Is National Sovereignty Passé?

Jim Hnatiuk

Until now, the conflict over so-called 'global warming' has been a somewhat academic debate in which the two sides each cite their own 'authorities'; one-sided reportage on the issue has masked hidden agendas.

But all four parties now in Parliament and the premiers of four big provinces have committed themselves in advance--almost sight-unseen--to a North American 'cap-and-trade' carbon-emission control program, and a new and urgent issue has emerged: at stake is Canada's very survival as an independent nation.

A Vancouver-based consultant on greenhouse gas emissions warns that the U.S. plan, rooted in legislation already passed by Congress, amounts to an American-controlled quota system that effectively ends the independence of Canadian business.

The U.S. proposal uses fear of global warming to reduce Canada to the status of an America territory, like Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.

It presages what I believe has been the goal of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) all along: to generate a climate of fear surrounding some trans-national problem, then promote a trans-national power--the UN, who else?--to resolve it. But the promised "protector" may prove to be worse than the problem.

The subjugation of nations like Canada to regional hegemony is the first step towards the subjugation of the entire globe under a one-world government--a regime with no opposition.

That has been the objective of globalists and liberals all along. Indeed, it was the root issue behind the founding of the United Nations itself: "War has become so dreadful," said the seven founding nations, "local governments must be subordinated to a global authority."

Those who are old enough to remember the founding of the UN may also recall Secretary-General Trygve Lee calling on the nations of the world to turn all their armies over to the command of the UN, as a "world police force" that could crush any aggressor nation.

It was an idyllic vision, with only one flaw--but that flaw was a fatal one: the UN is answerable only to itself. If all the nations disarmed (or turned their armies over to UN command, which amounts to the same thing), no power on earth could oppose UN totalitarianism. Of course, Trygve Lee--an idealist if ever there was one--couldn't imagine "UN totalitarianism"; but nations that have endured rape and plunder by the blue helmets know better.

Those of us who regard the United States as the best friend and neighbour a nation could have in this fallen world (and I count myself among them) may find it uncomfortable to remember that since the time of the Declaration of Independence, there have been American politicians (Benjamin Franklin was one) who advocated the doctrine of "Manifest Destiny": that it is America's destiny to control all of North America "from the Gulf to the pole."

Manifest Destiny arose again during the War of 1812. And it was a shadow behind the American negotiating team in the drafting of the first Canada/US Free Trade Agreement; it was present in the negotiations of NAFTA, FTAA, and TAFTA; but even more pressing is an idea that has been at large in the world since the time of Woodrow Wilson's presidency: the fascist idea of a world corporate state that would "make the trains run on time." Wilson's corporatism inspired both Mussolini's Fascisti and the Communist Internationale. The conflict between Nazis and Communists was simply that the Nazis wanted national socialism, while the communist goal was global socialism. But Wilson, Lenin and Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler all had the same essential concept: that a global economy and global political threats require a global power to resolve them.

Now the UN has its issue: "global warming". It makes no difference to them that the average global temperature has been declining in every one of the past eight years. They simply change the name "global warming" to "climate change", and the drum-beat of fear-mongering goes on.

For an authoritative alternate view of "climate change", visit these websites:

The Great Global Warming Swindle, produced by Britain's Channel 4, can be seen (in eight parts) on YouTube.

And you can see a preview of Not Evil, Just Wrong the soon-coming documentary that debunks Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth, a propaganda film that won a Nobel Peace Prize, but was also examined by a British court and ruled unsuitable for school presentations (although almost every school in North America has subjected students to its brainwashing).

Thousands of respected climatologists have raised their voices (and signed a document) in vain to warn that the "science" behind the IPCC's fear-mongering is in fact woefully unscientific: it tolerates no questioning of its basic premise, which is not a scientific orthodoxy but a religious dogma: "Human activity is altering the world's climate, and disaster portends." Saints Gore and Suzuki have uttered the decrees, and doubts are heretical and sinful.

Now Aldyen Donnelly, president of WDA Consulting Inc. and the Greenhouse Emissions Management Consortium in Vancouver, has pointed out in an Op-Ed article in the Financial Post that the 'cap-and-trade' plan-- endorsed by President-elect Obama, the leaders of Canada's federal Conservatives, Liberals, NDP and Bloc, and by the premiers of BC, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec--in fact amounts to a quota system established by American legislation--which therefore gives the U.S. Congress the ability to control everything in Canada that involves the use or production of energy or carbon.

That's just about everything we do.

The proposal which our leaders are applauding as a solution to an unproved "problem" could eradicate the last vestiges of Canadian sovereignty.

It is "Manifest Destiny" in all but name.