Law of the Sea Treaty Is Back-door Measure for Global Warming Treaty, Could Inflict Severe Damage on U.S. National Security, and Would Impose International Taxes; Ambassador John Bolton Battles Global Tax Agenda of U.N. World Summit          America’s Survival. Inc. is warning that the Law of the Sea Treaty, now being pushed on Capitol Hill, must be the subject of extensive Senate hearings into how it would set a dangerous precedent for international taxation, pave the way for implementation of the unratified global warming treaty, and hamper the U.S. campaign against global terrorism. The treaty is a Trojan horse that would damage our economy, national security and our sovereignty. The Senate should not rush to ratify a treaty with such far-reaching consequences and ominous policy implications.                The treaty has been endorsed by business leaders, some military officials, and even the Bush Administration, but new information has come to light about the true purpose of the treaty that Senators and other officials need to understand. Shocking new evidence shows the heavy hand of the pro-world government World Federalists in crafting this treaty and lobbying for its passage. This group has made it plain that the treaty is designed to assert global control over the resources of the ocean as a first step toward giving the United Nations more authority and influence over managing the affairs of the entire world. They openly envision a world government, financed by global taxes. This hidden agenda must be exposed for the Senate to see. Indeed, the Law of the Sea Treaty establishes an International Seabed Authority, financed by taxes on corporations that mine the ocean floor.               Documents from the U.N. indicate that the Law of the Sea Treaty could apply to human activities on the land areas of the world, as long as they somehow affect the oceans, and that the measure could, therefore, be used in a back-door effort to limit the use of fossil fuels that are said to cause global warming. As such, the Law of the Sea Treaty can be viewed as a stealth effort to implement the Kyoto global warming treaty, whose key provisions were already rejected by the Senate in a 95-0 vote.             The pact has also been invoked to restrict U.S. military operations at sea that are absolutely necessary for and vital to U.S. national security. The treaty could interfere with our ability on the high seas to disrupt the activities of terrorist states and terrorist organizations. Meanwhile, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton continues to fight the global tax agenda at the U.N. Here are America’s Survival. Inc. President Cliff Kincaid’s last three columns on this matter (also available at www.aim.org):   Money For the U.N., None For Katrina? By Cliff Kincaid  |  September 2, 2005   With the Hurricane Katrina disaster still unfolding, events at the United Nations might not seem of much consequence. But if resources are truly in short supply in dealing with domestic problems, it is worth noting that a major push is underway to force the U.S. to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on the rest of the world through a global tax. In a September 2 editorial, The Washington Post has weighed in on the subject, basically saying that the U.S. should go along with a controversial U.N. World Summit document that would commit the U.S. to spending $845 billion, over and above what the U.S. is already providing in foreign aid. Why pick a fight with the U.N.? It's not worth "going to the mat" over such matters, the paper insisted in its editorial. In an apparent reference to proposals in the document for global taxes on the American people, the paper says these may be "vaguely annoying" but other countries support them so why put up a fuss. Finally, the paper expresses the hope that the State Department will stop U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton from objecting to such controversial provisions in the document. But the Post editorial was itself vague. The paper never explicitly stated that the summit document endorsed global taxes. To do so would raise far-reaching questions about the hidden agenda of those running the U.N. and the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) supporting it. The paper also never mentioned the $845 billion figure, which is what Annan adviser Jeffrey Sachs indicates it would cost the U.S. to meet the U.N.'s Millennium Development Goals. Since the paper was not honest with its readers about the U.N. agenda and what it would cost the American people, it was easy for the Post to pretend that there is nothing worth fighting about in the document, and that the U.S. should just let the U.N. have its way. In the editorial, entitled "UNdiplomatic," the Post said that most of Bolton's complaints were "insubstantial." The editorial made a brief mention of the antics of Sachs, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's top adviser on foreign aid, who has been publicly criticizing the U.S. position. Now for the rest of the story. The editorial appears to reflect the thinking of Sebastian Mallaby, a Post editorial columnist and former fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. It turns out that Mallaby participated in an August 31 conference call with Sachs, arranged by the pro-foreign aid group Results, to discuss what Mallaby called Bolton's "intervention" in the negotiations over the summit document. This is a curious use of that term. The U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. takes a role in negotiating changes in a controversial document that President Bush is supposed to endorse at the U.N. meeting next month and this constitutes "intervention." This terminology reflects the mindset of those who believe the U.S. belongs to the U.N. just so we can fork over billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars and say nothing about how the money is spent. Actually, the tone of the session was set by the moderator, Joanne Carter, the legislative director of Results, who complained that Bolton was "seeking to massively rewrite" the flawed document. Mallaby was the first of several journalists asking questions of Sachs during the session. A transcript shows Mallaby wondering if Bolton is "freelancing" in stating objections to the document and whether Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will put a stop to it. We see that thinking reflected in the Post editorial. An honest review of the transcript of the conversation with Sachs demonstrates that it is Sachs who is out of control. But Sachs is an official spokesman for Annan and the U.N. In the discussion, Sachs charged that the U.S. is trying to "gut" the summit document and that "…millions of people are dying this year because the United States is not acting" to spend more on foreign aid. Sachs cited no evidence for this sensational and irresponsible charge. He also griped about the U.S. spending too much money on the military. The transcript shows that Joe Lauria, the U.N. correspondent for The Boston Globe, wondered if the U.S. had an economic policy based on access to "cheap resources and cheap labor" and wanted "to keep these countries down." This was a revealing question, demonstrating the mentality of the reporters covering the U.N. The U.S. is supposedly the problem because we don't spend enough on foreign aid. And the process undertaken by Bolton of raising questions about how the aid is being spent and whether it is doing any good reflects a hidden imperialist agenda. The questions and answers in this discussion, available at http://www.results.org/website/article.asp?id=1758, demonstrate the poor quality of mass media reporting on the United Nations. Not one reporter asked about proposals for global taxes in the summit document. Not one reporter asked Sachs about his proposal for a global energy tax to pay for increased foreign-aid spending. Because he wrote a book, entitled The End of Poverty, and seems to believe the answer to poverty is more government spending and higher taxes, he is considered an "expert" by the liberal press, not to mention the U.N. itself. In taking a firm stand in favor of the interests of the U.S. and the American taxpayer, Ambassador Bolton is exposing their agenda and finding himself made into a villain on the global stage.   UN. Wants $845 Billion From U.S. By Cliff Kincaid  |  September 1, 2005   U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton is quoted in Thursday's Washington Post as saying that while the U.S. supports more development assistance to those countries that demonstrate an ability to use aid effectively, "the U.S. does not accept global aid targets or global taxes." This marks a breakthrough. The paper's U.N. correspondent, Colum Lynch, has finally noted that the issue of "global taxes" has been on the table at the U.N. He still hasn't disclosed that the "international community" wants to soak the U.S. for an additional $845 billion. The comments were included in the final paragraph of Lynch's story about how Bolton is objecting to various provisions of the "draft outcome document" being prepared for world leaders at the U.N.'s World Summit next month. The comments followed charges by Jeffrey Sachs, a top adviser to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, that Bolton is trying to "gut" the document. But Bolton's comments should be big news. America is a nation born in a tax revolt when King George tried to tax us. Do Americans support global taxes for the U.N.? We anxiously await the results of major media opinion polls on this question. Until Lynch quoted Bolton's comments on the matter, our Big Media had carefully concealed this fact from the American people. The key global tax proposal is for a "a solidarity contribution on plane tickets to finance development projects." This is U.N. doublespeak for an international tax on airline travel. The French, who are pushing the idea, want a tax of about $6 per passenger worldwide, with a $25 surcharge for business class, generating about $12 billion a year. But this is only the proverbial tip of the iceberg. A global tax on energy could generate tens of billions of dollars a year while an international tax on currency transactions could generate trillions. The world body is pushing global taxes, in the name of fulfilling the U.N.'s "Millennium Development Goals" for increased foreign-aid spending, because it knows that the U.S. would never voluntarily turn over another $845 billion. This is the amount of money that Sachs says the U.S. is obligated to spend, over and above what the U.S. is already providing. Sachs says the U.S. is "short" by $65 billion a year. Over a 13 year period, from 2002, when the U.N.'s Financing for Development Conference was held, to the target year of 2015, that adds up to $845 billion. Now that Bolton has objected to this looting of the American government and taxpayer, the U.N. and its collaborators are fighting back. Taking the media assault to a new level, the Los Angeles Times accused Bolton of seeking changes in the U.N. document that would result in millions of deaths. NGOs are spewing out anti-Bolton press releases saying that the U.S. is turning its back on victims of AIDS and poverty. One group, which calls itself Results, claims that Bolton's "trashing" of the summit document will result in lowering the bar "for humanity's progress." The Results group organized a conference call for journalists on Wednesday with Annan adviser Sachs, who was scheduled to discuss the "implications of U.S. proposed revisions" in the summit document "for poverty reduction around the world." Meanwhile, the U.N. has announced that Annan himself has "reiterated his full support" for including the Millennium Development Goals in the summit document and says that any effort to remove the targets "would hurt billions of people." So the number of Bolton's potential victims has now risen into the billions! It should be apparent that we are witnessing a carefully orchestrated campaign trashing Bolton and his staff, who are working overtime to correct major flaws in a U.N. document that is designed to expand the authority and power of the U.N. at the literal expense of the U.S. Our media have openly taken sides against the U.S. position. The campaign is facilitated by the fact that the U.N. Correspondents Association (UNCA), the group of journalists covering the U.N. on a daily basis, enjoys a very cozy relationship with the world body. The relationship is so close that one journalist, The Nation's U.N. correspondent, has taken money from the world body. Other reporters are paid by the U.N. to appear on the U.N. "World Chronicle" television program. UNCA's conferences are subsidized by pro-U.N. organizations funded by billionaire George Soros and Ted Turner, which helps explain why our major media refuse to examine the big money behind the pro-U.N. lobby. The Results group, for example, listed the Soros-funded Open Society Institute as its largest donor in 2003, having contributed at least $200,000 to the organization. In his book, The End of Poverty, Sachs himself praises Soros as a "world-class philanthropist and financier" and one of the "miracle workers in promoting global justice who have generously helped me in my own activities…" For his part, Sachs advocates a "global tax on carbon-emitting fossil fuels…" that "would finance a greatly enhanced supply of global public goods." A book prepared by the U.N., New Sources of Development Finance, endorses such a proposal. The headline in the Post should say, "U.N. Wants to Raise Global Taxes on Gasoline." But if a reporter wrote a story to go with that headline, that might generate negative feelings toward the U.N. at a time of rising gas prices in the U.S. Some people might even get the impression that the U.N. wants to play the role of a new King George.   Bolton Resists U.N. Push for Global Taxes By Cliff Kincaid  |  August 29, 2005   We are in the midst of an orchestrated campaign by U.N. supporters to force the Bush administration to go along with a pro-world government agenda at next month's "World Summit" at the world body in New York. The script is a familiar one—depict John Bolton, the new U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., as someone obstructing the progress of the international community. The main players in the campaign are the World Federalists, the Open Society Policy Center of billionaire George Soros, and Ted Turner's Better World Campaign. In terms of the media, Reuters news service, the New York Times and the Washington Post have already opened fire on Bolton. Most recently, Arianna Huffington and Steven Clemons of the New America Foundation have joined the campaign, urging the State Department to bypass Bolton and acquiesce to U.N. demands that the U.S. commit to hundreds of billions of dollars in new foreign aid spending.   What the media have carefully concealed is the fact the summit's "draft outcome document," as it's currently called, would put the U.S. on record in support of global taxes on the American people. Bolton wants those and other parts of the document eliminated.   Two new developments are expected in this propaganda campaign. First, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) will release a letter to President Bush urging the U.S. to play a "positive role" in the negotiations on a final document. Second, liberal members of Congress will release a similar letter. The major media will fawn over these developments, leading to more anti-Bolton stories.    The media campaign began on August 17 when Reuters news agency falsely accused Bolton of trying to "scrap" U.N. reform by challenging the document. The very next day, the Citizens for Global Solutions, previously known as the World Federalist Association, Ted Turner's Better World Campaign, and the Open Society Policy Center announced they were going to send a letter to Bush on this matter and wanted other groups to add their names to it. "A similar congressional sign on letter will be circulated shortly," they said. They only want Bush to "cooperate" with the U.N., they insist.   Then, on August 25, the Washington Post and the New York Times ran stories by their U.N. correspondents raising alarms about the changes Bolton is seeking in the document. Colum Lynch of the Post accused Bolton of throwing the proceedings of the U.N. into "turmoil."  Warren Hoge of the Times quoted William R. Pace, general secretary of the World Federalist Movement, "which promotes a strong United Nations," as saying, "It would be very unfortunate and not in the interest of the United States or the international community for the new U.S. ambassador to barge in and undermine an important summit negotiation process."   Notice use of the loaded words and phrases "barge in" and "undermine," designed to convey the impression of Bolton as obstructionist. But also notice the misleading description of the World Federalists promoting "a strong United Nations." The group openly favors world government, financed by global taxes, and Bolton stands in its way.   It's unfortunate that the major media have reporters at the U.N. who are either too lazy or too liberal to inform the American people that the draft supports "a solidarity contribution on plane tickets to finance development projects." This is a euphemism for a French proposal for an international tax on airline travel. The document goes on to say that the nations of the world will "agree to consider further other solidarity contributions that would be nationally applied and internationally coordinated…"   If the idea of global taxes is shocking, it's only because the Big Media have failed to report that the U.N. issued a 17-page August 17, 2004, report under the title of "Innovative sources of financing for development." The phrase "innovative sources" is another euphemism for global taxes. The report was approved by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, made explicit references to global taxes, and carried the endorsement of the U.N. General Assembly. This kind of thinking is reflected in the summit document that Bolton wants to change.   The U.N. also prepared a book, New Sources of Development Finance, advocating global environmental taxes and a global currency tax that would affect the international investments of ordinary Americans. One contributor to the book suggests that taxes be collected by national governments and then provided through a "World Tax Authority" under the U.N. system.  In seeking a global tax, the U.N. is demanding that the U.S. spend 0.7 percent of our gross national income on foreign aid. According to Jeffrey D. Sachs, Annan's special advisor, the U.S. is short by $65 billion each year. Over the 13-year period of time when the U.S. is expected to meet its own "Millennium Development Goal," this amounts to $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends on foreign aid. Sachs favors a global tax to force the U.S. to pay up.    All signs point to a propaganda blitz on behalf of the U.N. over the next several days as negotiations on the summit document intensify. Bolton, who will be depicted by the media as the villain, has been standing firm. The question is whether the U.S. State Department will buckle under the pressure. American sovereignty hangs in the balance.              Printer-friendly version Click here to be added to our mailing list.