Australian Green Party Calls for Global Governance

The Australian Green Party has recently added – unsurprisingly, some might say – global governance to its manifesto of proposed policies. Amongst other measures, the policy proposes the following:

– A stronger UN capable of dealing with threats to international peace and security.

– The leading role of the United Nations (UN) in the maintenance of international peace and security must be recognised and respected by all countries (note: my emphasis)”

– A renewed commitment by Australia to multilateralism as the means of addressing world problems.

– A support [for] the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, and ensure that all nations are subject to its decisions (note: my emphasis).

What is the primary justification for this?

“Effective means of global environmental governance are needed to halt and reverse the current trends towards environmental decline across the globe, especially with regard to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate climate change”.

It is particularly important for Britons to understand the contemporary situation in Australia, because it has not been highly publicised here, and in addition, there is a general feeling that because the science related to climate change has proven to be so unconvincing, the predictions related to it so unrealised, and the promotion of it in public fora so unpopular, that the issue has gone away and will ne’er raise its ugly head again. Unfortunately, there has already been multiple legislation passed by the EU on this very subject, which is presently enforced, including the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme. This was followed in 2009 by the promotion by Obama of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which was passed by the US Congress, but ultimately narrowly blocked by the Senate.

Australia is the first country in the world to introduce a de facto Carbon Tax. This was passed by the Australian Senate in November, 2011, despite the fact that it is an incredibly unpopular policy in Australia, with polls preceding its introduction showing that over 80% of the population were opposed to it.

Throughout the Greens’ global governance policy, one can see an emphasis on ‘democracy’. Considering the supposed commitment of the Greens to “democratisation”, it seems worthwhile to point out that the Australian Prime Minister that put the Carbon Tax legislation before parliament, Julia Gillard, stated explicitly in opposition that there “will be no Carbon Tax under the government I lead”. It may be reassuring for British readers to know that tens of thousands of miles away, politicians still behave in familiar fashion; once in government, Gillard utterly flip-flopped on this statement, introduced a Carbon Tax, and then claimed repeatedly that she had never mislead anyone. Gillard is now so unpopular in Australia, that she was roundly booed at a recent public appearance at the Australian Open tennis tournament. Considering the Australian Green Party was the biggest promoter of this policy in Australia – here is one of many examples – one would not unreasonably wonder now whether they are in any position to hail democracy.

While your humble author doesn’t wish to veer into the realms of the conspiratorial, it is also noticeable that the logo of the Australian Green Party has also taken on a rather familiar triangle shape.

Also, while this may be slightly off-topic, the Green Party proposes within this policy document that “a commitment to the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 which calls for more women at every level of governance, and for women and gender issues to be included in all aspects of peacemaking and peace-keeping”.

Again, there are two things to note here. Firstly, this is precisely the sort of inane political correctness that actually led to the term political correctness being coined in the first place. This is quite simply positive discrimination. Or, to put it more simply, discrimination. While one would wish to see all political candidates assessed on their merit, regardless of gender, age, race or sexuality, there is no justification whatsoever for promoting “more women at every level of governance”. Political and electoral systems are already sufficiently lacking in meritocracy without needlessly promoting positive discrimination. And why should “women and gender issues be included in all aspects of peacemaking and peace-keeping”? In what way are women and gender issues related to peace or warfare? Are women more prone to being blown up by bombs than men? Do more women die in wars than men? And if the reason is the oft-asserted statement that if the world was run by women then there would be less war, or possibly no war at all, then, firstly, I think anyone that puts this argument forward perhaps needs to look into where the power in the world really lies – not in politicians, but in the powerful vested banking-military-corporate interests that put them in power in the first place, and intrinsically drive both public and foreign policy – and secondly, it’s hard to see any evidence from, for example, Mrs. Hilary Clinton or Mrs. Margaret Thatcher that high-ranking female political figures are less inclined to sabre rattle than their male counterparts. Or, given the aforementioned example of Gillard, less inclined to lie.

Secondly, this policy gives clear indication of the possible direction of the political process. The Australian Green Party proclaims “a commitment to the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325”. In other words, the UN Security Council will decide Australian public policy. Don’t worry, though, it was only United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 that led to the Iraq war. It’s not as if there have been any unpopular United Nations resolutions…

And the Greens have stated that they wish to ‘democratise’ the UN. Far from being a good thing for the people, the ‘democratisation’ of the UN would simply legitimise the idea that UN resolutions should usurp the authority of national sovereignty and individual parliaments and seats of government. This is the precise meaning of the term ‘multilateralism’ which the Greens use in the document. Wikipedia states:

“Multilateralism is a term in international relations that refers to multiple countries working in concert on a given issue. International organizations, such as the United Nations (UN) and the World Trade Organization are multilateral in nature”.

The Greens even propose “phasing out the veto powers of permanent members of the Security Council”. Essentially what the Greens are proposing is the end of Australia’s national sovereignty. But what else could “global governance” possibly entail? It has to neuter sovereignty by definition. We should be particularly concerned what it would entail, though, considering the Greens also “support the establishment of an international environmental court and an environmental council at the UN, with similar decision-making powers to the Security Council to deal with environmental issues of global significance”, and also “support the establishment, by the UN, of an international crisis prevention and response centre to address threats from terrorism and other conflicts”.

Elsewhere, the Green Party spouts the usual rhetoric of “accountability”, “peace, security, justice and human rights”, “sustainability”, and so on. But the society they wish to see, that they are openly promoting, is one in which decisions are taken on a global, not national (never mind, regional or local) basis, in which the United Nations has immense influence, some might say hegemony, over national parliaments, and in which increasingly stringent proscription of people’s everyday lives is proposed and enforced globally, justified by the perennial sword of Damocles hanging over our collective heads; the reduction of ‘deadly’ carbon dioxide emissions.

It is interesting and important to note that the mainstream media often presents the issue of climate change as being a divisive one. Of being one in which there is great conflict between various nations. For example, the BBC reported that the recent Copenhagen climate summit was “suspended” due to “developing countries [withdrawing] their co-operation”. This ignored the question of whether there needs to be international conferences to discuss climate change, and rather glossed over the fact that 192 countries (and the European Union) have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, active since 1997, which calls for an 80% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, and that one of the very few nations in the world not to have ratified it, the United States, signed it on 12th November, 1998.

In actual fact, much of the legislation required to instigate the green agenda is already in place. And we should not doubt that the political will exists to make it happen. In the book, Bilderberg People, one Bilderberg participant interviewed by the author describes the “total consensus” on climate change within Bilderberg (page 105, if you wish to look it up). This is hardly surprising. While the issues related to carbon trading, carbon offsets and smart meters are beyond the scope of this article, the instigation of this agenda promises on the one hand more micro-management of the public, more proscription of and control over the lives of everyday people, more centralisation of power and political mechanisms, more opportunities to enforce taxation, and more profit for corporations for providing less product, as they pass the expense of converting to ‘green’ energy onto the consumer, while on the other there is the delicious prospect for the corporate and banking sector of making profit by trading phantom money on the value of a gaseous substance that we all exhale every five seconds, while offsetting their own carbon emissions by undertaking dubious schemes to ‘offset’ them. No elite will ever vote against these kinds of policies.

The underlying political motive of the centralisation of power to create a global government, allied to the strengthening of the power of the United Nations, and an increasing emphasis on global institutions and decision making, has been a focus of the alternative media for some time, and equally frequently dismissed as being a ‘conspiracy theory’. However there is now a major political party – the Australian Green Party, who hold nine seats in the Australian Senate, receiving over 13% of the vote in the 2010 federal election, and over 20% of the vote in the regions of Tasmania and Australian Capital Territory – that has global governance as one of its key manifesto commitments. Don’t worry, though, because according to the Australian Green Party, it’s going to be “transparent” and “democratic”, and bring us “peace”, “justice” and “security”. I’m sure we’ll all love it.

Facetiousness aside, the agenda related to climate change is not going away, far from it, and we ought to be very weary of its promotion. The policy commitment of the Australian Green Party to global governance should not be viewed as an arcane idea being pushed by a fringe party, easy though it may be to dismiss it in such terms. It is, and will be, the central, defining issue of mainstream political discourse in the twenty-first century, and it will come to affect all of our lives directly, as will the agenda and policies related to climate change, and indeed, in many cases this is already the case. We should not underestimate the political will to achieve this, nor accept it acquiescently, as the society imagined by the globalists is a neo-feudal one, in which the sovereignty of the nation has been dissolved completely, and the sovereignty of the individual is more of an abstract concept than an achievable reality.

Follow WideShut