The Copenhagen Treaty

The upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference to be held in Copenhagen from December 7-18 is now being talked about all over the blogosphere. This is because of a speech that Lord Christopher Monckton, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, gave at Bethel University in St Paul, Minnesota, on October 14. In his speech he warned about the dire consequences of signing the Copenhagen Treaty.

He warned that most people have no idea what is actually in the Treaty, yet most nations around the world seem prepared to sign it, even though it may involve giving away national sovereignty, and handing over inordinate power to a global governing body. This is a part of what he had to say in his speech:

“At Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regimes from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.

“I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word ‘government’ actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, ‘climate debt’ – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.

“How many of you think that the word ‘election’ or ‘democracy’ or ‘vote’ or ‘ballot’ occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who founded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis is at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.”

Since that speech was given, warnings have gone around the world. The full video of his talk, along with a slide show, and the four-minute conclusion, are in video form and have been seen countless times by millions. He has since done a number of radio and TV interviews as well. I list all of the relevant links below.

Now I have not read the entire draft Treaty. It seems somewhat difficult to come by, at least on the mammoth UN website, and there seem to be various forms of it around. This seems to be the actual document in question:

Now this is not a final version of the Treaty, and presumably – or at least hopefully – much discussion and debate will take place next month. But if even half of what Lord Monckton says is true, we all have great cause for alarm. There are many problems associated with it, not least of which is the proposal for some trans-national body to implement the Treaty’s recommendations.

There is also the fact that every month more and more evidence seems to emerge that the whole concept of man-made global warming is simply a beat-up. The number of scientists who are sceptical about anthropogenic climate change seems to be growing each passing day.

But all the scare-mongering about the end of the world makes things much easier for the globalists and enemies of freedom and democracy to implement their agenda. Plenty has been written about all of this, but let me refer to just two recent Australian commentaries on this.

Janet Albrechtsen of the Australian made a number of points worth repeating here. She begins with these words:

“Shame on us all: on us in the media and on our politicians. Despite thousands of news reports, interviews, analyses, critiques and commentaries from journalists, what has the inquiring, intellectually sceptical media told us about the potential details of a Copenhagen treaty? And despite countless speeches, addresses, interviews, doorstops, moralising sermons from government ministers, pleas from Canberra for an outcome at Copenhagen, opposition criticism of government policy, what have our elected representatives told us about the potential details of a Copenhagen treaty?”

She has read the 181-page document. “The word government appears on page 18. Monckton says: ‘This is the first time I’ve ever seen any transnational treaty referring to a new body to be set up under that treaty as a government. But it’s the powers that are going to be given to this entirely unelected government that are so frightening’.”

She continues, “It is impossible to fully understand the convoluted UN verbiage. Yet even those incomprehensible clauses point to some nasty surprises that no politician has told us about. For example, Monckton says the drafters want this new world government to have control over once free markets: the financial and trading markets of nation-states. ‘The sheer ambition of this new world government is enormous right from the start; that’s even before it starts accreting powers to itself in the way that these entities inevitably always do,’ he says.

“The reason for that power grab is clear enough from the draft treaty. Clause after complicated clause sets out the requirement that developed countries such as Australia pay their ‘adaptation debt’ to developing countries. Clause 33 on page 39 says that by 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be at least $US67 billion ($73bn), or in the range of $US70bn to $US140bn a year.”

Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt has written in more detail about the economic costs of all this. Says Bolt: “So here’s the question: is Rudd really going to approve a draft treaty that could force Australia to hand over an astonishing $7 billion a year to a new and unelected global authority? Yes, that’s $7 billion, or about $330 from every man, woman and child. Every year. To be passed on to countries such as China and Bangladesh, and the sticky-fingered in-between.

“And a second question, perhaps even more important: is Rudd really going to approve a draft treaty which also gives that unelected authority the power to fine us billions of dollars more if it doesn’t like our green policies? It is incredible that these questions have not been debated by either the Rudd Government or the Opposition, whose hapless leader, Malcolm Turnbull, on Monday admitted he did not even have a copy of this treaty. Australia’s wealth and sovereign rights may soon be signed away, so why hasn’t the public at least been informed?”

He continues, “But wait, there’s still more. You’d think this draft treaty that Rudd has worked on would at least give us a say over how our billions are spent. But no. UN bodies are already notoriously hard for any one nation to supervise or restrain. Even the United States, the biggest donor of all, could not stop the corruption at UNESCO two decades ago, and was forced to walk out in protest. Nor could it stop dictatorships such as Libya and Cuba from later holding key roles in the UN’s human rights bodies. And with this new global warming body, the vote of the paying West will be overruled even more decisively by the spending rest.”

Bolt concludes: “As for Turnbull … well, it’s tragic. Badgered by Alan Jones on 2GB on Monday on this very point, he said: ‘Of course the poorest countries are going to need assistance … (But) there is no way that anything like this would be accepted without extensive debate.’ So where is that debate, Malcolm? Why aren’t you screaming from the rooftops for reassurances that our wealth won’t be squandered and our powers handed over? Just this week the European Union said it would pay its share of an $82 billion cheque to this new body if countries such as ours come on board, too – so who’s applying the brakes? Not our politicians, for sure. So if you oppose this surrender of our billions and our freedom, better start saying so now, before it’s all too late.”

To conclude, our Prime Minister finally did speak out on all this, just yesterday. But what he had to say is not at all reassuring. He mentioned the Treaty and those concerned about it. And his response? They are basically all a bunch of conspiracy theory nuts.

He simply dismisses the concerns of people like Monckton and others about ceding away national sovereignty. And he also dismisses the tens of thousands of scientists who are sceptical about the whole premise of this debate. Rudd makes it clear that he is a true believer, and all these doubters are a bunch of fruit cakes united in some grand conspiracy theory.

So if you were worried about how Australia might respond in Copenhagen next month before his speech, you all should be a whole lot more worried now.

Here are all the relevant links:

The 4-minute conclusion to Monckton’s talk:

The full Monckton speech:

The accompanying slide show:

Click to access monckton_2009.pdf

Monckton’s talk updated with slides:

The Alan Jones interview:
The Glenn Beck interview:

The Janet Albrechtsen article:
The Andrew Bolt article:
The Prime Minister’s address to the Lowy Institute:

[1531 words]

25 Replies to “The Copenhagen Treaty”

  1. Hi Bill,

    What are your thoughts on the Copenhagen summit and this proposed treaty you speak of in the article, and the Treaty of Lisbon that is soon to come into effect in Europe, consolidating the power and offices of the European Union? Seems to me that both are linked closely in the set up to global governance.

    Yarran Johnston

  2. Thanks Yarran

    The Treaty of Lisbon actually comes into effect in just over 3 weeks (Dec. 1). As critics have pointed out, it further erodes national sovereignty in Europe, and will lead to a greater move away from real freedom and democracy. It will mean that unelected bureaucrats in Brussels will call the shots on a whole range of important issues affecting all of us. So it is a step in the wrong direction.

    Despite what Rudd might think about people like me, I am in fact not into conspiracy theories. But I am worried about various international treaties, bodies and instruments which are often quite anti-democratic in nature, and moving in globalist directions. But I really should write this up more fully in further articles.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  3. Your essay is interesting but I don’t trust Monckton at this point. I need to know more about him. He comes across as a one-man band opposing himself to assorted powerful parties. That could be a recipe for paranoid perception. But then, he could still be right in sounding an alarm, given the frequency of manipulation and deviousness amongst ruling elites.

    On the subject of treaties, most of us probably have not read the treaties our governments sign. We usually leave the job of scrutiny to our elected representatives and their experts. But let us all read this one because it relates not to the usual innocent subjects such as trade and law but to a big fat lie about global warming and its causes, a lie so full of holes that even Goebbels would have blushed.

    As for Malcolm Turnbull, if his “leadership” days are not numbered then they should be.

    John Snowden

  4. Thanks for that Stuart

    No I had not heard of that one – thanks for the tip. Wow, where is all this heading? So if this judge has his way, will climate change sceptics now be accused of hate crimes?

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  5. Exactly Bill.

    Climate Change ‘believers’ could class folks like me as ‘climatechangeophoibic’ or ‘environmentalismophobic’ (my own new terms, which will hopefully soon appear in the dictionary) and then have me prosecuted under the ‘incitement to religious hatred’ laws or ‘equality’ laws or maybe even under the proposed UN ‘defamation of religion’ laws.

    You simply couldn’t make this up!

    Stuart Mackay, UK

  6. “So if this judge has his way, will climate change sceptics now be accused of hate crimes?”

    Aren’t we going overboard here? Are we assuming that the judge is some sort of activist? He is obliged to apply his legal logic in the confines of laws given to him by parliament. The problem might be a lousy ideological law, or a flawed one that allows a judge to make a mistake that the lawmakers did not think might occur.

    I have read a fair bit in the sociology and psychology of religion and am aware of an ongoing problem as to how “religion” should be defined. The problem also exists in our general culture where the word “religion” has a acquired some very rubbery, polemical usages that muddy debate. Even atheism is called religion. It seems you can be religious when you are not. If our lawmakers want to make laws about religion, let them be precise, and keep in mind that there are activist judges out there who profess to divine all sorts of unintended meanings in human laws. A good example would be the legal myth makers who pretended to find a right to sodomy in the American constitution.

    If someone thinks that belief in Man-caused global warming is a new religion then let him make his case. I might even be persuaded. In the meantime “falsehood” is a more hard hitting classification, with “lie” an attractive polemical option.

    John Snowden

  7. Dad’s twin is a serious geologist. He’s sat down & worked out everybody’s figures for real. The next climate change we’re due for is a mini Ice Age, not overheating.

    This (& other factors) make it plain that (like swine flu) this climate thingy is a complete furphy… which leads to the key question: “Why was this parade started?”

    Leon Brooks

  8. It is a great shame that we have such a hot air merchant like Kevin Rudd for our prime minister. If anyone cared to analyse what Rudd has said, since he fell in to power with the media sitting on their hands, it would become apparent that such examples as “fuel watch” “grocery watch’ and that ridiculous talk fest, ludicrously named the 2020 something or other, in which a collection of Australia’s know nothing phonies, got their chance to show off, a person of just average intelligence would ascertain that it was a big mistake to vote for this amateur, Rudd, who quite frankly, couldn’t successfully run a chook raffle. Of greater concern, there is no hope for a light at the end of the tunnel, when we have such equally amaterish clone performers, such as Turnbull and Hockey running or is it ruining the Opposition. Anyone worth his salt could have taken on Rudd over this climate change cult and the conspiracy of the One World government plans for Copenhagen and beaten Rudd with a bit of skill. Ignore the shame stream media (no that wasn’t a misprint) and go on talk back radio, to put over your argument. With being limited to relying on Turnbull and Hockey as an alternative to Rudd, I can see no hope for this country both economically and especially spiritually. Collectively, they are a greater threat than Gough Whitlam ever was.
    Frank Bellet, Petrie Qld

  9. Thanks Bill for this one-stop-Copenhagen-shop with comprehensive, up to date links.

    I’ll be fwding this to all the Liberal MP’s as well as a list of their available email addresses to friends, family and fellowships – hope that’s ok.

    You’ve saved me, and no doubt heaps of others hours of time in collating all this – I’ll now be able to fwd it on to ‘the gang’ asap and hopefully they’ll do the same.

    Hope many of your readers will also help to flood their email boxes with a clear message that will let Malcolm Turnbull know that his lone ranger stand is not an expression of the majority of his party or ‘the will of the people’.

    Can’t believe he’s playing into the hands of the Green Storm-troopers and missing his ‘Tampa moment’. Lord Monckton’s ‘rabbit-in-the-hat’ message at this 11th hour has surely come in response to the prayers of God’s people for Him to intervene. Lord Monckton’s appearance on the stage is like a Princess Leah virtual image, calling for help and sounding the alarm. Now we can only pray that the powers that be, will have the wherewithall to be like “the children of Issachar, which were men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do; the heads of them were two hundred; and all their brethren were at their commandment” I Chron 12:32.

    It’s not looking good with Malcolm’s back up Hockey man hitting things like hijabs for Muslim women, the Bible not being read literally, and endorsment of mega failed mult-cultism, all over the field. Why isn’t Tony Abbot lining up behind MT? As a strong Catholic and supporter of Christian values he at least knows right from wrong -something, it seems, not a lot of our current crop of representatives know much about.

    Looks like another 1 Tim 2:1,2 moment!

    For those who live in WA, below is a list of WA MP’s
    (not complete as some had only ‘online contact forms’).
    Thanks to Peter and Jenny Stokes for their links to this information – other States MP’s details also available from Salt Shakers online info – “for such a time as this…”

    WA – Indep etc – 2009> Ind> GWN> Nats> GWN>Ind> Nats>>Nats> GWA> Nats>Nats> GWA> Nats> Ind>GWA

    WA -Lab 1 – 2009

    WA -Lab 2 – 2009

    WA -Libs 1 – 2009

    WA -Libs 2 – 2009

    WA -State Libs Ministers 1- 2009,,,,,,,,,

    WA -Libs Ministers 2- 2009,,,,,> Nats,> Nats,

    WA Federal HofR – 20009, >Libs,>Lab ,>Lab,>Libs,,>Libs,>Libs ,>Libs,>Lab,>Libs

    WA Federal Senators – 2009,Lib,Lab,Lib,Greens,Greens,Greens

    Michelle Shave

  10. I find it very interesting that Obama received this Nobel Peace Prize just some months before this Treaty is to be signed with him leading the fray of us Western countries. You would say that now his hand is forced. I am not into conspiracy theories either but this is way too coincidental for my liking. As for leaving the directives to a few elite in this world – this had alarm bells ringing loud. Power + money – morals = corruption.

    Francesca Collard

  11. Hi Bill, do you know how many have died from this “pandemic” Swine Flu worldwide? I would have thought with such media hype and the push to get a flu shot meant we were looking at Bubonic plague proportions. The media and the government are responsible for setting people up with their fear tactics. Have you ever watched the movie “V for Vendetta”? Very interesting and maybe just a tad prophetic.
    Francesca Collard

  12. Thanks Francesca

    A few weeks ago the World Health Organization said that nearly 5,000 people have reportedly died worldwide from swine flu.

    And yes, a number of recent films seem to have almost a prophetic insight into some of these issues.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  13. I notice a few here express reservations about being into conspiracy theories. Why? Conspiracy is a recurring theme in Western history. I’ve just finished Billington’s “Fire in the Minds of Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith”. It deals with often conspiratorial Lefties from the French Revolution up to the Russian Revolution. Essentially these people planned behind the scenes to radically change the structure of society without consulting the rest of the populace. Has the leopard changed its spots?
    John Snowden

  14. Hi all

    I’m as concerned as any about the climate change hogwash and the Copenhagen Treaty terms etc.

    Howwver, i understand that any Treaty proposed to become binding on us must first be referred to the Treaties Commission – see
    – which is supposed to look into the impact on the National Interest. There are various timeframes for it to report to Government depending on type of treaty – see “The reformed treaty making process requires that all treaty actions proposed by the Government are tabled in Parliament for a period of at least 15 (or in some cases, 20) sitting days before action is taken that will bind Australia at international law to the terms of the treaty.”

    But see – “The one exception to the rule that treaties be tabled before binding treaty action is where the Minister for Foreign Affairs certifies that a treaty is particularly urgent or sensitive, involving significant commercial, strategic or foreign policy interests.”

    That last one worries me!

    I’m also wondering if there are any Constitutional Law experts out there who may know of some way to do what Lord Monckton suggested which was some sort of document signed by citizens and communicated to Government which indicates that no treaty signed by the Government will be accepted as binding by the people of this nation?

    Bernie Klar

  15. Turnbull gone, Abbott into the Conservatives top job and says he will make an election issue of Copenhagen if forced to. Rudd goes from threatening a double dissolution over his defeated ETS bill to saying they will reintroduce it in February, now playing the long game or waiting to reintroduce at 4:00 am on a saturday morning sesion of parliament when they can stack the house. BUT why did Rudd leave for Copenhagen with 90 delegates and 6 Lawyers if he has no mandate to sign anything??? This clown has no brains, no imagination and no interest in what he is leading us into his whole demeanour, behavior, actions lead me to believe that he just wants to leave a perpetual mark on Australia an ever enduring monument to himself, as most weak, ineffectual, been no where, done nothings are want to when unexpectedly handed power. Go to your backyards dig-up the……
    William James Hain

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *