By Henry Lamb
(November 18 2000)
John Gummer is a former Minister of the Environment for the United Kingdom. He is a member of Parliament, and in Kyoto, he was a delegate representing the European Union in the development of the Kyoto Protocol. In an interview, he told me that "American sovereignty is of no account." He said "Don't talk to me about your sovereignty; your pollution is changing my climate."
Sovereignty International, the organization I represent at these U.N. meetings, is vitally concerned about the erosion of national sovereignty that occurs through international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol. I was shocked by Mr. Gummer's disdain for the concept of national sovereignty.
In the United States, there is no brighter light, nor is there a more articulate spokesman for the virtues of national sovereignty than Dr. Alan Keyes. How valuable would it be to have the delegates at the Hague hear a debate between Dr. Keyes and Mr. Gummer, focusing precisely on the point of national sovereignty in relation to the Kyoto Protocol?
Sovereignty International, as an accredited NGO, requested the U.N. to schedule time during the Hague conference for this debate. Mr. Gummer agreed. Dr. Keyes agreed. The U.N. said no.
Events sponsored by NGOs at these meetings are quite common. At the last climate change conference, there were more than 150 of these NGO-sponsored side events. At this conference in the Hague, there are at least 100 of these NGO events. Why, then, was Sovereignty International not allowed to stage the Gummer-Keyes debate?
The official answer was "We have more requests than we can fill." Our request was made within days of the publication of the request form, more than 90 days before the conference. At the time our request was denied, 30 days before the conference, ours was 69 of 110 requests received.
At the same time we requested the special event, we also requested space for an exhibit. This request was granted. When we arrived at the Hague, we found more than 100 NGO exhibits, virtually all of which promote the Kyoto Protocol in one form or another. All of the exhibits are arranged in the halls around the primary meeting rooms - all, that is, except Sovereignty International's. Our space is down a long hall, beyond the meeting rooms, down a flight of stairs, out of sight.
Our display features a segment from the Republican Platform which says, essentially, that the Kyoto Protocol should not be implemented, surrounded by the names of dozens of organizations which concur with the statement. It is the only exhibit which expressly opposes the Kyoto Protocol. Was our display assigned to this no-traffic zone deliberately? Or was the assignment just the luck of the draw?
At COP 5, in Bonn last year, our display space was up a flight of stairs on a balcony overlooking the primary exhibit area where most of the displays were located. At COP 4, in Buenos Aires, we had no assignment at all when we arrived, and it took four days for the U.N. to produce a table for our display, and then it was situated completely away from the other exhibitors, in a corner near the restrooms. As it turned out, this proved to be a pretty good location since everyone had to pass the display at one time or another.
The point of this sad saga is more than sour grapes. Dissenting information is not welcome at U.N. conferences. In fact, at the time a request is made for display space, the U.N. wants to see a complete set of the material that will be displayed. Material that supports the U.N. agenda is welcome; anything else is not.
Control over the flow of information is fundamental to socialist philosophy. It is a common practice within the United Nations system - to the maximum extent possible. While there is little we can do to change procedures at the U.N., we can, at the very least, tell the American people what is, and is not, happening at these U.N. meetings.
Had the delegates at the Hague been allowed to listen to Dr. Alan Keyes explain the virtues of national sovereignty, and how the decisions the delegates are taking this week may diminish freedom for every nation for all time - who know what impact his words might have had. We will never know. The U.N. had more requests than they could fill, and the Keyes-Gummer debate just happened to be one of the events that didn't occur.