Some people are getting tied in knots over the Copenhagen Treaty. One e-mail I have received is addressed to those who are "thinkers and not just sheep." It suggests that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is about to sign the Treaty on our behalf, and appeals to readers to "...google (sic) Lord Monckton and read all about world governance and what that will mean for Australians."
The conspiracy to which they direct us is in Lord Monckton's head, when he tells us that Obama (Rudd isn't far behind) is poised to sign away US sovereignty to some yet-to-be-created One World Government with vast enforcement powers against any who wish to withdraw.
The writers also appeal to us to give our friends Professor Ian Plimer’s book, Heaven & Earth as a Christmas gift, and allege that global warming theory is a religion, being fed to an unwitting public.
Monckton may have been Thatcher's Science Adviser, but that only confirms complaints from the science community that science was brought into a parlous condition during those years. Perhaps I went too far in comparing him with Erich von Däniken, or Dan Brown with his Da Vinci theories, but he certainly played fast and loose with the Copenhagen process. Yet it is such a typical method for those who wish to mislead: insert a comment here or a heading there, read two passages which don't belong together, or use bold type to create visual links where there are no logical links… Even Plimer is worth more attention, and that’s saying a lot.
The argument against Monckton
Here’s why Monckton’s argument is mischievous garbage…
(1) No one really knows what the final treaty will look like: that’s why the leaders are meeting. They will have various draft documents as guidelines, but there will be a lot of discussion and debate before a final result is achieved – assuming that one is achieved anyway. The various drafts (of which the one Monckton refers to is but one) are similar to Union Ambit Claims: they cover a lot more ground than the final paper will. The idea is to make sure that participants don’t miss something important, and have some idea of what is possible and what is not.
(2) What will be signed cannot be binding on any Government until it is ratified by that Government. No single leader can unilaterally cede sovereignty, except in a dictatorship; and what dictator would do that? This is why there are Constitutions.
(3) Governments are notorious for signing treaties and then failing to ratify them, as well as for ratifying them and failing to act on them in good faith – as many Third World countries are well aware when it comes to commitments to overseas aid by the wealthy countries.
(4) It is hardly conceivable that a majority of countries would ratify (through their Governments) a treaty which gave them no withdrawal option – and, to date, there has been no indication that any party has been considering a binding treaty of that kind. It would be unprecedented in the modern world.
Historically, countries have withdrawn from treaties without greater penalty than loss of international standing. At worst, individual nations might institute some kind of trade embargo or severance of diplomatic ties to a recalcitrant nation.
(5) Monckton’s only true suggestion is that a treaty will involve some kind of ceding of sovereignty: as all treaties do. Such ceding can go no further than the terms of the treaty as ratified by the parties.
How negotiated settlements work
The situation is like what might happen in a conflict between neighbours, except that it is carbon dioxide and methane rather than stones being flung.
Assume that my neighbour is troubled by my habit of throwing stones across the fence at his windows when he plays his stereo loudly.
To ease negotiations, he and I go to the pub and nut out an agreement. But my wife has told me, “Make sure you tell him he can’t play any kind of music after dark!” Similarly, his wife's instruction is: “Tell him not to bang the fence with a stick when we are having parties, either!”
At first each of us is horrified at the other's conditions.
So we talk it over. In the end, I agree that classical music is OK after dark, but no heavy metal. He agrees that I can bang the fence up to three times in an hour if he runs the stereo too loudly. That is, he agrees to cede sovereignty to some extent over music, and I agree to cede sovereignty to some extent in respect of banging the fence as well of as throwing stones.
But I certainly have to go home and get my wife’s agreement before we all shake hands over the fence, and my neighbour will need to sell the final agreement at home, too.
Final comments
Monckton is a peer, and therefore a member of the House of Lords. He should have some idea of how Government works. If he doesn’t, he has no right to go about, claiming expertise; if he does, he is mischievous to make these statements.
Personally, looking at what he has said, I think he is pitching propaganda to the US's strong representation of dispensational fundamentalists, many of whom are convinced of the impending implementation of a single world Government. While I share some of their beliefs, I have to add that, for a variety of reasons not worth going into here, they are particularly vulnerable to Monckton's kind of misinformation.
It is one thing to dispute the validity of climate change science; it is another to use misinformation and to manipulate paranoia in order to gain political support.
