UN AGENDA 21

[I submitted the following news article to the Hampshire Review this week, don’t know if they are going to use it.  It was prompted by an article a couple of weeks ago by the local tea party, and by my visit to the meeting at which they discussed the issue.  I will expand on this in the near future.]

Local Democrats Look at UN Agenda 21

At a recent meeting of Hampshire County Democrats, the topic of discussion was UN Agenda 21, of whom most had not even heard until they started hearing of the opposition to it.  And even so, they may be hearing erroneous information.  The gist of the opposition to Agenda 21 seems to come down to concern about property rights, at least locally, and whether the Agenda has undue influence over even local land use and zoning policy.  So does it really all come down to property rights?   And if so, whose property rights?  Yours?  Mine?  Where do my property rights end and yours begin?  And who can come and take those rights away?  Is it about taking away our property, or dictating how we can use that property?

Since its creation after World War II, there has been controversy and criticism of the United Nations.  An early opponent of the UN was the conservative John Birch Society, which began a "get US out of the UN" campaign in 1959, charging that the UN's aim was to establish a "One World Government."   So it is not surprising that those who oppose the United Nations and our membership in it, would also look askance at many of the programs and documents coming out of the UN, and see them as part of what they perceive as the “One World Government” aim of the UN.

Case in point is the UN Agenda 21, which is a plan, not a mandate, for sustainable development, introduced at the 1992 Earth Summit, and signed by 179 nations, including the U.S., by President George H. W. bush, but seen by some as a means of gaining “centralized control over all of human life on earth,” as Glenn Beck put it.  But, as the UN’s Tariq Banuri says, “Agenda 21 is not a binding treaty.  It sets out a sort of common vision….environmental concerns are common concerns of everyone on this planet.”  The Agenda is a program that “addresses the pressing problems of today and also aims at preparing the world for the challenges of the next (21^st) century….[goal is to] promote the integration of the three components of sustainable development—economic development, social development and environmental protection—as interdependent and mutually reinforcing pillars.”  All of this is seen as a threat by opponents, with warnings to look out for code words, such as “sustainable development,” “smart growth,” and “comprehensive plan.”  Presumably, this Agenda is meant to infiltrate into nations, into states, into counties and local governments, and we are to be suspicious of almost anything being proposed locally in the name of planning, zoning, and land use.  And, most immediately, anything affecting our property rights, which “they” mean to take from us.  Accordingly, we might look askance at our own Hampshire County “Comprehensive Plan” that came out of our local planning commission, which states its vision as “encouraging future growth and development…within a sustainable environment for current and future residents.”   Does that sound like a bad thing?