C onvention on Biological D iversitv-A Brief H istory
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is one of tw o major international
environm ental protection m easures to come out of the "Earth Sum m it" held in Rio
de Janeiro in June, 1992. At that time, over 150 nations signed the treaty, the
purpose of which is to preserve biological diversity and slow the rate of species
extinction. The Bush A dm inistration refused to sign the treaty, citing fears that the
treaty w ould harm U. S. business interests.
The treaty officially came into force in December, 1993, after the threshold of 30
signatory nations had ratified the treaty.
U nder the Clinton A dm inistration there has been m uch m ore support for the CBD
and its goals. On June 4, 1993, after gaining support for a set of "interpretive
agreem ents" w hich addressed US. concerns stem m ing from the treaty, the Clinton
A dm inistration signed the treaty. At that time, the "letter of transm ittal" from
President Clinton to the US. Senate launched the process of treaty ratification.
On June 12, 1994, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held its only public
hearing on the CBD. This hearing, as described by an environm entalist present, was
"a huge love fest", w ith all of the witnesses testifying in favor of the treaty.1 In
addition to positive testim ony from Senators Pell, Baucus and Chafee, the
Com mittee heard from several m em bers of industry supporting passage of the
treaty, including Merck & Co., Shaman Pharm aceutical, the United States Council
for International Business, The Pharm aceutical M anufacturers Association, the
Biotechnology Industries Organization. Also supporting the treaty were The
Ecological Society of America, the W orld Resources Institute and the Am erican
Institute of Biological Sciences.
Also on that day, three US Senators subm itted statem ents expressing reservations to
the treaty. Senators Helms, Brown and Craig expressed concern over the treaty's
"vagueness."2
On June 29, 1994, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 16-3 in favor of
ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Voting against the treaty
w ere Senators Helms, Pressler and Coverdell.
On A ugust 5,1994, w ith a full-Senate debate and vote on the treaty expected any day.
Senator Dole circulated a letter authored by Senator Helms which expressed
concerns about the effect of the treaty on US. agriculture and domestic laws. The
letter, w hich called for a delay in the vote for ratification, was signed by 35

1 Greenwire. Wednesday, April 13, 1994. "Biodiversity Treaty: Senate Hearing A Huge Love Fest".
2 ibid.

 conservative Republican Senators. For supporters of the CBD, this letter w as cause
for grave concern, given that only 34 votes against the treaty w ould kill it.
On A ugust 8, 1994, the A dm inistration replied to the A ugust 5 letter by distributing
to all Senate offices a letter responding to each of the concerns raised about the effect
of the treaty on domestic interests. In the following two weeks, letters of support for
the treaty w ere sent to the Senate by the Biotechnology Industry Organization,
Am erican Seed Trade Association, Pharm aceutical Research and M anufacturers of
America, Am erican Institute of Biological Sciences, Archer Daniels M idland, the
Am erican Corn Growers Association and the American Soybean Association.
On A ugust 25,1994, the US. Senate broke for recess w ithout having debated or voted
on the CBD. The Senate is due back in session on September 12, 1994. Supporters of
the CBD hope that the treaty will be favorably voted on before the Senate ends its
session in October.
Despite the level of support for the CBD from both industry groups and
environm ental organizations, passage of the treaty is far from certain. Organizers
pushing for passage have, to date, only locked in 64 definite and likely votes in favor
of the treaty. W ith 67 votes needed for passage, the CBD is anything but a "done
deal."

O pposition to the Convention on Biological Diversity
Chronology:
• January 15, Sitilides' Letter to the Editor, New York Times
• April 12, written comments of Senators Helms and Brown
• July 15, letter from the National Federal Lands Conference to Senator Chafee
• July 28,100 page document distributed by American Sheep Industry Association
• August edition of National Federal Lands Conference newsletter
• August 4, fax alert from Alliance for America
• August 5, letter from the National Cattlemen's Association to Senator Dole
•

A ugust 5 , letter from the Farm Bureau to Senator Dole

•
•

August 5, letter signed by 35 Senators to Majority Leader Mitchell
August 7, editorial in Washington Times

Once the reservations to the CBD first raised by the Bush A dm inistration in Rio de
Janeiro w ere addressed by the Clinton A dm inistration and the process of ratifying
the treaty was under way, advocates of the treaty began lining up support for the
treaty and assessing potential opposition.
T hroughout the process of ratification, environm ental supporters of the CBD have
been uncertain about w hether opposition to the treaty w ould eventually arise and
w hat shape any opposition w ould take.

 In a January 15,1994, N ew York Times Letter To The Editor entitled "UN. M ustn't
Control Environm ental Laws", John Sitilides of Sacramento, CA, w rote that the
CBD should be opposed because species protections are based on unsound science
w hich is abused to slow or halt economic progress which in turn threatens the
livelihoods of thousands of American workers. In his letter, Sitilides, a
governm ent relations consultant on land and the environm ent, argued that "these
abuses will be dw arfed if we surrender jurisdiction...to the United Nations. The
international treaty calls for turning over untold billions of...taxpayer dollars and
m any technologies we have developed to third world governm ents. Americans
will not control the spending of those funds or secure the rights for companies
developing the technologies."
Aside from this letter, little opposition to the treaty was voiced in the period leading
up to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on April 12, 1994. However,
the m ain concerns raised in the Sitilides letter w ould be voiced again in later
opposition.
An April 8 G reenw ire report on the upcom ing Senate Foreign Relations Committee
hearing on the treaty opens w ith "Environm entalists...are breathing a short,
collective sign of relief because "wise use" forces do not appear to be fomenting
opposition to the UN biodiversity treaty..." The same story reported that
environm ental advocates of the treaty felt that its non-controversial nature w ould
spare it from the powerful, last m inute "wise use" opposition that both the National
Biological Survey and the bill to elevate the EPA to Cabinet level status fell prey to3.
The article quoted Ron Arnold, a leading voice in the anti-environm ental "wise
use" m ovem ent, as saying "As national policy, we certainly oppose [the treaty]. The
private rights of the individual and the pow er of the m arket, we think, are m ore
than adequate ways...to preserve resources," said Arnold, adding that his
organization, the Center For Defense of Free Enterprise, does not lobby and w ould
not actively oppose Senate ratification of the CBD4. A nother "wise use" leader.
Chuck C ushm an of the American Land Rights Association, a privately held
m em bership organization, also indicated a passive objection to the treaty, saying it
w as "not one of our key, frontline issues...[b]ut it is som ething we pay attention to"5.
Despite these early indications from "wise use" leaders that there w ould be little
opposition to the treaty, opposition to the CBD began to escalate in the period
betw een the April 12 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the CBD and
the A ugust 25 recess.
A lthough described as a "love fest" by some, the basis of the opposition to the CBD
w as laid out by m em bers of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during its sole
3 Greenwire. Friday, April 8, 1994. "Biodiversity: Barring 11th Hour Conflict, Treaty Good To Go".
4. ibid.
5 ibid.

 hearing on the treaty on April 12, 1994. Senators Helms, Brown and Craig expressed
concerns over the vagueness of the treaty language w ith respect to its funding, its
voting structures and its effect on domestic regulations.
In his w ritten rem arks. Senator Helms raised several m ain reservations to the
treaty. First, he raises the possibility that "m any of the clauses and statem ents in this
treaty reflect a rather comm on view am ong so-called developing nations that this
treaty is some sort of international cash cow to transfer w ealth and technology from
developed nations while prom oting the economic grow th of developing nations
w ithout interfering in any w ay w ith their sovereignty. In particular, I find the
convention's treatm ent of intellectual property rights, finances, voting procedures,
technology transfer and biotechnology dangerously m uddled, vague and
disturbing." Helms goes on to say that the US. is being asked to "buy a pig in a poke"
since m any of the obligations and procedures in the treaty will not be spelled out
until the initial "Conference of Parties" m eets to establish the institutional structure
of the treaty. Because the treaty has no "reservation clause". Helms continued, the
treaty w ould take away the Senate's constitutional right to advise and consent.
Arguing that the CBD was more a pream ble than a treaty, w ith the actual treaty to be
determ ined at the initial Conference of Parties, Helms urged that the Senate not
move to ratify the treaty.6
In his w ritten rem arks. Senator Brown raised concerns about the protection of
intellectual property rights, as well as "open-ended financial com m itm ents," w riting
that "Developing countries m ust not be placed in a position to impose financial
obligations upon developed, major donor nations, including the United States."7
In the period since these initial reservations were expressed on April 12, opposition
to the treaty has begun to surface from a num ber of organizations. In mid-July,
several "wise use" groups and agricultural trade organizations launched an attack
against the CBD, distributing letters and reports opposing the treaty to key decision
m akers in the Senate and the Adm inistration.
In a July 15 letter to Senator John Chafee, Ruth Kaiser, the Executive Director of the
N ational Federal Lands Conference (NFLC), a "wise use" group based in Bountiful,
UT, outlined a vague set of concerns about the treaty and requested that the
ratification process be halted and hearings convened to address her concerns. H er
letter opens "Yesterday we learned that the Biodiversity Treaty has been voted out of
committee on July 5 and that it is now on the fast-track...for ratification by the full
Senate..." She continues, "There are strong concerns concerning the affects [sic] of
this treaty on our national sovereignty as well as our unalienable constitutionally
protected rights." Ms. Kaiser closed her letter by indicating that the NFLC m aintains
6 written testimony of Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) to Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 12,
1994.
7 written remarks of Senator Hank Brown (R-CO) to Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 12,
1994.

 a list of 7,700 people who share the same concerns, and is part of a netw ork w ith
over 100 other grassroots organizations representing 6,000,000 members.
On July 28, a docum ent bearing a cover m em o from Tom McDonnell of the
Am erican Sheep Industry Association (ASI) was distributed to ASI affiliates, ASI
Legislative and Resource M anagem ent Councils and interested parties, including
Senate offices and A dm inistrative office.
In the cover memo, Mr. McDonnell outlines concerns about the CBD w hich are
treated at length in the attached 100 page document. The memo starts;
Attached is one of the most important documents ever compiled [emphasis in original]. While
organizations, industries, private property owners and this nation's citizens have been fighting
battles in the arenas of range reform, mining reform, clean water, wetlands, endangered species,
private property rights, etc., federal agencies have been quietly implementing an all-encompassing
agenda that is meant to transform the economic, social, moral and philosophical ideology of
America.
On May 5th and June 1st, ASI circulated the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National
Performance Review and Department of Interior internal working documents on ecosystem
management. Within these documents it became evident that the federal government intends to
take control of this nation's legislative, judicial and administrative powers, along with the
nation's natural resources—private, state and federal. These two documents, however, did not make
it clear that the federal government has, in fact, been implementing the United Nation's Agenda 21
and the Convention on Biological Diversity (Biodiversity Treaty). The attached document outlines
the purpose of the Biodiversity Treaty, its relationship to ecosystem management, and h o w th e
r a t if i c a ti o n o f th is t r e a t y w i l l a s s ig n th e s o v e r e i g n t y o f th e U S . to th e U n i t e d N a tio n s ,
[em phasis
added] 8

Mr. M cDonnell's memo goes on to sum m arize the chief objections to the CBD
detailed in the attached docum ent, stating that "[ajfter review of the testim ony given
before the Senate Committee, it is clear that the ramifications of the treaty's
ratification are not understood. This docum ent is critical to providing that
inform ation." (more details on this docum ent provided below)
The A ugust edition of Federal Lands Update, the m onthly new sletter of the NFLC,
carried the headline "THE DEATH OF OUR SOVEREIGN RIGHTS. C linton/G ore
Eco Plan Equals Treason. H ow Could This Ever H appen In America?!" The m ailing
panel included the w arning "URGENT!! OPEN IMMEDIATELY! ACT NOW!! Your
Freedom & Rights are on the brink of destruction if the UN. takes charge of
A m erica!!"
This eight page publication was w ritten as "a team effort by Tom McDonnell,
A m erican Sheep Industry....H ow ard Hutchinson, Media Liaison A rizona/N ew
Mexico Coalition of Counties...and Jim Faulkner, NFLC Staff W riter...." Readers
w ere invited to contact the ASI for copies of the docum ents discussed in the article.

8 memorandum from Tom McDonnell, American Sheep Industry Association, July 28,1994.

 In their article, the authors discuss federal plans to centralize governm ent, the
dissolving of state and private rights, ecosystem protections as equal to or superior
to hum an health protections, green activism as social ideology, the dark and anti­
people green religion (pantheism), and the conclusion that totalitarian centralized
governm ent, not the protection of species, is the goal of the CBD.
A sidebar in he newsletter also announces that "a call for hearings based on the fact
that the treaty violates our Constitution and national sovereignty is underw ay at
this w riting."
The next docum ent opposing the CBD was an alert sent out over the Alliance for
America netw ork on August 4, 1994. The Alliance for America, a central "wise use"
group established as a result of a brainstorm ing session following a recent "Fly In
For Freedom " lobbying effort, acts as a netw orking organization for m any other
"wise use" groups.
In the Alliance fax alert, readers w ere urged to contact Senator Dole im m ediately to
dem and that he kill the treaty. Several points were made:
• the treaty is an unfinished docum ent that provides only the fram ew ork in which
radical environm entalists will fill in the specific language
• the treaty is not based on science, but rather on a new age ideology
• the treaty equates hum ans w ith anim als and prioritizes environm ental
protection above the protection of hum an rights
• the treaty w ould force the US. to surrender sovereignty ton issues related to
ecosystem m anagem ent
• the treaty will reduce the standard of living in the US.
The fax alert w arns that passage of the treaty will provide a fram ework for
establishing "a N ew W orld O rder," and that agencies w ithin the federal
governm ent have already p u t regulations in place that will enforce the treaty even
though it has yet to be ratified.
On A ugust 5, 1994, letters from the N ational Cattlem en's Association (NCA) and the
A m erican Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) w ere sent to Senator Dole outlining
concerns about the treaty and requesting a delay in the ratification vote.
In the NCA letter. President Dan Koons describes the CBD as "broad and am biguous
in nature," providing a list of 18 bulleted passages of concern. Mr. Koons called the
am biguities listed a "dire threat to all landow ners," and dem anded specific answ ers
to several questions, am ong them: how w ould private property rights be protected
under the treaty; does the treaty presuppose the creation of a federal agency to collect
inform ation on biodiversity; w ould federal agencies be m andated to protect
biological diversity at all costs; and w ould the environm ental protection laws of the
US. become subject to higher international standards?

J

■V

V;v • ••

* ;

 In the letter from the AFBF, W ashington Office Executive Director Richard
N ew pher states that "Several groups have issued position papers condem ning the
treaty based on speculation that the treaty will impose an extreme environm ental
agenda on the United States." Mr. N ew pher goes on to say that the AFBF considers
such fears to be "alarmist," bu t suggests that there are legitimate concerns about the
treaty's im pact on productive agriculture which need to be addressed. Claiming
there is insufficient time, Mr. N ew pher does not list these concerns in his letter.
However, he does say that if the vote on the CBD is not delayed, the AFBF will be
forced to oppose it.
Also on A ugust 5, a letter to Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell (written on
Senate Foreign Relations Committee letterhead, w here Jesse Helm s is the ranking
m inority m em ber, and passed around the Senate floor by Senator Bob Dole), signed
by 35 Senators, outlines a set of concerns w ith the treaty, again calling for a delay in
consideration along w ith the veiled threat of a filibuster.
The H elm s/D ole letter called the CBD vague and contradictory. Specifically, it
questioned the "no reservations" clause, dispute resolution procedures, the level of
financial obligations connected to the treaty, the possibility that the alien species
provision w ould in clu d e livestock, the ability of the Senate to advise and consent to
a treaty whose provisions have not yet been decided, the effect on domestic
environm ental protections, US. access to genetic resources under the treaty,
technology transfer issues, and the possibility of a biological safety protocol
m andating licensing for transfers of biologically modified organisms.
Finally, on A ugust 8, 1994, an editorial titled "Attack of the Alien Cows" appeared in
the Washington Times blasting the CBD. The editorial raises specific alarms
regarding the ratification of a treaty for which the legal obligations have yet to be
determ ined, the lack of influence the US. w ould have (even given its size and
wealth) in determ ining the legal obligations of the treaty, the possibility that farm
anim als will be classified as "alien species" and will be elim inated, bringing about
the destruction of agriculture, the lack of scientific proof regarding how m any
species are actually becoming extinct, and the possible limits the treaty w ould
im pose on US. technology and business development. Also raised as a concern was
the threat to our national sovereignty.
Given the rapid succession of these letters and articles, it w ould appear that a
coordinated effort to oppose the CBD, as announced in the NFLC, was indeed
underw ay.
Tom McDonnell / ASI docum ents define opposition
The m ain object of this report is to explore the level to which there m ay have been a
concerted effort to raise objections to the CBD, as well as to discuss the major
objections and their roots. A lthough it is difficult to prove causation, w hich we will

 not attem pt to do, certain facts present a picture of where the sudden, unexpected
opposition to the CBD m ay have originated.
We know that Mr. Tom McDonnell of the American Sheep Industry Association
w as a key author in the two earliest docum ents to explore the CBD in depth—the
100-page docum ent distributed w ith a cover memo w ritten on ASI letterhead and
the 8-page N ational Federal Lands Conference newsletter he co-authored w ith two
others.
Based on the tim ing of these writings, it seems likely that Mr. McDonnell of ASI
played a significant part in raising "wise use" awareness of and objections to the
CBD.
•

The July 15 letter from the NFLC to Senator Chafee, which was the first instance
of official "wise use" opposition to the treaty, opens w ith the line "Yesterday we
learned that the Biodiversity Treaty has been voted out of committee..." There is
no indication of how the NFLC learned about the treaty, or from whom .

•

July 26 is the publication date of the ASI-distributed report "Biodiversity: The
Root Policy Of Ecosystem M anagement." Given this publication date, it seems
likely that the drafting of the report had been under way for some prior period of
time. In fact, Mr. McDonnell writes in the July 28 cover memo that ASI had
previously circulated docum ents on subjects covered in the July 26 report—the
EPA's N ational Performance Review on May 5, and Interior's internal w orking
docum ents on ecosystem m anagem ent on June 1 [a July 11 article in the Farm
Chronicle of Culpepper, VA, discussed these docum ents at length, quoting Mr.
McDonnell and "wise use" leaders Nancy M arzulla (Defenders of Property
Rights), David H ow ard (Land Rights Letter), and Brad Little (Public Lands
Com mittee)].

•

The Tom M cDonnell co-authored NFLC newsletter, which arrived in our offices
on or about A ugust 10 via third class mail, w ould have to have been w ritten
during July for a late July mailing date. Significantly, it was stated in the
new sletter that a call for hearings on the treaty regarding constitutional issues
and concerns over sovereignty was underw ay at that time. Clearly, the
opposition to the CBD was at that time being coordinated in some m anner. It is
possible that Mr. McDonnell and others w ere the parties to w hom Ms. Kaiser was
referring in the July 15 NFLC letter to Senator Chafee.

Given this series of events, one could draw the conclusion that Mr. McDonnell
played a central part in the effort to raise alarms throughout the "wise use"
m ovem ent and am ong agricultural industry groups regarding the CBD and other
federal ecosystem m anagem ent plans beginning as early as April, 1994

,7 v rf'.'i; 7*

 ASI docum ent central to "wise use" opposition?
An analysis of the central concerns raised in the ASI docum ent indicates that if it
was indeed one of the original pieces produced in opposition to the CBD, as the
tim eline discussed above w ould suggest, its argum ents w ere well covered by
subsequent treaty critics (see figure 1).
In his cover memo, Mr. McDonnell makes several points draw n directly from the
Conclusion of the 19-page analysis of the treaty. Mr. McDonnell first states that the
CBD is "a docum ent based on philosophy, not science." Second, he echoes a concern
first raised by Senator Helms that the "Senate will not be ratifying a finished
docum ent, but m erely a statem ent of principles." Third, Mr. McDonnell points out
that "the Senate should consider that this new doctrine of "sustainable use"
dem ands that hum an existence shall have no m ore juridical rights than any lesser
species," and that "governm ents' first obligation will be to the environm ent and its
species, not to the people." Fourth, Mr. McDonnell reiterates the fear that the CBD
"calls for the US. to turn its national sovereignty over to a UN body w hich Maurice
Strong and Elizabeth Dowdeswell...refer to as the "New W orld O rder." U nder this
W orld Order, the United States will be no m ore than a colonial form of governm ent
to w hom environm ental, economic, social and m oral standards will be dictated."
Fifth, Mr. McDonnell argues that the CBD "offers developing countries and
"equitable" distribution of wealth. This "equitable" distribution requires that the
productive apparatus of developed nations be torn dow n in order to offer
developing nations opportunities to sell their products in those form erly productive
nations." Lastly, Mr. McDonnell argues that the federal governm ent has illegally
been im plem enting the CBD w ithout Senate approval since 1993, has deliberately
intended to bypass Congressional consideration of the treaty, and that federal
agencies have attem pted to "determ ine and dictate the needs of Congress and the
people rather than responding to needs determ ined by the people through their
Congress," all in violation of the Constitution.
Mr. M cDonnell's memo concludes that the CBD is a violation of the Constitution
and the civil rights of Americans, and m ust not be ratified. Like Ms. Kaiser of the
NFLC, Mr. McDonnell calls for an investigation of these alleged violations.
The docum ent attached to Mr. McDonnell's memo provides 19 pages of analysis of
the CBD, as well as 80 pages of appendixes. The analysis expands upon issues
covered in Mr. M cDonnell's cover memo. Items of note include:
• The CBD is based upon the "philosophy" of sustainable developm ent, w hich is
term ed a "belief" rather than a science
• The CBD will prohibit the transfer of advanced technologies to developing
nations, thus harm ing US. business interests
• The CBD will m andate that "developed" nations provide financial assistance to
"developing" nations, bu t provides no definition of term s
• The CBD is not a treaty, but rather is a set of principles and passage by the Senate
w ould be a violation of the Constitution

 •
•

•

•

U pon ratification, the treaty w ould hand over US. sovereignty to the
supranational UN, w hich w ould usurp American pow ers of governance
The CBD is being created by the W orld Resources Institute, The W orld Wildlife
Fund for N ature, and the International Union for the Conservation of N ature,
all non-governm ental organizations receiving funding from the Rockefellercontrolled Environm ental G rantm akers Association, directed by sim ilar
environm ental elitist groups, in an effort to create a "N ew W orld O rder."
The doctrine of "sustainable use" dem ands that hum an have no m ore rights
than lesser species, m aking farming, logging, fishing, m ining, m anufacturing,
recreation, the use of pesticides and fertilizers—"every aspect of hum an life"—
unsustainable activities barred by the treaty
The CBD violates the Constitutional separation of church and state, since
biodiversity is a religious belief rather than a scientific theory, and its passage will
tu rn nature w orship into the official state religion

FIGURE 1
Helms
4-12
sovereig
nty
constitu
tionalit
violates
civil
rights
treaty
not
defined
anti
propert
y rights
not
scientifi

Brown
4-12

NFLC
7-15

ASI
7-26

AA
8-4
X

NFLC
8-5

NCA
8-5

AFBF
8-5

X

X

X

Helms/
Dole
8-5

Wash.
Times
8-7

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
X
X

X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X

rL

equates
humans
with
animals
based
on ecoreligion
inhibits
technolo
gy

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

,

transfer
harms
intell.
propert
y rights
voting
structur
e unfair
to US
object to
foreign
funding

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

 w in
restrict
biotechn
ology
w ill
empowe

x

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

rUN
empowe

rs nonelected
officials

The bulk of the ASI docum ent is dedicated to exposing the true intent of the CBD as
designed by environm ental "extrem ists" and "elitists", term s w hich are used
frequently in the report. It also attem pts to dem onstrate how non-elected officials
are conspiring to create a "New W orld Order" based on ecosystems m anagem ent
and new age religious concepts.
This m ain point, that the CBD is but a part of a broader plan by "environm ental
elitists" to surrender national sovereignty to an international body, proves to be the
m ost comm on recurring them e in subsequent "wise use" letters opposing the CBD.
The ASI report includes quotes from Maurice Strong , Secretary General of the Earth
Sum m it held in Rio de Janeiro in June, 1992, Elisabeth Dowdeswell, Executive
Director of the United Nations Environm ent Program , and H illary French,
researcher for the W orldW atch Institute, m eant to further dem onstrate that the real
aim of the CBD is not the protection of species or ecosystems, bu t w orld dom ination
engineered by a sinister conglom erate of environm ental elitists.
The authors, at one point, contend that Mr. Strong is "one of the leaders of the New
Age religious m ovem ent, a m ovem ent w hose explicit purpose is to overthrow the
m odern m onotheistic religions, including Christianity, Judaism and Islam, and
their replacem ent w ith the w orship of M other Earth," a view apparently based upon
a p ap er called The Philosophy, Politics and Science of Biological Diversity by Dr.
Michael S. Coffman.
The ASI docum ent attem pts to broaden the scope of this plot by m aking several
additional assertions. Specifically, the docum ent points to Agenda 21, result of the
June 1992 Earth Summit, as the overall fram ework adopted by the UN and
environm ental elitists to achieve "a radical transform ation of the w orld's
econom y." The two treaties that came out of the Earth Summit, the CBD and the
Convention on Global W arming, are the central tools by which this "new W orld
O rder" will be achieved.
W ithin the US federal governm ent, the docum ent argues, there is a "parallel
operation to im plem ent the full spectrum of policies outlined in A genda 21." The
President's Council on Sustainable Development, under the control of "a top
environm ental elitist," includes five Cabinet m em ber and high-level officials of the
m ajor environm ental organizations.

 Interestingly, the ASI docum ent also critiques the Convention on Global W arm ing
and the resulting M ontreal Protocol, claiming that the M ontreal Protocol is the
m odel upon which the CBD is based.
Claiming that the ban of CFCs in the M ontreal Protocol was based on flawed science
and that the "entire ozone scare is a scientific fraud," the ASI docum ent asserts that
the protocol w as pushed through by environm ental extremists, just as the current
efforts to pass the CBD are backed by environm ental extremists.
In the section covering the M ontreal Protocol, the docum ent cites a book entitled
The Holes In The Ozone Scare; The Scientific Evidence That The Sky Is Not Falling,
by Rogelio A. M aduro and Ralf Schauerhammer.

The A S I/M aduro/L aR ouche Connection
N ot only is Mr. M aduro, a leading opponent of the theory of global w arm ing since at
least 1989, cited in the ASI docum ent as an expert on "scientific hoaxes", it turns out
he was also a principal author of the ASI docum ent itself.
According to its cover page, the ASI docum ent was
Prepared by:
Ecological Strategies, Inc.,
P.O. Box 214
Leesburg, VA 22075
and the [sic]
The American Sheep Industry Association
No nam e or phone num ber was provided for Ecological Strategies, Inc. There was
no listing for a phone num ber for Ecological Strategies, Inc., in Leesburg, VA. Calls
to Mr. M cDonnell's office on A ugust 10 and 11 to determ ine the relationship
betw een ASI and Ecological Strategies, Inc., were not returned.
An A ugust 11 check w ith the D unn and Bradstreet database revealed that Ecological
Strategies, Inc., w as incorporated on July 11,1994. No address w as given for the
com pany, but the hom e address and phone of its directors—Rogelio A. M aduro and
Michelle G. M aduro—were provided. According to D unn and Bradstreet, the
com pany had previously been incorporated at a different address under the nam e
Rogelio and Michelle M aduro, Inc.

 A NEXUS search for articles m entioning Mr. M aduro revealed that he has appeared
in at least five articles since December, 1989, regarding his efforts to debunk the
ozone depletion theory.
This search also revealed that Mr. M aduro is also connected to the political
extrem ist Lyndon LaRouche.
•

A December 21, 1989 article in the Philadelphia Enquirer lists Mr. M aduro as a
w itness in a court case to determ ine w hether du Pont heir Lewis du Pont Smith
w as capable of m anaging his own affairs. It was reported the case hinged on Mr.
Sm ith's association w ith Mr. LaRouche, to w hom Mr. Smith had donated at least
$212,000. According to the article, "Rogelio M aduro, a researcher and w riter for
two LaRouchain publications, said Smith had provided him w ith extensive
inside inform ation on how the problem of atm ospheric ozone depletion is a
"hoax" perpetrated by du Pont Co. to create higher profits."
• A release on the Public Relations Newswire, }une 4, 1992, announced the release
of Mr. M aduro's book. The Holes in the Ozone Scare: The Scientific Evidence
That the Sky Is Not Falling. The book was released during a June 5 press
conference by the late Dr. Dixy Lee Ray, a prom inent critic of the environm ental
movem ent. The release claims that there "is no science to back up" the ozone
scare, that the Earth Summit is "built on frauds like the ozone scare", and that
the "inescapable conclusion is that the environm ental extremists who are
pushing for m ore M ontreal Protocols w ant millions of people to die."
• A December 21, 1992, piece in Automotive News m entions Mr. M aduro's and
Mr. Schauerham m er's book The Holes inthe Ozone Scare, indicating that Mr.
M aduro is "a geologist and native of Panama [and] associate editor of 21st
Century Science and form er researcher for the Schiller Institute", and that Mr.
Schauerham m er "is a Germ an m athem atician and physicist [and] is chairm an of
the Fusion Energy Forum and editor of its ...journal. Fusion."
• An A ugust 10, 1993, release from Environm ental Inform ation Netw orks, Inc.,
reports that "The editor of a Lyndon LaRouche-supported publication is
receiving m ainstream support from some conservatives concerning his views
on ozone depletion theory." The article goes on to list Dixy Lee Ray, Alston
Chase, Rush Limbaugh, George Will and the editors of the Moon ow ned
Washington Times as having quoted Mr. M aduro's work.
• A n April 28, 1994, release from Environm ental Inform ation Netw orks, Inc.,
entitled "21st Century's Roger Maduro: Ban on CFCs 'Unscientific and Deadly"
reports that "the ban on CFCs is based on ideology, not scientific evidence, and
will kill m illions of people w orldw ide."

Mr. M aduro is currently listed on the m asthead of 21st Century Science and
Technology as Associate Editor. In the Spring, 1992, issue of the m agazine, an index
of articles published in the m agazine in 1991 lists two articles by Mr. M aduro
concerning the ozone depletion theory. He was also an Associate Editor at that time.
The current edition of the m agazine carries an article by Mr. M aduro entitled "EPA,
Greenpeace Plan Chlorine Ban", which closes "The greens are confident that they

 can get aw ay w ith this gross deception, as they have w ith all the other. This time,
how ever, there is an aggressive backlash from grass-roots groups, scientists, and
m unicipal governm ents across the country. The chlorine scare m at be the
proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back."
21st C entury Science and Technology has had ties to political extremist Lyndon
LaRouche since its inception in 1987. A PR N ewswire release from October 22, 1990
announced 21st C entury's birth in 1987 and its links to Lyndon LaRouche. The
m agazine replaced the LaRouche publication Fusion in 1987 shortly after federal
m arshals seized the offices, bank accounts and publications of Fusion and two other
LaRouche entities during Justice D epartm ent involuntary bankruptcy proceedings
resulting from failure to pay $16 million in contem pt of court fines related to
LaRouche's trial (and ultim ate conviction) on charges of loan and tax fraud9.
In a soon to be published book about the "wise use" m ovem ent and antienvironm ental violence titled The War Against the Greens by David Helvarg, the
author sum s up LaRouche's history and environm ental philosophy as follows:
"Greenpeace, Shock Troops for a new Dark Age," was the headline for the cover story in
one of Lyndon LaRouche's publications, EIR — E x e c u ti v e I n t e ll ig e n c e R e v ie w . Other articles
included, "Fusion Advances Augur economic Revolution," "Kissinger 'Insane and Morally
Dangerous,"' and "The Debt Plans: Only LaRouche's Will Work." The Greenpeace article
accused the environmental group's members of being saboteurs for "a green fascist New World
Order," "shock troops of the Green Comintern," murderers of seals and kangaroos, and an
"irregular warfare force.
This seems funnier than any parody of the far-right S p y magazine could come up with
until one considers that E IR is distributed to dozens of corporations. Right Wing groups, and
intelligence agencies throughout the United States, Europe, and Asia and that the LaRouche
organization itself has a history of unpredictable violence and cultlike behavior.
Most Americans who've heard of Lyndon LaRouche remember him as the peculiar thirdparty presidential candidate who bought network air time to expostulate his economic
theories during the 1984 and 1988 presidential primaries (predating if not predicting H. Ross
Perot's 1992 campaign). In 1986, when two of LaRouche's followers won Democratic
nominations in Illinois for lieutenant governor and secretary of state—party gubernatorial
candidate Adlai Stevenson removed himself from the party ticket, saying he couldn't run on
the same slate with neo-Nazis.
A 1989 analysis of LaRouche by Political Research Associates, a Cambridge-based think
tank that studies right-wing movements, reported that his "paranoid and conspiratorial
view of history involving racial bigotry, cultural intolerance and a large dose of anti-Jewish
hysteria, and . . . LaRouche's idea that his followers will someday evolve into a master race
of latter day Platonic 'Golden Souls,' qualifies him as a Neo-Nazi."28
Although LaRouche is currently serving fifteen years in prison for mail fraud and tax
evasion involving $30 million in unpaid campaign loans, his multimillion-dollar business and
intelligence network continues to function, turning out E IR , T h e N e w F e d e r a lis t, 2 1 S t C e n t u r y
S c ie n c e a n d T e c h n o lo g y , and reams of other publications, all asserting that the world is
dominated by a secret cabal led by the British oligarchy and its Jewish backers, including
"Soviet Agent" Henry Kissinger. They claim that Queen Elizabeth controls the world's drug
cartels, that Prince Philip and Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands pull the strings on the
9 Lyndon LaRouche and The New American Fascism, Dennis King, 1989, Bantam Doubleday Dell
Publishing Group, page 322.

 environmental movement, and that drugs and environmentalism are key tools in a plan to
bring on a New Dark Age, a descent into madness that only Lyndon LaRouche has the
political genius to prevent.
LaRouche's own evolution from Far Left to Far Right to Far Side of the looking glass has
included a string of assaults and lawsuits, accusations of brainwashing and sexual
aberrations, and ties to armed racists, anti-Semites, government intelligence agencies—even a
couple of national security officials in the Reagan White House, until the media got hold of
the story. Now seventy-one, he was raised in New Hampshire and served as a noncombatant
in World War II. After the war he joined the Trotskyite Socialist Workers Party. In the late
1960S he split with the SWP and became the guru of the Labor Caucus of Students for a
Democratic Society—until the SDS expelled him in 1969. Under the name Lynn Marcus, he
then formed the National Caucus of Labor Committees (NCLC) and preached the need for
rapid industrialization to build the working class (his belief in the power of industry is one of
the few constants in his political evolution; the cover of a recent issue of 2 1 S t C e n t u r y
promised to "Save the Earth with Technology.").29 In 1973 LaRouche went through a
transformation after his wife left him for one of his followers (a man LaRouche later
browbeat into confessing he'd been "psycho-sexually brainwashed" by the CIA, KGB, and
Britain's MI 5). Shortly after the break-up, LaRouche decided to establish "hegemony" on
the Left, ordering his followers to attack members of SWP and other leftists groups with
baseball bats, chains, and karate nunchucks, thereby sending dozens of people to the
hospital. Those who remained loyal to him during "Operation MopUp" became the inner core
of his increasingly cultlike organization. In 1974 police broke into a New York apartment and
arrested six LaRouchites who were holding a woman against her will and attempting to
"deprogram" her after she tried to leave the group. LaRouche developed increasingly bizarre
theories of sexual impotence, homosexuality, and brainwashing, dividing the world among
his followers, their enemies, and the common "sheep and beasts." Beginning in the mid-1970s
LaRouche began to establish contacts on the extreme Right, attempting to infiltrate and co­
opt the American Conservative Union, Young Americans for Freedom, John Birch Society, and
KKK. Through Mitchell WerBell, the inventor of the Mac-10 silenced submachine gun, he
developed additional contacts with mercenaries and CIA contract agents and decided to go
into the intelligence business for himself. He began to publish E IR reports on the activities of
liberals and leftists. E IR got wide dissemination among the less discriminating members of
the law enforcement and intelligence communities. The LaRouchite reports were liberally
sprinkled with outlandish claims and libels—for example, that the antinuclear movement
was actually fronting for armed nuclear terrorists and that the Soviet KGB was behind
environmental groups including Greenpeace. Reagan advisor and National Security Council
senior analyst Dr. Norman Bailey would later tell NBC that the LaRouche network was "one
of the best private intelligence services in the world," a claim that inspired snorts of derision
among intelligence professionals.
By 1984 LaRouche had aligned his group with the very hard Right, which includes
Holocaust revisionists and the Aryan nations. Then, in one of his mercurial turns of inspired
megalomania, he decided to run for president. His organization was put through what its
members called "the cultural revolution."
"We transformed from an intelligence-gathering and -reporting operation to a full-time
fund-raising apparatus," testified campaign finance director William Wertz at LaRouche's
1988 taxevasion trial.30 Using long-established mind-control techniques, the organization
subjected members who failed to meet financial quotas to mercilessly ridicule and accusations
of sexual impotence. Fundraisers were instructed, "If you're talking to a little old lady who
says she'll lose her house, get the money. If you're talking to an unemployed worker with
kids to feed, forget it—get the money. Most people are immoral anyway." An IRS expert
testified that between 1983 and 1986, LaRouche's organization borrowed $33. 2 million, of
which only $3. 2 million was repaid.
On December 19, 1988, an Alexandria, Virginia, jury convicted LaRouche and six of his
supporters of conspiracy, mail fraud, and tax evasion. At his sentencing the aging political

 cult leader claimed that he was a victim of a British intelligence plot, a claim the judge
dismissed as "arrant nonsense." With LaRouche in jail, his followers have sought out new
areas in which to exert their influence. One of their most successful campaigns has been,
through their magazines, books, and seminars and participation in various anti-enviro
events, the promotion of anti environmental counterscience.

Connections betw een Lyndon LaRouche, his associates and the various publications
p u t out by them and elements of the anti-environm ental "wise use" m ovem ent are
evidently quite extensive.
The Spring, 1992, edition of 21st Century Science and Technology includes letters to
the editor from Rick Seiman, the head of the "wise use" Sahara Club, and W illiam
Perry Pendley, the President of the M ountain States Legal Foundation, the antienvironm ental legal think tank m ade fam ous as the hom e of prom inent anti­
environm entalists such as James W att, Nancy M arzulla and others. This edition of
the m agazine also carries an article on global w arm ing by the late Dr. Dixy Lee Ray,
author of Trashing The Planet: How Science Can Help Us Deal With Acid Rain,
Depletion of the Ozone, and Nuclear Waste (Among Other Things) (In this book,
Ray cites tw o sources for m ost of her inform ation—Rogelio M aduro and Fred Singer
of the Com petitive Enterprise Institute). The index for articles from 1991 lists two
articles by Mr. M aduro and one from Mr. Seiman of the Sahara Club. A feature
article, w ritten by "Fossil Bill" Kramer, The Angry Environm entalist entitled "H ow
We Escaped the Web of Eco-Propaganda", describes Kram er's transform ation from
active environm entalists to budding anti-environm ental colum nist.
The Sum m er 1994 edition of 21st Century has a num ber of anti-environm ental
references. The subscription reply card insert bears a graphic of two people inside a
cage labeled "endangered species" w ith the slogan "support our cam paign to revive
progress and m ake environm ental hoaxes extinct." An item describes Mr. M aduro's
presence at an ozone depletion conference in British Columbia, rem arking that his
w as the only voice presenting "the other side." There are articles by Lyndon
LaRouche, Dixy Lee Ray, Rogelio M aduro, and A. Alan Moghissi, an associate vice
president at Temple U niversity and Board M ember of the "wise use" N ational
W ilderness Institute.
The association betw een the LaRouche organization and the "wise use" m ovem ent
is not lim ited to collaborative publishing. According to Vergens Gang, a popular
N orw egian new spaper, Rogelio M aduro "last m et" Icelandic TV
journalist/film aker M agnus G udm undsson at the September, 1993, Alliance for
America annual "Fly In For Freedom " in W ashington, DC. M aduro is quoted as
saying that he and G udm undsson "share the same views...on the environm ental
m o v e m e n t." 10
There is evidence that 21st Century has helped prom ote G udm undsson's antiGreenpeace film, "Survival in the H igh N orth", by renting a room in the N ational
10

Vergens Gang, May 11,1994.

 Press Club for a showing of the film on June 8,1989.11 (In May, 1992, a court in Oslo
passed a verdict that insupportable allegations were m ade by G udm undsson in
"Survival in the H igh N orth", instructing him to w ithdraw the allegations and pay
30,000 krone in dam ages12 According to Greenpeace, the damages were never paid
and the allegations continue to be repeated) According to a Greenpeace report, 21st
Century posted an Internet com puter netw ork message on N ovem ber 15, 1993, the
day after G udm undsson's follow-up film, "The Man In The Rainbow", w as show n
in D enm ark repeating allegations m ade in the film and encouraging that it be
show n in the US.
M aduro and "Wise Use" Leadership
Rogelio M aduro, in addition to attending the Alliance For America "Fly In For
Freedom " in September, 1993, also recently attended the "Wise Use Leadership
Conference", an annual "wise use" planning meeting held July 15 - 17, 1994, in
Reno, NV. Sponsored by Ron A rnold and Alan Gottlieb's Center for the Defense of
Free Enterprise, the sixth annual m eeting featured speakers including Ron Arnold,
Robert G ordon (National W ilderness Institute), Chuck C ushm an (American Land
Rights Association), Kathleen M arquardt (Putting People First), Bev Kinard
(M ountain States Legal Foundation), Alan Gottlieb (CDFE and Citizen's Com mittee
For The Right To Keep and Bear Arms), Bill W ewer (Defenders of Property Rights,
H eritage Foundation, founder of Putting People First), Shep Tucker (American
Forest and Paper Association), Teresa Platt (Fisherman's Coalition), H enry Lamb
(Environm ental Conservation O rganization), and Ruth Kaiser (National Federal
Lands Conference).
D uring her rem arks concerning ecosystem protection, Ms. Kaiser passed out two
memos w ritten by Mr. McDonnell of ASI (perhaps the May 5 and June 1 docum ents
circulated by ASI according to Mr. McDonnell in the July 28 cover memo to the CBD
docum ent), and m entioned that H enry McIntosh of ASI had called Mr. M aduro to
ask him to attend the leadership meeting to discuss the CBD .
According to an eyewitness account of the leadership meeting, M aduro w as given a
chance to speak by Dr. Michael Coffman during Coffm an's discussion regarding the
"environm ental m ovem ent's hidden agenda" (Coffman has published tw o books
on this subject, "Saviors of the Earth? The Politics and Religion of
Environm entalists" and "Environm entalist! The Dawn of A quarius or the Twilight
of a N ew Dark Age" and is cited in the A SI/M aduro docum ent of July 26) Coffman
discussed "the N ew W orld O rder", the Environm ental Grantm akers Association,
and environm entalism as a pantheistic religion distinct from science.

11 A Greenpeace research paper on LaRouche claims that the organization has a copy of the Press Club
room rental invoice indicating the room was rented by 2 1 s t C e n tu r y .
12 Greenpeace Norge vs. Gudmundsson, verdict, May 12,1992.

 In his rem arks, M aduro spoke at length about the CBD, m entioned that he w as at
that time w orking on a report for ASI, and said it w ould be distributed upon
completion. Regarding the CBD, Mr. M aduro repeated several argum ents w hich
later appeared in the CBD docum ent—that the CBD, Agenda 21 and the M ontreal
Protocol are based on scientific fraud and that the real aim of the "agenda" is to get
rid of hum an beings.
Later in the m eeting, Mr. M aduro spoke up during a brainstorm ing session to
suggest that the wise use m ovem ent focus on 1) defeating the biodiversity treaty, 2)
reversing the ban on CFCs, and 3) involving the right to life com m unity in
opposition to the Cairo conference on w orld population issues.

C onclusion
Given the sequence of events outlined above, it is reasonable to conclude that a
collaborative effort by Mr. Tom McDonnell of the American Sheep Industry
Association and Mr. Rogelio M aduro of 21st Century Science and Technology to
form ulate a set of concerns regarding the Convention on Biological Diversity was
launched shortly before a rapid wave of opposition to the CBD came from the "wise
use" m ovem ent.
M uch of the focus of the report Mr. McDonnell and Mr. M aduro co-authored
concerns fears that a non-elected elite is conspiring to cede US sovereignty to the
supranational United Nations, a sinister plan to establish "A N ew W orld O rder"
based upon a massive scientific fraud. These concerns were repeated frequently in
the opposition to the CBD which the M cD onnell/M aduro docum ent spun off.
This type of paranoid vision, the tradem ark of m uch of LaRouchian thought, is
paralleled in the thought of other extreme right-w ing groups, m ost notably para­
m ilitary w hite suprem acist organizations such as the Posse Com m itatus, the Militia
of M ontana and A ryan Nations.
A lthough it is not unreasonable to expect that these extremist groups m ay share
certain political beliefs w ith the "wise use" m ovem ent, there is cause for concern
w hen radical fringe groups begin to inform and direct a m ovem ent w hich is
sim ultaneously aim ing its message and organizing efforts at m iddle America.