable food strategies to codes of corporate responsibility to technology transfers—on highly favorable terms—to developing countries. Copies of the document are not being made publicly available.
The emergency bargaining session was intended as a last-ditch effort to bring some focus, energy and concision to the text after previous scheduled meetings led only to the current, bloated document.
“We were hoping it would inspire people, get them interested in the issues writ large,” a senior State Department official told Fox News. “ Right now, it’s just a long list of everybody’s projects, which is less valuable. “
The haggling over what will be said at the end of the three day Rio + 20 meeting, which starts on June 21 in Brazil, does not bode well for the summit, which U.N. organizers hope will inaugurate not only a radical overhaul of the world economy but a new and still unspecified era of “global environmental governance.”
The summit is also in danger of being overshadowed by deepening financial clouds over Europe and an economic slowdown between China and the U.S., as well as the ugly confrontation in Syria and an impending U.S. presidential election. As the State Department official put it: “We think the focus should be the future rather than a long negotiated text. Most countries around the world recognize that we are in difficult circumstances. This is not a time to talk about new financial commitments and transfers.”
Nonetheless, that is just the kind of sweeping and open-ended language that many countries evidently feel that the document should contain.
The messy document owes much to the huge, varied and often antagonistic interests that the U.N. decided to bring into the negotiation process, which includes not only national governments but also “civil society” groups ranging from business interests to native peoples to such undefined classes as “women.”
Some of the unmanageable complexity, however, is due to the internal machinations of the U.N. itself, which quietly decided last April to bring together representatives from at least 60 developing countries, “to share good practice on the themes of the conference and to learn from each other on their national preparatory processes for Rio +20. ”
The $2.8 million effort, billed as a “capacity building” exercise, brought together about 80 participants, including “senior officials from relevant ministries,” representatives of business, labor, indigenous people, farmers, “youth,” and “women” among others, along with parliamentarians and media from May 15 to 17 in Dakar, Senegal.
According to an internal Rio + 20 “concept note” describing the process, the aim was “to develop consensus on broad areas of national action, as well as on priorities for regional action and for
international decision at [Rio + 20].
Or, in other words, how to hone and focus their lobbying efforts in advance of the meeting, and their efforts at shaping the outcome afterwards.
The organizers, which included U.N. development agencies and the U.N. Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), which provides the secretariat for Rio + 20, also distilled 10 detailed country studies to offer proof that the whole idea of “sustainable development” works.
The studies were intended to show that the selected countries “have embarked on a more sustainable development path,” and “demonstrate how sustainable development approaches (such as fiscal reform for poverty reduction, economic valuations of natural resources, pro-poor payments for environmental services, as well as institutional and coordination arrangements) can contribute to the sustainable development agenda.”
How well the lobbying prep session
went is not known.
(Alongside those advance efforts to shape the negotiating outcome for Rio + 20, minutes of a meeting of summit organizers held on May 1, and examined by Fox News, indicate that the U.N. intends to pay the way for “two participants...per developing country” to attend the Rio + 20 meeting itself. Full details of the subsidized attendance were to be determined at a later date.)
In a final complication to the last minute marathon bargaining, at least some international “civil society” organizations with close U.N. ties have been mobilizing pressure on their government representatives in the bargaining session to protect their special-interest sections of the bloated outcome document.
One such is a Spain-headquartered international organization of mayors known as “United Cities and Local Government,” which claims to include more than 1,000 member-cities 95 countries. United Cities includes a smattering of U.S. municipal and country officials in its ungainly executive bureau.
As the bargaining has gotten stiffer over the negotiating text, United Cities has been sending its members a form letter to pass on to national government ministers, urging them to preserve specific references to local government in the negotiating text, and thus, presumably, enhance the organization’s clout post-Rio + 20.
(Alongside those advance efforts to shape the negotiating outcome for Rio + 20, minutes of a meeting of summit organizers held on May 1, and examined by Fox News, indicate that the U.N. intends to pay the way for “two participants...per developing country” to attend the Rio + 20 meeting itself. Full details of the subsidized attendance were to be determined at a later date.)
In a final complication to the last minute marathon bargaining, at least some international “civil society” organizations with close U.N. ties have been mobilizing pressure on their government representatives in the bargaining session to protect their special-interest sections of the bloated outcome document.
One such is a Spain-headquartered international organization of mayors known as “United Cities and Local Government,” which claims to include more than 1,000 member-cities 95 countries. United Cities includes a smattering of U.S. municipal and country officials in its ungainly executive bureau.
As the bargaining has gotten stiffer over the negotiating text, United Cities has been sending its members a form letter to pass on to national government ministers, urging them to preserve specific references to local government in the negotiating text, and thus, presumably, enhance the organization’s clout post-Rio + 20.
Whether the letter-writing campaign
has been successful or not is unknown. But it certainly cannot be making the
containment of Rio + 20s rhetorical sprawl any easier.
4 comments:
U.S. Foreign Policy is not in the best interest of those nations.
Majority of the time, there is some conflict they have to agree it's okay for the U.S. to go in an resolve or interfere with.
We've all seen how that happened.
Other times, they pay millions to these nations when they suffer a hardship and in return all the U.S. "wants" is for them to vote with them on issues.
If you haven't been paying attention, these nations were suffering disasters and rejected the U.S. offers of money or assistance.
The more aware I am, the more it becomes difficult to read these one sided arguments for or against something.
I know for certain that I can't trust any source as the one to give me the truth.
I wonder if the purpose of these posts is to truly identify the vibration of the Ones who resonate with it.
The energy of these words carry over to the reader, and when it resonates, the reader may feel empowered by it's message and at the same time the message is lowering the vibration of the reader who feels empowered by it, thus strengthening their lower vibration to as strong as it can get.
Thus a separation from higher vibrating Ones, and thus another wheat and chaff scenario.
I always felt you can't fool the Universe, you either are, or you aren't, and it seems there are many ways to reveal the two halves of the same Source.
The United Nations is planning to implement Agenda 21, and anytime they use the term "sustainable development", watch out. (If you don't know what Agenda 21 is, please watch the short video called Agenda 21 for dummies) The EPA is involved in passing laws which will eventually move you out of your home into what (in the video) is called pack and stacks, which means they want Contractors to build high-rise apartments which by the way, they will skip on the code regulations, and they want to remove you from your home and put you in these buildings with a bunch of other people. (If they fall down....Oh well...) The United States should not have to give money to all these other nations to give them technology and funds. This money should be provided by the Elite like the Rothschilds and Rockefellers, the Queen of England who has 40+ quadrillion dollars in the White Spiritual Boy Fund, and the committee of 300, and the Vatican Bank. The people of the U.S. should stop allowing themselves to be stripped of everything they own until they become a third world country, too. The UN is NOT for the people... why isn't billionaire Bill Gates doing something positive for the people of third world countries instead of trying to kill them off? (with his vaccines, and gmo roundup ready food crops) Hopefully, this whole world can learn how to take individual responsibility for every action that they take in their daily lives. God Help Us.
let's all hope what Drake been talking about happen soon. Like to see U.S corp, UN, Crown of England and the Vatican flush down the toilet.
Why is Fox so called new is still being watch is beyond me. You want real facts you stay away from Fox and all there affiliate dissevers. There more true in the comments then there is in the above post. One day we will have true in the headlines and I feel going away from money will be the key to have a new way of doing what is right instead of what makes money or what they can control using money. Send them love as they need a lot of it for them to awaken to this distorted way of thinking.
Post a Comment