The Seedlings: How the UN, IPCC, FCTC, EU, ASH ET AL WORK

First, let’s look at the seedlings. It was March 29th when I published this pic of the seedlings:

2014-03-28 13.15.08

I posted an update in the essay on “Growing … etc” since then, but not here. At the time, there was not much to report for readers here, but the update might have interested readers of the other.

Anyway, here is an update of the development to date:

2014-04-22 23.58.12

And a close-up:

2014-04-22 23.58.31

The empty cells exist because I have moved the contents into individual 2″ pots.

My plan is to keep moving the seedlings into their own pots a few at a time as they get bigger. But the main thing is that they seem  to be quite happy and growing, if slowly. I read somewhere that the plants seem to ‘snooze’ shortly after germinating because they are building the rooting system. I wish that they would get on with it!

——–

For fun, I sowed some seeds from my second best plant randomly into a tray:

2014-04-23 00.38.01

A veritable forest! Some of them are doing better than the ones in the propagator. Very strange. I am saving them in case of disaster, but they could do with thinning.

Everything is running a bit later than I would have wished, but not badly so.

We shall see…..

=======

I was reading about how the WHO works over at Clive Bates place:

http://www.clivebates.com/?p=2011#comments

(Scroll down to the last comment)

Here is a copy of the last comment from Bates about the WHO:

Jonathan Bagley

Clive, could you please explain the relationship between the WHO and national governments. Much of the funding of the WHO is by country donations. Surely we order the WHO about – not the other way round?

Bates’s reply:

It is a very good question!

The first issue is formal versus informal accountability. WHO provides a secretariat function and it is the state parties to the FCTC (i.e national governments) that make the decisions, usually via consensus, at the Conference of the Parties or other working meetings.

BUT that’s only half the story… WHO drafts the papers and frames the issues and options for the parties to debate and agree. So its role is a bit like the Commission in the EU. It sets the agenda. It is in the nature of international treaty diplomacy that most involved just want an agreement, and don’t care that much what it is in detail. They tend to approach these meetings with ‘red lines’. These are things they definitely don’t want, or things that their politicians have promised they must get from the negotiations.

So most negotiation is based on ducking and weaving around red lines – heading towards an agreement. This tends towards incremental tinkering and finessing the original proposals of the secretariat. Of course it doesn’t always happen that way, but that’s the norm. It’s that’s exactly what happened in the EU Council (i.e. EU member state governments). In the ‘general approach’ of June 2013, they just fiddled with the initial Commission position. It took something disruptive, the European Parliament, a bit more directly influenced by ordinary voters, to dislodge them from Council position and they didn’t like it one bit. There is no real equivalent of the disruptive role of the directly elected representatives involved in this. In fact it is packed out with NGOs that are broadly hostile to harm reduction.

Second issue is WHO’s own governance. WHO is a so-called International Non-Governmental Organisation. It has its own governance arrangements, which consist primarily of the World Health Assembly (all its 194 member governments) and its Executive Board of 34 member representative who hold the executive to account. This machinery is extremely remote from from citizens and not normally concerned with detailed stuff. They would instinctively see any approach to them as a vested interest and tend to back WHO – they don’t do much original thinking at that level. It might work if we knew one or two of them outside this role, but a cold approach would be ineffective.

Finally, there is the approach of tackling senior managers all the way up to Dr Margaret Chan – the Director General. Again that relies on contacts and confidence, but editorials like those in the FT today will jog the interest of the more senior people, who are remote from what the FCTC is doing. But you can get an idea of where she is coming from in this 2012 speech, ….

I was aware of the trickery going on in the UN and the EU, but it has only just ‘clicked’ as to how it has been done.

The first thing to be aware of is that the UN has had decades to work out ways to manipulate individual governments. I suspect that most UN devotees and employees were good chaps and did their best to operate the system as was intended – to provide a forum for Nations to talk to each other and come to mutually advantageous agreements. What was really special was to avoid any further world wars, especially with the atom bomb being in everyone’s minds.  The UN was spectacularly effective  in that respect. Let’s face it. The Security Council defused many a dangerous situation.

However, part of the reason for this success was the establishment of multiple interdependent bodies seeking common ground and mutual advantages in other ways. Thus, the Soviet Union had control of various territories, as did the USA, China, and, to some extent, Britain and France. We must remember that it is not possible to know how close the Korean War came to the use of nuclear weapons – or, indeed, Vietnam.

It is easy to see that the lessons leant from the UN success in avoiding the use of nuclear weapons were picked up by the Health Zealots. It was not enough to set up the WHO, or UNESCO, as disseminators of ‘BEST PRACTICE’. They had to have ‘teeth’. The way to get these teeth was to establish multiple, multiple NGOs. It is not for nothing that the slogan of Common Purpose is “leading beyond authority”. In that phrase, ‘leading’ means ‘forcing’. It is a fascist idea.

——–

Around 150 nations signed the FCTC treaty. Did they know what far-reaching powers they were handing over to these individuals and groups? I think that most certainly not. But the problem now exists that it is almost impossible for these nations to back-track. There is no withdrawal mechanism. It is almost impossible for any nation to gain the support of a majority of all the 150 nations to abolish the FCTC.

Having said that, there is an Achilles heel. The reality is that the FCTC is just a treaty. No government is legal bound at all. It is just a treaty. If a government decides to just stop going along with the requirements of the treaty, then nothing will happen. Nothing at all.  If the UK government said, “Look, we’ve gone along with this treaty to the extent that we think is appropriate. As far as we are concerned, it is now defunct”, then no one could do anything about it. Clearly, the UK would stop contributing the the FCTC budget.

What is quite laughable is that a number of nations had never paid their contributions to the FCTC budget!! They signed up, but did not contribute to the costs. I don’t want to overburden this post, but here is a sample quote from the minutes of an FCTC meeting:

The unpredictability of VAC (voluntary assessed contributions) as well as the arrears in payment of VAC (20 parties had never paid their contributions) …..

The copy of the minutes is here:

http://www.clivebates.com/documents/WHObureausummary.pdf

The bit that I have quoted appears in para 56 – about half way through. Clearly, the FCTC is in a financial mess. But who keeps bailing it out? Someone must be doing so, or they are in debt. If so, to whom are they indebted?

——–

Slowly, slowly the machinations are opening up. The depth of the corruption is slowly, slowly becoming apparent.

But what do Cameron, Clegg and Milliband care? NOT ONE JOT!! They continue to chuck OUR money at these organisations without a moment’s thought, or probably without even knowing that they are doing so. What rotters!

 

 

Advertisements

2 Responses to “The Seedlings: How the UN, IPCC, FCTC, EU, ASH ET AL WORK”

  1. smokingscot Says:

    These guys fill in some of the gaps:

    http://philanthropy.com/article/As-Ted-Turner-s-1-Billion/144591/

    http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Media-Center/Press-Releases/1999/12/Polio-Eradication-Initiative

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg

    Also Warren Buffet.

  2. Junican Says:

    I’ve read your links, SS. The most directly informative is the Bloomberg one. But see tonight’s post.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: