y;

*

, *£•••>.

^ *: ~. >-*

.? towards nature and eachptrrer are lhe ioiirce <>
if e f j

■ w -^ ' j - . '-■■■ -'

^

V

*

, y.

'

 Founder and Contributing Editor:
Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
Editor: Nora Hamerman
Managing Editors: John Sigerson, Susan Welsh
Assistant Managing Editor: Ronald Kokinda
Editorial Board: Warren Hamerman, Melvin
Klenetsky, Antony Papert, Gerald Rose, Edward
Spannaus, Nancy Spannaus, Webster Tarpley,
Carol White, Christopher White
Science and Technology: Carol White
Special Projects: Mark Burdman
Book Editor: Katherine Notley
Advertising Director: Marsha Freeman
Circulation Manager: Stanley Ezrol
INTELLIGENCE DIRECTORS:
Agriculture: Marcia Merry
Asia: Linda de Hoyos
Counterintelligence: Jeffrey Steinberg,.
Paul Goldstein
Economics: Christopher White
European Economics: William Engdahl
Ibero-America: Robyn Quijano, Dennis Small
Law: Edward Spannaus
Medicine: John Grauerholz, M.D.
Russia and Eastern Europe:
Rachel Douglas, Konstantin George
United States: Kathleen Klenetsky
INTERNATIONAL BUREAUS:
Bangkok: Pakdee Tanapura, Sophie Tanapura
Bogota: Jose Restrepo
Bonn: George Gregory, Rainer Apel
Copenhagen: Poul Rasmussen
Houston: Harley Schlanger
Lima: Sara Madueho
Melbourne: Don Veitch
Mexico City: Hugo Lopez Ochoa
Milan: Leonardo Servadio
New Delhi: Susan Maitra
Paris: Christine Bierre
Rio de Janeiro: Silvia Palacios
Stockholm: Michael Ericson
Washington, D.C.: William Jones
Wiesbaden: Goran Haglund
EJR (ISSN 0273-6314) is published weekly (50 issues)
except fo r the second week o f July, and the last week of
December by EIR News Service Inc., 333'A
Pennsylvania Ave., S.E ., 2nd Floor, Washington, DC
20003. (202) 544-7010. For subscriptions: (703) 7779451.
European Headquarters: Executive Intelligence Review
Nachrichtenagentur GmbH, Postfach 2308,
D-6200 Wiesbaden. Otlo von Guericke Ring 3, D-6200
Wiesbaden-Nordensladt, Federal Republic of Germany
Tel: (6122) 2503, Executive Directors: Anno Hellenbroich,
Michael Liebig
In Denmark: EIR, Post Box 2613, 2100 Copenhagen 0 E ,
Tel. 35-43 60 40
In Mexico: EIR, Francisco Dtaz Covarrubias 54 A-3
Colonia San Rafael, Mexico DF. Tel: 705-1295.
Japan subscription sales: O .T.O . Research Corporation,
Takeuchi Bldg., 1-34-12 Takatanobaba, Shinjuku-Ku,
Tokyo 160 Tel: (03) 3208-7821.
Copyright © 1994 EIR News Service. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission strictly
prohibited. Second-class postage paid at Washington D .C.,
and at an additional mailing offices.
Domestic subscriptions: 3 months— $125, 6 months— $225,
1 year— $396, Single issue— $10

Postmaster: Send all address changes to EIR. P.O. Box
17390, Washington, D.C. 20041-0390.

From the Editor
T h e result of the Aug. 21 election in Mexico (International) is the
latest visible footprint left by some factions in the U.S. government
who don’t want to fall into the trap laid by British foreign policy and
the Bush administration holdovers. As Lyndon LaRouche observed
on Aug. 25, three days after the vote tallies gave an uncontestable
victory to the candidate of the ruling Revolutionary Institutional
Party: “There are a number of U.S. institutions involved in this,
which signal very clearly: Lay off. Do not destabilize Mexico.”
The Clinton administration’s challenge is to avoid being lured
into the “new world order,” the name former President George Bush
gave to his murderous military invasions of Panama and then Iraq.
President Clinton signaled his intent to pursue a different policy most
dramatically in July, during his visit to Germany, when he buried
the “special relationship” with Great Britain.
More recently, Clinton reversed the policy of accepting all refu­
gees from Cuba, in order to keep Fidel Castro from flooding Florida
with impromptu immigrants. If Castro were wise, LaRouche says,
“his next message to the Clinton administration would be a request
for cooperation in arranging his own orderly departure from Cuba.”
The Cairo conference on population beginning on Sept. 5 will
offer a crucial chance for Clinton to break from the one-world script.
The international media are running the lying accusation of the World
Council of Churches, that Pope John Paul II is allying himself with
the radical regimes of Libya and Iran against Cairo. The real purpose
of the conference has nothing to do with “women’s empowerment.”
It is to diminish the population of the planet on a scale of which
Adolf Hitler never dreamed, but following exactly the policies of the
Nazi regime, which are also the policies of George Bush’s family.
Yet it now looks as though most nations of the world oppose this
conference, an opposition which the Clinton White House ought to
join. There is no “alliance” among the Vatican, Islamists, evangeli­
cals, and others (see Document), but a convergence among all the
moral people of the world against all the immoral people.
We also strongly recommend that the White House quietly bury
its advocacy for the Biodiversity Treaty, another Frankenstein mon­
ster of the new world order (see the Feature for more than enough
reasons).

J\f (TnK

 Notes
1 Conventional water treatment, used by
more than 95 percent of drinking water utili­
ties, will not remove herbicides from contami­
nated source waters (See Page X). However,
in the rare cases where communities are using
granular activated carbon, powdered acti­
vated carbon or blending contaminated water
with non-contaminated water from other
sources, herbicide levels may be somewhat
reduced.
2 The federal standard for acceptable cancer
risks cited throughout this report is a one in
one million risk. This probability estimate, or
odds ratio, can be interpreted in two ways: 1)
that there will be one additional cancer per
one million people exposed to the toxicant in
question, or 2) that there is a one in one
million chance that any individual in a given
population will contract cancer from expo­
sure to the toxicant in question. Each interpre­
tation is equally valid. As discussed in the
chapter on the health effects of these herbi­
cides, cancer risk estimates are subject to
enormous uncertainty. Federal drinking wa­
ter standards, which allow cancer risks of from
one in one million to one in ten thousand,
offer the weakest protection from environ­
mental contaminants of any federal environ­

20

mental regulations. For a detailed discussion
of the EPA’s cancer risk standard see chapter
X on the health effects of herbicides.
3 Des Moines uses the Des Moines River as a
drinking water source inanition to the Rac­
coon River. The Des Moines River appears to
have lower levels of contamination than most
of the other major water bodies in the state.
4 Either maximum contaminant levels (MCLs)
or lifetime health advisories (LHAs). MCLs are
enforceable standards, that are based on a
balancing of health risks and the feasibility of
removing the contaminant. LHAs are unen­
forceable standards based only on health
considerations. Typically, however, LHAs
become enforceable MCLs when the EPA
places the pollutant on its priority contami­
nants list.
5 In the Iowa STORET samples, 32 samples
(two percent of the 1,843 samples collected)
reported total herbicide concentrations above
50 ppb. For this analysis, because we did not
want outlying samples to skew our results, we
did not include these 32 samples. Thus, all
data presented on Iowa is likely to underesti­
mate the problem.

T ap W ater Blues: H erbicides In D rinking W ater

 lUISFeature

Malthusians push
‘biodiversity’
as new religion
by Rogelio A. Maduro

The Convention on Biological Diversity, known as the Biodiversity Treaty, will
come before the United States Senate sometime early this autumn. It is one of the
two treaties presented at the U.N. “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro in 1992,
calling on all nations to refocus their priorities away from the health and well­
being of their human inhabitants, to the well-being of all species and ecosystems—
with homo sapiens at the bottom of the list.
According to the treaty, the constitutional order established two centuries ago
by the American Founding Fathers is to be scrapped in favor of one based on the
outlandish (and unenforceable notion that “the environment becomes the central
organizing principle of our society and economy,” as Vice President Albert Gore
stated in his best-selling book, Earth in the Balance.
To justify this coup against man’s sovereignty over the Earth, it is alleged that
the world faces the largest episode of extinctions in the history of the planet.
Radical environmentalists claim that anywhere from 300 to 37,000 species are
being lost every year because of the activities of man and as a result of man’s
“exploding populations.” Thus, so the argument goes, the Earth’s biodiversity has
to be protected from human beings. Yet the treaty’s proponents cannot produce a
single name of a species that has disappeared. Their estimates are all based on
theoretical models. Biologists, on the other hand, estimate that at most one species
is disappearing every year.
A resounding refusal of nations to ratify the treaty would send a'message to
those who are already implementing it without ratification. An internal working
document of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), dated Aug. 5, 1993,
states that “the Executive branch should direct federal agencies to evaluate national
policies on environmental protection and resource management [to] fulfill existing
international obligations (e.g., Convention on Biological Diversity, Agenda 21),
[and to] amend national policies to more effectively achieve international objec­
tives.”
22

Feature

EIR

September 2, 1994

 An Earth First
demonstrator poses as a
spotted owl at a rally
against loggers in Ft.
Bragg, California.
According to their
dogma, worship of
created animals and
“Mother Earth" is to
supplant worship of the
Creator.

The EPA document calls upon federal agencies to “present
recommendations to Congress for legislative changes neces­
sary to ensure national laws are consistent with national poli­
cy for protecting ecosystems, [and to] convene summits for
negotiating change in regional economics as an essential
means for managing sustainable ecosystems.” In this bold
“new world order,” Congress would become a rubber stamp
for global environmental policy.
The Biodiversity Treaty is currently not even a finished
document, but is merely a statement of principles. The actual
protocols (mandates) will be decided at a United Nations
Conference of the Parties scheduled for November. Yet, any
nation that ratifies the treaty will be legally bound to imple­
ment any protocols adopted by these non-elected agencies.
A supranational private body has already been created to
enforce the mandates of the convention. The three environ­
mental organizations that are in control of drafting of the
protocols are the World Resources Institute (WRI), the
World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) (formerly the World
Wildlife Fund), and the International Union for the Conser­
vation of Nature (IUCN).
These self-styled environmental organizations take most
of their funding— and their marching orders— from a net­
work of foundations and corporations that are the repositories
of the wealth of the world’s most powerful families. In the
United States, environmental organizations receive over
$1.2 billion a year from foundations and corporations. The
Environmental Grantmakers Association, a conglomerate of
EIR

September 2, 1994

138 foundations led by the Rockefeller Foundation, channels
the contributions to environmental groups and determines the
overall policies that the greenies will promote.

A pagan cult
Biodiversity has nothing to do with science. Rather, it is a
religious dogma, which promotes a belief in “biocentrism”—
the view that all species have “equal rights,” and that man
has no rights higher than those of animals or insects. The
Biodiversity Treaty effectively mandates signatory nations
to turn nature worship into their state religion— in direct
opposition to the Judeo-Christian outlook of the American
Founding Fathers, that man is created in the image and like­
ness of God.
The need for this new, synthetic religion was expressed
by Maurice Strong, secretary general of the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development (the so-called
Earth Summit) in Brazil in 1992, and one of the masterminds
of the treaty. In a speech in Stockholm on April 27, Strong
stated that the transformation of “our vision of a sustainable
civilization into reality . . . will not occur without a major
cultural transformation— a reorientation of the ethical, mor­
al, and spiritual values which provide the primary motiva­
tions for human behavior” (see article, p. 30).
Let’s hear some of the Orwellian “Newspeak” coming
out of the biocentrists. The IUCN, one of the organizations
in charge of writing the protocols of the Biodiversity Treaty,
has as its stated purpose the creation of “a new ethic, embracFeature

23

 ing plants and animals as well as people, an ethic that would
ensure sustainable development . . . that affirms biocentric
. . .values.”
The executive director of the United Nations Environ­
ment Program (UNEP) is Elisabeth Dowdeswell, who
chaired the Intergovernmental Committee on the Convention
on Biological Diversity on June 20, and will be responsible
for administering the treaty. In her opening comments at the
1994 Intergovernmental Committee Convention, Dowdes­
well explained why one should accept everything that creeps
and crawls as a member of one’s “family”: “As a family,
every element in nature, however small, is part of a whole
and contributes in its own fashion to the harmony of the
whole and to its overall balance.. . . Likewise, every species
has a right to survival because its existence is linked to that
of the entire community of life on Earth. . . . The vision of
One Earth, One Family presupposes such a new contract
between people and nature . . . and among different peoples
and nations. . . . The Convention on Biological Diversity
. . . provides a unique opportunity and framework for
achieving both.”

The ‘sustainable use’ hoax
In addition to ecosystem management, the Biodiversity
Treaty mandates the adoption of the doctrine of “sustainable
use,” meaning that human activity must not affect the Earth
in any way, but leave it untouched for posterity— a mandate
that even the troglodytes would have been hard-pressed to
comply with. Needless to say, most present-day human activ­
ities, including farming, logging, fishing, mining, and manu­
facturing, violate these tenets of “sustainable use.” The use
of fertilizers, pesticides, and insecticides, for example, is
considered an “unsustainable use” of the land. Consumption
patterns and outdoor recreational activities are “unsustaina­
ble,” as are present-day human population levels. The pro­
ductive development of private property is an obstacle to
“sustainable use.”
Livestock and agricultural crops apparently just do not
belong in the “family.” Article 8h of the treaty states that
“each contracting party shall . . . prevent the introduction,
control or eradication of those alien species which threaten
ecosystems, habitats or species.”
“Mr. Strong and the gang aren’t talking here about Mar­
tians and Klingons,” editorialized the Aug. 7 Washington'
Times. “No sir, they’re talking about cows. They’re talking
about pigs. Man has introduced these domesticated species
into the environment, you see, where they compete with
those more esteemed by environmentalists— Puerto Rican
cockroaches, furbish louseworts, and snail darters.”
Dowdeswell, in a talk to journalists at the International
Media Conference on Environment and Development in
Seoul, South Korea on June 12, asserted: “The achievement
of truly sustainable development will require a radical trans­
formation in our values and the way we articulate them in our
lifestyles.” Spouting the line which Parson Malthus copied
24

Feature

from the Venetian Giammaria Ortes, she claimed that the
“carrying capacity of the planet is between 2 and 6 billion
humans, depending on how much we each consume.” The
higher the standards of living, and the more technology, the
fewer people that the planet can sustain, she argued.

Biodiversity defined
The Biodiversity Treaty rests on a crude scientific fraud.
Biological diversity used to refer to the biological richness
of a habitat, i.e., the number and species of creatures present,
from insects to mammals, determined the biological diversity
of a specific habitat. In the mid-1980s, environmentalists
twisted this concept, claiming that “biological diversity” is a
good in and of itself. If one takes a snapshot of an “unspoiled”
area of the Earth, all species, plants, animals, insects, bacte­
ria, etc. in that area must remain exactly as they are. Any
disturbance of that “biodiversity,” is a sin against nature, and
moreover, areas of the Earth that have been “spoiled” by
human beings must return to their pristine existence. Thus,
the theory has two fundamental tenets: that the Earth is in a
“steady-state,” and that the presence and impact of humans
must be erased.
The fundamental refutation of this hoax rests with the
nature of the biosphere, the envelope of life that surrounds
the Earth. Living systems are characterized by an increase
in the amount of energy that they consume and generate
(increasing energy-flux density). Decaying or dying systems,
in contrast, are characterized by entropy, or the reduction of
energy-flux density. Paleontological evidence shows that the
history of the planet has been characterized by a series of
non-linear increases in the energy-flux density of the bio­
sphere. The human species, with our ability to reason, has
created the conditions for the greatest increase in “negentropy” in the history of the biosphere.
The “biodiversity” maniacs, who insist that living sys­
tems are in a fixed state that must remain unchanging, are
therefore trying to defy nature, not save it!
The text of the Biodiversity Treaty drops all pretense of
scientific validity when it states in the preamble that “where
there is a threat of significant reduction or loss of biological
diversity, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used
as a reason for postponing measures to avoid or minimize
such a threat.” This escape clause is essential, because all
major environmental doomsday theories lack any scientific
evidence to back them up. These faddish theories include
“global warming,” ozone depletion, acid rain, and the “nu­
clear winter,” which was so popular a few years ago, but has
since turned into a laughingstock.
Another tenet of biodiversity is that there is a massive
dying-out of species as a result of the activities of man.
Environmentalists have created several new definitions of
species, allowing them to claim that the world does not have
just the 1.4 million species which have currently been named
and described by scientists, but rather anywhere from 5-30
million species, or more, the vast majority of which are
EIR

September 2, 1994

 The highly toxic
chemicals used to
process the coca plant
into cocaine are a major
cause of loss of animal
species. Yet the
promoters of the
biodiversity dogma say
not a word about it,
preferring to target
farmers who grow food.

undiscovered insects.
According to the biodiversity dogma, the world is under­
going the greatest extinction event since the era of the dino­
saurs. Depending on the base number, biodiversity argues
that between 300 and 37,000 species are lost to extinction
each year. Some Cassandras forecast that total losses of spe­
cies may reach 1 million by the year 2000. One of them,
Peter Raven of the Missouri Botanical Gardens, estimates
that more than 10% of the world’s species could be extinct
by the turn of the century, and more than 25% in the following
few decades.
A further argument is that “once a species becomes ex­
tinct, it is not renewable,” and that other species, including
man, will go the way of the dinosaurs because of this loss
of biodiversity. The assumption here is that it is somehow
“unnatural” for species to become extinct. As paleontologists
scoff, the history of the Earth has in fact been punctuated
by mass extinctions, with extinctions also constantly taking
place in between these special periods. Extinctions are part
of nature, just as is the emergence of new species.

Why species disappear
According to the biodiversity dogma, the leading cause
of species extinction is habitat destruction. Its advocates
claim that this is caused by “exploding human populations.”
The argument is that the increase in the number of human
beings on the planet causes people to turn more areas of
forest, savannah, and desert into farms, and to turn more
trees into firewood. They conclude that population growth
“will result in unprecedented loss of biological diversity.”
This argument discounts the role of scientific and techno­
logical progress in solving all of these problems, whereas in
EIR

September 2, 1994

fact, it is only with massive new infusions of the highest
technology that we will succeed, for example, in trans­
forming the Sahara Desert into rich farmland.
Another leading cause of extinction, according to the
biodiversity dogma, is competition from introduced and do­
mesticated species. The argument is that when human beings
transplant animals or plants into an environment to which
they are not native, the introduced species can edge out the
native ones, because they may be able to exploit ecological
niches that native species can’t. This is considered a particu­
lar problem on islands, where many native species have
evolved in complete isolation from certain predators. Cattle,
sheep, and pigs, labeled “alien species,” are considered some
of the most offending species that have to be restrained or
eradicated from ecosystems.

Dope, Inc. ruins the environment
These claims are fraudulent. The fact is that the cultiva
tion of mind-altering drugs is currently a leading cause of
“biodiversity loss.” Giorgio Giacomelli, director of the Unit­
ed Nations International Drug Control Program, gave a key­
note speech at the Earth Summit in Brazil, in June 1992,
where he stated:
“Drugs not only mean the pollution and deterioration of
the mind. They are also a threat to the ecosystem of some of
the most fragile regions of our planet, the Amazon basin in
particular. Indeed, among the major causes of deforestation
and soil and water pollution in tropical zones can be found
illicit cultivation and production of drugs. Under pressure
from the traffickers, clandestine cannabis, coca, and poppy
growers penetrate into more and more remote and more and
more fragile forest environments. These growers are often
Feature

25

 migrants from the most impoverished slums of mega-cities.
They have no real agricultural experience, and, unlike tradi­
tional farmers, they have no respect for the environment and
the Earth which surrounds and supports them. In such cases
the methods employed to clear land or remove forests are
nearly always devastating. Forests are destroyed manually,
mechanically, or by fire. No vegetation survives to stabilize
or renew the soil. Land is used until its complete exhaustion
over a few years, with no restorative fallow period and with
no rotation of crops. It is then abandoned in favor of newly
deforested areas. When such practices occur on steep slopes,
there is rapid erosion of soil, as the layer of topsoil is especial­
ly thin.
“The {production of drugs themselves has an even more
devastating effect. The operators of clandestine heroin and
cocaine laboratories dump thousands of tons a year of highly
toxic chemicals into watercourses in tropical zones. Ecologi­
cal experts note that many rivers have already lost all trace
of many species of flora and fauna that used to be found
there. Drug production thus threatens to intensify the disap­
pearance of species.”
The most shocking aspect of these statements is that all
of the leading participants of the Earth Summit heard the
speech, received copies of it— and then did nothing about it!
Every major environmental group has received copies of this
speech, in addition to several UNDCP reports detailing the
destructive effects of drug cultivation, and yet they have
remained silent. Hundreds of leading biologists and other
scientists have been warning publicly about this destruction,
but environmentalists held not a single demonstration against
it. Something smells mighty fishy here.

The hard-core agenda
The ratification of the Biodiversity Treaty will surrender
national sovereignty over internal affairs. The question is, is
that a deliberate part of the Green operation, or an unintended
result? Perhaps we should consult them on what their real
plans are.
The actual environmentalist agenda has been laid out by
Maurice Strong. Both at the Earth Summit and in later speeches,
Strong has emphasized the need to replace national sovereignty
with a “new world order.” During the closing speech of the
Earth Summit, Strong told the thousands of delegates and over
100 heads of state present: “The carrying capacity of our Earth
can only sustain present and future generations if it is matched
by the caring capacity of its people and its leaders. We must
bring our species under control, for our own survival, for that
of all life on our precious planet. . . . We now have a unique
opportunity to do this.”
Strong noted that in order to “bring our species under
control,” then: “the new world order . . . must unite us all in
a global partnership which . . . [must] recognize the tran­
scending sovereignty of nature, of our only one Earth.”
Strong called for a complete transformation of the world’s
economic system, demanding that “the remainder of this
26

Feature

decade . . . must be a time of transition which will truly
move us on to the pathway to a new economy . . . that the
present economic system is simply not adequate. . . . It
needs to be radically revised to bring it into tune with ecorealities. We need to move to a real economic system.”
Events over the intervening two years since the Earth
Summit follow the script laid out by Strong during his closing
statement. He said: “When we leave here we must surely
build, on the foundations that we have established here, a
new global partnership, the partnership needed to give effect
to the decisions you have made here. Specifically, we must
build further and quickly on the Climate Change Convention,
on the Biodiversity Convention, and move quickly in the
negotiation of a Desertification Convention, continue to
move negotiations toward a Forestry Regime that will be
acceptable to all, and advance from the Rio Declaration to
the Earth Charter. As to Agenda 21, it is up to you. Presidents
and prime ministers, distinguished delegates, to go back to
your countries— and many of you have encouragingly said
that you intend this— and translate Agenda 21 and the deci­
sions that you have taken at the global level into your own
national policies and practices. And we must do this within
the U .N ., and at the regional level, at the local level, and at
the level of organizations and people.”

Agenda 21
The issue of Agenda 21, as outlined by Strong and other
environmental leaders, is of crucial importance. This 900page compendium of mandates, signed by most countries
present at the Earth Summit, is the bible of this movement.
Implied within this document is the elimination of national
sovereignty. This is explicitly stated in paper No. 107, pub­
lished by the Worldwatch Institute shortly before the Earth
Summit. Written by Hillary French, the paper, titled “After
the Earth Summit: The Future of Environmental Gover­
nance,” states:
“National sovereignty—the power of a country to control
events within its territory— has lost much of its meaning in
today’s world. . . . International treaties and institutions are
proving ever more critical to addressing ecological threats.
Nations are in effect ceding portions of their sovereignty to
the international community, and beginning to create a new
system of international environmental governance as a means
of solving otherwise unmanageable problems.
“Paradoxically, one way to make environmental agree­
ments more effective is in some cases to make them less
enforceable— and therefore more palatable to the negotiators
who may initially feel threatened by any loss of sovereignty.
So-called ‘soft law’— declarations, resolutions, and action
plans that nations do not need to formally ratify and are not
legally binding— can help to create an international consen­
sus, mobilize aid, and lay the groundwork for the negotiation
of binding treaties later. Agenda 21 [will be] an action plan on
nearly all aspects of sustainable development [as it] emerges
from the Earth Summit.”
EIR

September 2, 1994

 The ‘Global Biodiversity Assessment’
The Biodiversity Treaty is at present merely a statement
of principles. The details of this treaty are currently being
drafted by a vast body of environmentalists, non-govemmental organizations, and U.N. bureaucrats, under the Global
Biodiversity Assessment (GBA) which is mandated by the
treaty. This is a massive undertaking. Just the outline of
one of the 12 sections of the GBA is almost as long as the
Biodiversity Treaty itself. The protocols that will come out
of the GBA will be quite specific.
A document released by the World Resources Institute
demonstrates that this massive operation is under the control,
not of sovereign nation-states, but of private environmental
groups, particularly the World Resources Institute, the World
Wide Fund for Nature, and the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature. Furthermore, no scientist or group
that has challenged this unproven theory, is in a leadership
or advisory position within the GBA.
This is not an unexpected situation. The chairman of the
Global Biodiversity Assessment is Robert Watson, one of
the top promoters of the ozone depletion scare. In March
1988, Watson gave the famous press conference which led
directly to the total ban on chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Wat­
son, speaking as the chairman of the Ozone Trends Panel,
announced the release of a report that contained evidence
showing a 3.5% depletion of the ozone layer in northern
latitudes, which he blamed on the release of CFCs. (Interest­
ingly enough, that report was not produced for another three
years. All that was handed out at the press conference was a
pressrelease.)
The conclusions of the Ozone Trends Panel were immedi­
ately attacked by leading scientists. Unfortunately (or per­
haps deliberately), since the report had not been issued, no
scientific journal would print a rebuttal of a nonexistent re­
port. The report was finally issued in 1991. It revealed some
of the raw data from ozone measuring stations that had been
used as the basis of their analysis of ozone thickness.
One of these stations was the ozone station in Uccle, a
suburb of Brussels, Belgium. In a documentary, “Fair Skin,
Stay In,” that appeared on Belgian national television, the
Belgian scientists in charge of the Uccle station denounced
the Ozone Trends Panel report, noting that their ozone data
had been falsified. These scientists placed their measure­
ments in front of the camera, side-by-side with the data that
the Ozone Trends Panel claimed had come from Uccle. The
data were different. While the original data showed no ozone
depletion, the data fabricated by the Ozone Trends Panel
showed ozone depletion! These Belgian scientists have re­
peatedly accused Robert Watson of being behind this scien­
tific fraud.
It should be pointed out that chairing the GBA is not
Watson’s only job. He is in one of the most powerful scien­
tific positions in the United States: the environmental director
for the White House Office of Science and Technology
Policy.
EIR

September 2, 1994

The Ozone Trends Panel set another precedent for the Glob­
al Biodiversity Assessment: Most of the major promoters of
the ozone depletion scare were panel members. Not a single
dissenting scientist was represented in this biased body.

The Montreal Protocol
The model for the Biodiversity Treaty and all other pres­
ent-day global environmental treaties, is the Montreal Proto­
col, which bans the use of CFCs. Signed in 1987, this was
the first international treaty in which a whole range of chemi­
cals was banned on the basis of a perceived threat for which
there was no scientific evidence. The U.S. State Department
official who negotiated the Montreal Protocol, Richard Elliot
Benedick, an admitted malthusian, describes this massive
deception in his book. Ozone Diplomacy.
“The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the
Ozone Layer mandated significant reductions in the use of
several extremely useful chemicals. . . . By their action, the
signatory countries sounded the death knell for an important
part of the international chemical industry, with implications
for billions of dollars in investments and hundreds of thou­
sands of jobs in related sectors. The protocol did not simply
prescribe limits on these chemicals based on ‘best available
technology,’ which had been a traditional way of reconciling
environmental goals with economic interests. Rather, the
negotiations established target dates for replacing products
that had become synonymous with modem standards of liv­
ing, even though the requisite technologies did not yet exist.
At the time of the negotiations and signing, no measurable
evidence for damage existed. Thus, unlike environmental
agreements of the past, the treaty was not a response to
harmful developments or events but rather a preventive ac­
tion on a global scale.”
As documented in The Holes in the Ozone Scare: The
Scientific Evidence that the Sky Is Not Falling, by Rogelio
A. Maduro and Ralf Schauerhammer (Washington, D.C.:
21st Century Science Associates, 1992), there is no scientific
evidence to back the claims that the ozone layer has been
depleted, or that CFCs pose any danger to ozone. The book
argues that the entire ozone scare is a scientific fraud.
Regardless of the scientific evidence, the Montreal Proto­
col was signed and implemented, and the production of CFCs
will be banned in most countries of the world by the end of
next year. The costs of the ban are staggering: over $5 trillion
by the year 2000. Furthermore, CFCs are the lifeblood of the
world’s refrigeration systems. Since there are no drop-in
replacements, tens of millions of refrigerators will have to be
scrapped worldwide as they lose their charge due to leakage.
The result, as refrigeration experts warn, is that millions of
human beings will die every year from hunger, starvation,
food-borne diseases, and spoiled medicines and vaccines.
Returning to Robert Watson: A few years ago, Watson
acknowledged during an interview with syndicated colum­
nist Alston Chase, that more people would die as a result of
the ban on CFCs than from skin cancer resulting from ozone
Feature

27

 Groundswell of opposition
to biodiversity treaty
In a mobilization that had U.S. Senate staffers flabber­
gasted, State Department officials screaming, and greenies weeping. Senate offices were flooded with hundreds
of thousands of phone calls and faxes over Aug. 3-5 in a
full-scale mobilization to defeat the Biodiversity Treaty.
It was this steamroller that succeeded in waking up the
Senate, moving 35 Republican senators to sign a letter
requesting postponement of the vote on the treaty until
September.
The shift effected by the mobilization was dramatic.
On the morning of Aug. 3, Senate staffers still considered
that there was absolutely no hope of preventing the ratifi­
cation of this treaty. Most senators had no idea of its
contents, and were thought to be too busy with health
care to pay any attention. There was absolutely no media
coverage. Environmentalists had controlled the entire pas­
sage of the treaty through the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee. In addition to the greenies, major corpora­
tions, led by the pharmaceutical giants Eli Lilly and
Merck, were strenuously lobbying the Senate for passage.
It seemed to be a hopeless situation.
But meanwhile, the “wise use” and “property rights”
movement had been cranking up a massive grassroots
campaign. The Alliance for America went onto red alert.
Using their extensive national network of facsimile ma­
chines, the alliance— an umbrella group of nearly 600
property rights and wise use organizations— alerted all of
their member organizations of breaking developments.
Fax alerts went out to more than 4,000 organizations and
individuals, and many fax recipients re-transmitted them
so that within 24-48 hours, between 1 and 5 million citi­
zens were alerted.
The same was done by the Environmental Conserva­

depletion. Despite this knowledge, Watson backed the ban
on CFCs. What kind of regard for human life does this indi­
vidual have? Is that who should be making international poli­
cy through the Biodiversity Treaty?

And of course, the whales
During the month of July, activists from Greenpeace and
Sea Shepherd launched a series of naval assaults against
Norway’s whaling fleet. These assaults led to a series of
confrontations with Norway's whaling boats, its Coast
28

Feature

tion Organization, an umbrella group for over 500 organi­
zations. They cranked-up their fax network, and also mo­
bilized a network of city councils across the country which
is fighting unfunded federal mandates. On top of this,
many other leading wise use and private property rights
organizations deployed their and grassroots networks.
These included Putting People First, People for the West,
the Blue Ribbon Coalition, the National Federal Lands
Conference, the American Land Rights Association, the
National Wilderness Institute, the Maine Conservation
Rights Institute, and the National Fishermen’s Coalition.
Trade associations were also involved. The American
Farm Bureau and the National Cattlemen’s Association
lobbied in Washington to ensure that the American live­
stock and farm industries would not be destroyed by the
ratification of the treaty. They also mobilized their mem­
bership to put pressure on the Senate. An important factor
was the distribution of a series of reports by the American
Sheep Industry Association (ASI), detailing the true natureofthe Biodiversity Treaty. For the first time, a highly
respected trade association had the courage to put forward
the actual dangers represented by a piece of radical envi­
ronmental legislation.
Shortly after the faxes were sent, the flood of calls and
messages began. By Aug. 5, it was simply impossible to
get through to the Capitol Hill switchboard.
The mobilization ended up turning an otherwise cer­
tain ratification of the Biodiversity Treaty into a potential
rout for the environmentalists and the population control
advocates. Leading greens had even warned that if the
treaty was not quickly ratified, it would endanger the
U .N .’s Conference on Population and Development,
scheduled for Sept. 5-13. The entire Ecosystem Manage­
ment Task Force set up by Vice President Albert Gore
depended on the ratification of the treaty to legally justify
the actions that it is taking.
Leaders of the wise use movement have stated that
they intend to continue their mobilization, targeting gov­
ernors and state legislatures, and broadening their coali­
tion to include churches, the anti-abortion movement, and
the civil rights movement.—RogelioA. Maduro

Guard, and Navy. Most confrontations occurred in the terri­
torial waters of that nation, and in several instances, they
nearly cost the lives of several Norwegian whalers.
In a press release widely distributed at the start of their
cruise. Sea Shepherd announced that the destination of their
ship was “the northern coast of Norway,” and that they would
have “a showdown with any whaling ship found to be in
violation of the worldwide ban on commercial whaling.” At
a press conference before their departure from a Dutch port,
Lisa Distefano, the strategist of the terror campaign, told
EIR

September 2, 1994

 the press that “we have already sunk two Norwegian pirate
whalers,” and that “we intend to sink more. . . . This is a
whale war. I would be very nervous right now if I were a
Norwegian whaler or an underwriter of a Norwegian whaling
ship.”
The Norwegian Coast Guard was waiting for the Sea
Shepherd ship when it arrived, and they attempted to prevent
it from violating Norway’s territorial waters. Sea Shepherd’s
ship. Whales Forever, ignored messages from the Norwegian
Coast Guard to turn back. Suddenly, as shown in film footage
taken by helicopters and broadcast on Norwegian national
television, the Sea Shepherd ship made a hard turn to star­
board and violently rammed the Norwegian Coast Guard
vessel Andenes amidships. Following the attack. Whales
Forever fled info international waters.
In the case of Greenpeace, two large oceangoing ships,
the MV Solo and the MV Sirius, led repeated assaults against
a tiny Norwegian whaler, the Sehet (crew of three).
Greenpeace activists, using several fast-moving assault
boats, repeatedly boarded the whaling vessel and attempted
to destroy its cannon. This was an extremely dangerous oper­
ation; once a harpoon is loaded into the cannon, its grenade,
which contains high explosives, is armed. Had these attacks
succeeded, either the gunpowder charge in the cannon, or
the grenade, could have exploded, killing any member of the
Senet's crew which was on deck. The Norwegian fishermen
were saved on several occasions by the intervention of the
Coast Guard, who ended up arresting several dozen
Greenpeace activists and impounding their two ships.
The connection between these incidents and the Biodiver­
sity Treaty is crucial. A leader of Sea Shepherd declared that
United Nations laws provide them with the legal precedent
for the right to conduct campaigns against sovereign nations
in order to protect whales or any other threatened species. In
an article posted on July 8 on the Internet, Sea Shepherd
leader Nick Voth claimed that a 1982 United Nations resolu­
tion called the World Charter for Nature justifies their actions
against nations and individuals in order to save the lives of
endangered species.
This precedent is extremely dangerous, since the Con­
vention on Biodiversity goes much further than the World
Charter for Nature in protecting allegedly endangered spe­
cies. The Biodiversity Treaty not only protects species, it
even protects entire ecosystems.
If Sea Shepherd’s reasoning were to be applied to the
Biodiversity Treaty, environmentalists would be justified in
murdering human beings on the basis that those individuals
had disrupted the habitat of an endangered species. Further­
more, if the U.S. Senate ratifies the Biodiversity Treaty, it
could legally bind the United States to use its military forces
to protect endangered species and ecosystems regardless of
the cost.
Nick Voth’s argument is extremely important. In his In­
ternet article, he cites the sections of the World Charter for
Nature which in his view authorize forceful actions (all em­
EIR

September 2, 1994

phasis in original):
Section I, Paragraph 2: “The genetic viability on the Earth
shall not be compromised; the population levels of all life
forms, wild and domesticated, must be at least sufficient for
their survival, and to that end, necessary habitat shall be
safeguarded.”
Section II, Paragraph 10(a): “Living resources shall not
be utilized in excess of their natural capacity for regener­
ation.”
Section II, Paragraph 11(a): “Activities which are likely
to cause irreversible damage to nature shall be avoided.”
Paragraph (b): “Activities which are likely to pose a sig­
nificant risk to nature shall be preceded by an exhaustive
examination; their proponents shall demonstrate that expect­
ed benefits outweigh potential damage to nature, and where
potential adverse effects are not fully understood, the activi­
ties should not proceed.”
Section III, Paragraph 21 and sections (c,d,e): “States
and, to the extent they are able, other public authorities,
international organizations, individuals, groups and corpora­
tions shall:
“(c) Implement the applicable international legal provis­
ions for the conservation of nature and the protection of the
environment;
“(d) Ensure that activities within their jurisdictions or
control do not cause damage to the natural systems located
within other states or in the areas beyond the limits of national
jurisdiction;
“(e) Safeguard and conserve nature in areas beyond na­
tional jurisdiction.”
Voth emphasizes that “this in itself is all the authority the
Sea Shepherd, and any other organization, need to sanction
countries like Norway who wantonly flaunt their illegal activ­
ities.”
Voth proceeds to present unreliable “scientific” evidence
claiming that Norway’s whaling activities represent a danger
to the species, ending with the incredible statement:
“Finally, as I am sure everyone realizes, science is only
a tool used to gain an edge in the battle. It is a very important
factor, but must not overshadow the moral issues at stake. At
its core, whaling boils down to a moral fight. No science,
debate, or action is likely to change the minds of the few who
still support whaling. This is where the stalemate takes over,
and where governments begin to tread lightly. Meanwhile,
whales, dolphins, spotted owls, grizzly bears, wolves, old
growth forest, ozone and thousands of other ‘causes’ contin­
ue to be eroded.
“So this is where a few dedicated and devoted people step
in and try to make a difference. Sea Shepherd being only one
of the many, who in their own way, are trying to gain ground
in the struggle.”
If the Biodiversity Treaty is ever established as national
and international law, then the entire apparatus of non-gov­
ernmental organizations will assume the powers of sovereign
states. There is still time, however, to defeat this treaty.
Feature

29

 The twisted world
of Maurice Strong
Speaking before the Swedish Royal Academy on April 27,
leading malthusian Maurice Strong revealed how close he
and his collaborators believe they are to achieving a “new
world order” based on an “ecoindustrial revolution.” Strong,
who ran the 1992 “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro, pre­
sented a detailed history of the movement to convince nations
that since environmental problems can only be solved by “an
integrated, systems approach,” a restructured United Nations
is best suited to provide “the primary multilateral framework
of a new world order” to save the planet from “the astounding
success of the human spdcies,” which is causing the “acceler­
ating destruction of the Earth’s biological resources.”
This agenda is summed up in Strong’s new bible,
“Agenda 21,” which was signed by most nations participat­
ing in the Earth Summit. This document, Strong boasted,
“constitutes the most comprehensive and far-reaching pro­
gram of action to secure the future of life on Earth ever agreed
to by the nations of the world.”
Couching his remarks in the usual dishonest U.N. “newspeak,” Strong argued that sovereign national governments
must be broken on the wheel of Agenda 21. Human threats
to the planet “can only be managed on an integrated, coopera­
tive basis,” insisted Strong. “In this governments have a
primary responsibility.” “But,” he insisted, “it cannot be left
to governments alone.” This “will require a vast strengthen­
ing and re-orientation of institutional mechanisms and capac­
ities at every level and an incorporation of the objectives of
Agenda 21 into international agreements and arrangements
in respect of trade, investment, and finance.”
Indeed, Strong insisted that Agenda 21 become the new
measuring rod for human culture in general. “The values on
which implementation of Agenda 21 in the final analysis will
depend must also be integrated into our cultural and social
systems. Each sector of society—business and industry,
trade unions, scientists, farmers, educators, religious lead­
ers, communicators, indigenous people, women, children
and youth— must be fully committed to and engaged in the
implementation of Agenda 21.”
Speaking about the collapse of communism and tradition­
al institutions. Strong reiterated the need for a single world
government—run, of course, by such malthusians as Strong
himself. He warned that there is a danger that the world
will revert to “nationalism” and “parochialism.” “The only
conceivable answer” to this threat, “is to establish a new
international system of governance.”
Strong pointed out that “the 50th anniversary of the Unit­
ed Nations next year provides a unique opportunity to restruc­
30

Feature

ture and revitalize the U.N. and its system of organizations
and agencies, including the Bretton Woods [monetary] insti­
tutions, to prepare them for the vastly increased role they
must have as the primary multilateral framework of a new
world order.” “In this critical area of governance,” he contin­
ued, “environmental issues cannot be seen or dealt with as
separate and distinct from the other major issues now shaping
our destiny. The wasteful and destructive economic practices
which have brought us to our present pass are . . . the pro­
duces of deficiencies in our economic structures and our
processes of governance. National governments need to
share with internal jurisdictions, regional and provincial and
local, as well as nongovernment actors, responsibility for
activities that can be most effectively handled at these levels.
In other words, the one-world government should run every­
thing, down to the local level.
A new world religion is also of course required in order
to truly succeed, according to Strong. The transformation of
“our vision of a sustainable civilization into reality . . . will
not occur without a major cultural transformation—a reorien­
tation of the ethical, moral, and spiritual values which pro­
vide the primary motivations for human behavior.”
Developing countries have to bear the burden of imple­
menting Agenda 21, according to Strong. He noted that “for
developing countries to implement Agenda 21, it would cost
some $625 billion per year,” and “some 80% of this must
come from developing countries themselves through rede­
ployment of their own scarce resources.” Strong explained
that it is just to impose this burden, since developing coun­
tries in fact represent the greatest threat to the planet: “The
economic growth of developing countries, if it proceeds in
the traditional mode, will soon overtake industrialized coun­
tries as the principal source of global environmental im­
pacts.” That, claimed Strong, “would increase risks to dan­
gerous levels the world community cannot afford to accept.”
These words only thinly conceal his basic, racist argument
against any serious economic development of the nations of
the Third World.
But of course, the industrialized countries should stop
growing, too: “The right of developing countries to grow
cannot be denied; nor can it be constrained by conditions
unilaterally imposed by the industrialized countries.. . The
only answer to this dilemma lies in industrialized countries
reducing their impacts to leave environmental ‘space’ for
developing countries to grow, while expanding their support
for developing countries in effecting their transition to sus­
tainable modes of development.”

Strong’s hatred of humankind
“The astounding success of the human species” is a grave
threat to the planet, according to Strong. “All of the environ­
mental deterioration we have witnessed to date has occurred
at levels of population and human activity a great deal less
than they will be in the period ahead. The astounding success
EIR

September 2, 1994

 of the human species, its proliferation in numbers and in the
scale and intensity of its activities, is threatening the future
of the Earth’s life systems and of the human species itself.
And the concentration of population growth in developing
countries and economic growth in industrialized countries
which has given rise to such serious imbalances in our global
society shows no significant signs of changing.” Dealing
with these problematic human beings is “one of the primary
themes of Agenda 21,” according to Strong.
The fact that Strong did not present a shred of scientific
proof to back up this assertion, should not be surprising,
since no such proof exists.
Asian countries represent a particular danger, according
to Strong, who said that, “Asia has become the primary
engine of the world economic growth. But as a recent U.N.
report warned, there is a real danger that many Asian nations
will repeat the patterns of environmental destruction which
characterized our industrial revolution. With the state of our
environmental knowledge to date, this is not only unneces­
sary, but patently disastrous. It is inconceivable that there
could be an effective global transition to sustainable develop­
ment unless Asia develops sustainably.”

Outlawing technological progress
One of the main themes of the Earth Summit was that a
new accounting system has to be created in order to stop “the
accelerating destruction of the Earth’s biological resources.”
Such an accounting system would in fact closely resemble
the disastrous reforms by the Roman Emperor Diocletian
(245-313), who in effect outlawed any technological prog­
ress as “too expensive,” thereby ushering in the Dark Ages.
Let us hear Strong’s argument: There is a need for “funda­
mental changes in our economic life through a full integration
of the environmental dimension in economic policies, deci­
sion making, and behavior.” The answer, said Strong, “lies
primarily in attaching to biological resources, and the ecosys­
tems which sustain them, economic values which reflect their
real value to humankind.” But “this can only be achieved
through major changes in the system of incentives and penalt­
ies by which governments motivate the economic conduct of
corporations and citizens.. . . This needs to be accompanied
by the adoption of accounting methods, both in national ac­
counts and business accounting, in which environmental
costs are fully integrated into the costs of products and trans­
actions. It is, after all, fully consistent with the principles of
market economics that the price of all products and transac­
tions should incorporate their full real cost.”
Governmental efforts to ensure a stable agricultural econ­
omy are among Strong’s primary targets. Such efforts, he
said, “provide incentives for high-intensity agriculture which
lead to overuse of polluting fertilizers and pesticides, the
depletion of soil, and reduction of biodiversity, while exact­
ing heavy costs from consumers and taxpayers.” Strong ne­
glected to mention the fact that high-intensity agriculture
EIR

September 2, 1994

Maurice Strong, the Canadian oligarch who ran the 1992 Earth
Summit

provides food for the world, and without it, hundreds of
millions of human beings will starve.
Energy subsidies are also very bad, according to Strong.
Energy prices are “at low levels which do not begin to reflect
full environmental costs and provide little incentive for the
development of alternatives either to our dependence on fos­
sil fuels or to nuclear energy.”

Call for scientific fraud
The promotion of scientific frauds is justifiable to Strong,
who candidly acknowledged that this entire world order is
being implemented on the basis of scientifically unproven
theories. Scientific fraud is justified on the basis of two princi­
ples, according to Strong: the “precautionary principle,” and
the “no-regrets principle.”
“I am well aware that on some environmental issues there
is less than unanimity in the scientific community— global
warming, to take a notable example. The Intergovernmental
Panel of Climate Change, under the able leadership of Prof.
Bert Bolin, has produced persuasive scientific evidence as to
the risks and possible consequences of climate change. Not
all scientists agree. But in a matter with such potentially
decisive and irreversible consequences, surely the ‘precau­
tionary principle’ dictates that we take determined remedial
action even before we have scientific certainty. A corollary
to the precautionary principle is what has been called the 'no­
regrets principle.’ Its premise is that in taking actions against
an apprehended but unproven menace— such as drastically
reducing toxic emissions to the atmosphere— you accom­
plish positive results which justify the action even if the
greater threat turns out to be unfounded.”
Feature

31