Multilateralism is no remedy but a waste of time!
Translation Preface: Abolish Nato. If not today then next week, please. The Americans do not want it - their people do not mind about it, their government does not like to pay for it, only their bureaucrats want it. The Europeans do not want it - our people are either fed up with it, displaced or corrupted by it, but our bureaucrats are clinging to it because they are fearing true change of government and open competition from ending foreign military occupation. Or they are stuck on stupid and fear Russia instead, which has completely pulled out here a generation ago, while Nato did not. Nato has brought about a coup against the United Nations General Assembly by waging an illegal war in Europe (1999 against Serbia), and - as the worst instance of multilateralism - is posing the necessity to the United Nations to dissolve this illegal organisation to restore peace in Europe and its sovereignty. Translation of article follows.
(2018-Dec-18 tinyurl.com/multilateralismus) Climate diplomacy is nonsense. Climate disruptions are up, hence it now is no longer harmless nonsense but dangerous nonsense. Fossil energies must be taxed everywhere around the world the same, and revenues earmarked for common purposes. Emissions trade is medieval nonsense, like indulgence trade, as all diplomatic lingo associated with it. The world market must be reorganised such that all fossil profits are being spent for environmental protection. Man is to be protected as an element of its environment, by means of the unconditional basic income. Nations must give up their respective claims and submit to a scientific administration of all fossils. Accounting criteria must be independent of current territorial arrangements.
The hazardousness of the nonsense can already be seen from the excuses coming with it. The vain proclamations of ineffective conferences are not to be excused, rather they are alarm signs that this path is an aberration. In the end, multilateralist climate diplomacy does nothing but emulate the NAM (non-aligned movement) from the 20th century; no antiimperialist awakening is to be expected from any such effort.
State groups bigger than any single continent are plenty, but none of them bears Archimedean forces. Instead, the task of today is to restructure the fragmented regional grouping system in a geographically meaningful order, so that the General Assembly can rearrange itself in ways suitable to tackle the respective issues, and the United Nations thereby become capable to produce meaningful decisions.
For this it must be made clear that the Security Council is not a circle of regional representatives, but a side-effect of weapons of mass destruction, and as such to be dismantled as soon as possible by consensus of the General Assembly. If there is anything anyone concerned with it logically has to agree to, then it is that successfully saving the climate requires disarmament as its self-evident precondition. Europe now is in the front row of the traffic jam, as America is incapable to disarm without external guidance.
Although it did not work to make an nuclear weapon from coal, to bring about a creeping version of the thermonuclear climate catastrophe coal does suffice. In the end, climate changes can have the effects of weapons mass destructions, hence - reverse conclusion - the nuclear weapons must be dismantled to obtain the ability to defuse the climate problem in the first place. And to achieve that, the General Assembly must become capable to produce meaningful decisions, in order to avoid all that bullshit from G-20 to COP-24.
To transcend their hitherto role as a grease of multilateralism and successfully contribute to climate adaptation, NGOs must develop ethics of responsibility to distance themselves against emissions trade. As all indulgence trade, it is a bureaucratic aberration. Emissions are always to be minimised, regardless at which level of consumption. Only consumption can be regulated, in the best way by means of blanket hidden cost absorption from the respective source.
Currently, the top priority is to deconstruct these excuses, in order to enable the making of decisions suitable for reality. No multilateral conference was ever successful, neither according to any subjective nor to objective criteria, but from how organisers are shifting the goalposts of their definitions of success, their duplicity is self-evident.
In the same way, from the number of decisions only concerning the interactions of diplomats, but not of their governments, the degree of incompetence can be seen. All these surrogates indicate a need for real decisions in the name of the respective peoples, but are not of this quality since due to the nonsensical regional grouping system currently little more than positioning gambles are possible.
A beginning is the perception that any commitment a democratically elected government makes beyond its term is void. It is so, because long-term commitments are not a matter of the governments but of the peoples. When governments are to affected by the side-effects of their wars to disarm, then they must be disarmed. The correlation between weapons of mass destruction and totalitarianism has been proven by the 20th century.
... Please donate to support my work: https://tinyurl.com/bauer-spenden ...
contribute to this article
add comment to discussion