World Concerns

From the Hague, COP 6, November 13 - 25, 2000

Individual freedom is among the highest aspirations of all people in every nation - freedom from want and oppression, freedom to realize one's highest potential. The Freedom 21 Campaign seeks to define the principles of freedom and advance those principles throughout the world in the 21^st century.

The first principle of freedom is the realization that life is a gift from the Creator, and that each life begins with the inherent right to live and to fully utilize the physical and intellectual resources with which each individual is endowed - in his or her own interest. Fundamental to this concept is the realization that every person is of equal value and possesses equal inherent rights.

People create governments, not the other way around. Therefore, governments should be the servant of the people, not the other way around. Another fundamental principle of freedom is this: legitimate government power arises from the consent of the governed. When government power is wielded without the consent of the governed, the result is inevitably, oppression. The mechanism through which the consent of the governed is conveyed to the institutions of government is the process of free, open, and transparent elections.

Laws that govern people should be made by, and only by, individuals who are elected by the people whom the lawmakers represent. This too, is a fundamental principle of freedom. People must be able to hold their law makers accountable for the laws they make. When laws are made that the people do not want, the lawmakers can be replaced through the election process. This is the mechanism through which the people can keep their government under control.

Each nation whose government reflects the expressed consent of the governed, exercises the sovereignty of the nation. In the same way that every individual is of equal value and possesses equal inherent rights, every nation is of equal value and possesses an equal right to exercise its national sovereignty.

These principles of freedom represent an ideal which the world has not yet achieved. It is a worthy goal for the 21^st century. We have a lot of work to do.

There is much conflict between and among individuals, and between and among nations. Conflict is resolved only when agreement is reached voluntarily between the parties in conflict. Forced cessation is not resolution; it only postpones future conflict. Voluntary agreement among the parties, whether individuals or nations, is the only way to resolve conflicts and build relationships that are mutually beneficial.

The United Nations was conceived to be a forum where member nations could gather to discuss their differences and develop voluntary agreements to avoid conflict and build mutually beneficial relationships. This too, is an ideal which has not yet been achieved. Nor will it ever be achieved unless the principles of freedom are respected and applied.

Equal sovereignty is not sovereign equality

The concept of equal sovereignty recognizes that each nation enjoys the same right to self-determination. The concept of sovereign equality implies the presence of a single sovereign power through which a measure of sovereignty is dispensed equally to participating nations.

To illustrate the difference between the two concepts, visualize two brothers. Each is free and independent. They may agree, or they may disagree, or even fight. Each may exercise his "sovereignty" equally - until the father steps in and exercises his power to enforce "sovereign equality."

The United Nations cannot be the "father" who exercises sovereign equality over nations. National governments are created by the people, and should, therefore, be the servant of the people. The United Nations was created by the member nations, and should, therefore be the servant of member nations - not the other way around.

The concept of equal sovereignty is consistent with, and grows from the principles of freedom.

The concept of sovereign equality annihilates the principles of freedom by ignoring the principle that legitimate government power arises from the consent of the governed, which is conveyed through representatives elected by, and accountable to, the people who are governed.

Equal sovereignty recognizes that nations have an equal right to agree, disagree, or even fight. The parties suffer or benefit as the result of their voluntary decisions. Sovereign equality presumes the power to force compliance with actions prescribed by the sovereign power. When individuals or nations are subject to a power over which they exercise no control, freedom becomes a commodity to be denied in varying measures, by the holder of that power.

Freedom, like life itself, is a gift from the Creator. Freedom cannot be granted by any government - it can only be denied by government. National sovereignty is the life of a nation. It is the embodiment of the people of a nation who deserve recognition as equals by all other nations. There is not, nor should there ever be, a higher governing authority than national governments, created and controlled by the people who are governed.

This is the vision of the Freedom 21 Campaign. It is a vision of freedom. It is a vision of empowerment. It is a vision of individual achievement, and individual responsibility. When people are free to pursue their own self-interests; free to enter into voluntary agreements and associations; free to exchange ideas and encouragement; free to buy and sell and manufacture and process - governed only by laws to which they consent through the lawmakers they elect - progress and prosperity is available to all. This is, indeed, a worthy goal for the 21^st century.

Kyoto vs. Freedom

The Kyoto Protocol represents the best, and the worst, functions of the United Nations. The nations of the world recognized a potential problem - human induced climate change - and, through the United Nations, came together to discuss the problem in search of voluntary agreements to prevent a global problem. This is the legitimate function of the United Nations.

The moment the Berlin Mandate was adopted, which mandated that the voluntary agreements reached in the Convention on Climate Change become "legally binding," under the auspices of an international body of appointed - not elected - policy makers, the stage was set for the overthrow of equal sovereignty by sovereign equality.

Since its inception, the Conference of the Parties (COP) has been working to create a mechanism through which it can dispense a measure of sovereignty to participating nations to achieve what it defines to be equality. This may not be the stated objective of the COP, but it is the end result. Should the Kyoto Protocol become international law, the COP will have presumed the power to effectively dictate energy policy to sovereign nations.

The consolidation of power into the hands of an un-elected body of policymakers represents the worst function of the United Nations.

Delegates to the COP, who work diligently to hammer out agreements, are not the elected officials who reflect the consent of the governed. Even the United States delegates, do not reflect the consent of the governed. The U.S. delegates are appointed by a President who is elected to be the Executive who implements policy enacted by the legislators. The elected representatives of the people often know very little about what the COP delegates do; the people know even less.

How can the people who are governed consent to the policies developed by individuals they don't even know, and did not choose to represent them? More important, how can the people hold those policymakers accountable? Without this safeguard and control, a fundamental principle of freedom is annihilated.

This fundamental flaw with the Kyoto Protocol can be solved rather easily: remove the "legally binding" requirements, and forget the enforcement provisions. It is, indeed, a legitimate function of the COP to develop recommendations, and guidelines, and targets, and all manner of information to help sovereign nations make the right decisions. It is not a legitimate function of the COP to "mandate," under penalty of any kind of sanction, any measure that must be taken by any sovereign nation.

Energy: A friend of freedom

Energy availability at affordable costs is far more important to the people of the world than whether or not the global mean temperature may (or may not) rise a degree or two over the next century. This is not to say the work of the COP and climate scientists is not important, it certainly is. But it is not nearly as important to the people of the world as access to affordable energy.

Access to affordable energy is one of the most visible lines between developed and developing nations. Policies that reduce the supply of energy, or increase its cost - are wrongheaded policies.

Energy fuels economic prosperity which is the only remedy to poverty. Poverty is the enemy of the environment - and the enemy of freedom.

Fossil fuels and nuclear energy are both enemies of the advocates of the Kyoto Protocol. This position puts hypothetical, projected benefits at a higher priority than the well-known, crushing needs of most of the world. All the people of the world need access to affordable energy. And they need it now.

There is plenty of affordable energy available. To deny this energy to the people of the world is inexcusable. Only through the use of existing energy supplies can the wealth be generated which is required to continue advancing technology to provide energy when fossil fuels are no longer available. Technology has already made the use of fossil fuel much cleaners that even 20 years ago. Technology has made nuclear energy as safe, or safer, than other energy sources. Technological advances promise even greater efficiency, safety, and a gentler environmental footprint. There is no reason to stifle the use of this available energy while new energy sources are developed.

Kyoto advocates who point to wind and solar as the alternative to fossil and nuclear energy often fail to acknowledge the environmental downside of that technology. California wind farms, for example, produce 2.9 billion KW per year. But to do so, about 16,000 acres of land is required, where virtually no other use is compatible because of the constant noise pollution. Moreover, the entire area is a slaughterhouse for birds. Three times the energy can be produced by a modern coal-fired plant using less than 50 acres, with no noise, and birds nesting throughout the facility.

The question is not which source of energy should be allowed, the question is how best to get affordable energy - from every source - available to all the people of the world. Clearly, this question is answered by the expansion of fossil and nuclear fuel use as well as the use of wind and solar - and every other technology - wherever it is appropriate.

If the consent of the governed is a valid criterion for the implementation of public policy, then, without a doubt, access to affordable energy would be the choice of the people in every sovereign nation. Affordable energy can help vanquish poverty which is prerequisite to real freedom.