We discovered, however, that another NGO also used the name Ecologic. The organization, officially listed as "Center For International and European Environmental Research (Ecologic)," asked us to change the name of our publication. Sebastian Oberthur, speaking for the Berlin-based organization, explained that although his organization was not registered until 1995, the word "Ecologic" was a part of the official name of his organization and it would be much more difficult to change than would be a name change for our publication. Moreover, according to Oberthur, donors to the Berlin organization were confused, thinking that the positions we advanced in our newsletter were the positions of the Berlin organization.
It is not our purpose to "monkeywrench" the Berlin organization. Our purpose is to challenge flawed assumptions, examine questionable data, monitor procedures, and to present alternative ideas, new information, and to advance values that much of the world has not yet realized.
Consequently, in a meeting facilitated by the Secretariat, we recognized that since the FCCC meetings are likely to be held in Germany, our continued use of the name ecologic would continue to confuse German donors to the Berlin organization, and continue to be a sore spot that would distract from far more important issues. Therefore, in the spirit of international cooperation -- and with an agreement from the Berlin organization that they would not use the name "Ecologic" in America -- we agreed to change the name of our publication at the FCCC meetings. Henceforth, our publication at the FCCC meetings will be called World Concerns.
Meet Sovereignty International
Sovereignty International, Inc., exists
because of our growing world concerns.
We are concerned about infringement
of inalienable rights with which all
people are endowed. We are concerned
about the economic well-being of all people. We are concerned about the global environment.
And we are concerned about self governance. These concerns are shared by all responsible
people. How best to protect and enhance individual rights, economic well-being, the global
environment, and self governance -- is a process of discovery. There is no single formula, nor
is there a single sovereign authority that can meet the needs of all people. The process of
discovery is an on-going adventure that needs the ideas and suggestions of all nations and every
constituency. Sovereignty International intends to contribute to the discovery process.
Few would disagree that individual freedom is among the highest of human values. Individual freedom includes the freedom of self governance. The ultimate expression of self governance is national sovereignty. Individual freedom is enhanced as personal relationships are built upon voluntary, mutually beneficial agreements. Relationships that are imposed by one person upon another diminish individual freedom and create a situation of involuntary servitude. Such relationships become festering sores that erupt in revolt, often violently. Lasting relations among nations are also built upon voluntary, mutually beneficial relationships. Relationships that are imposed by one nation upon another become the seeds of war, as history has so painfully documented. This fundamental principle of voluntary relationships cannot be minimized, overlooked, or ignored as the nations of the world seek to find solutions to perceived environmental problems. Lasting solutions will come only from voluntary, mutually beneficial agreements.
Self governance, by definition, is governance empowered by the consent of the people who are governed. Sadly, much of the world has not yet realized self governance. When the rules of government are crafted and imposed by a handful of unelected people -- there is no consent by the people who are governed, nor is there individual freedom. When the rules of global governance are crafted and imposed by a handful of unelected people -- there is no voluntary, mutually beneficial agreement, nor can there be lasting solutions.
The United Nations was conceived to be a forum where sovereign nations could assemble, and through the process of discussion, debate, and deliberation, discover areas of mutually beneficial agreement that might be entered into voluntarily. The world has been spared much violence and pestilence as the result of decades of such agreements. In recent years, however, the function of the United Nations has begun to change, from an agency that facilitates deliberation, to an agency that crafts and imposes rules of government.
Many people believe that the era of nation-states is over, that the time has come when national sovereignty must yield to global governance. Sovereignty International does not share that view. Despite disclaimers to the contrary, global governance becomes world government at the point the United Nations expands its function from facilitator of deliberations to instigator of regulations. The Berlin Mandate -- which calls for "legally binding" commitments -- is a prime example of UN authority expanding beyond the facilitation of deliberations into the arena of global governance.
Sovereignty International believes that there should be no political power greater than the sovereign nation. Nations should settle their disputes -- and discover mutual benefits -- through voluntary agreements. Even when acquired incrementally, the power to craft and impose rules of governance upon sovereign nations is, by whatever name it may be called, world government. National sovereignty cannot survive the accumulation of such power by the United Nations. Without national sovereignty, there is no self governance. Without self governance, there is no freedom.
Source: United States Internal Revenue Service, Exempt Organization Database
| Organization | Income | Assets | Year Reported |
| Natural Resources Defense Council | $25,911,824 | $38,192,947 | 1995 |
| The Nature Conservancy | $882,040,841 | $1,120,094,965 | 1995 |
| World Wide Fund For Nature (USA) | $132,874,116 | $62,558,896 | 1995 |
| Greenpeace | $8,910,589 | $15,119,776 | 1994 |
| Totals | $1,049,737,370 | $1,235,966,584 |
The driving force behind global climate policy cannot be traced to compelling science. What, then, keeps the notion of global warming -- replete with the attendant prophecies of planetary pestilence -- in the international media, and keeps thousands of people parading to venues around the world in pursuit of policies to prevent problems that are not yet apparent?
Writing in Foreign Affairs (January/February, 1997), Jessica T. Mathews says the driving force behind the global climate policy is NGOs. According to Mathews, Vanuatu "turned its delegation over to an NGO" based in London and funded by an American foundation. It was NGO involvement that produced the original treaty in "the blink of a diplomat's eye -- 16 months -- over the opposition of the United States, Russia, and Saudi Arabia."
The same NGOs that dominated the working groups during the work-up to the 1992 Earth Summit, which produced the FCCC, dominated COPI that produced the Berlin Mandate,
have dominated the negotiating sessions leading to Kyoto, and are continuing to dominate the propaganda surrounding the proposed Kyoto protocol. NGOs have an enormous stake in environmental policy, particularly in climate policy. And they are well prepared to protect their interest.
The combined annual income and/or assets of the environmental NGOs accredited to the FCCC could solve most of the real environmental problems of the developing world, were they so disposed to use it for that purpose. Consider the numbers reported by only four of those organizations that are required to report in the U.S.
A search of the IRS Exempt Database revealed 154 environmental NGOs that have either assets or annual income in excess of $5 million. The total annual income for those organizations is $4,042,294,445, and their assets total $8,6665,050,901. These are only those NGOs that are required to report in the United States. According to Jessica Mathews, the Association for Progressive Communications (APC), transmits FCCC information and propaganda to 50,000 NGOs in 133 countries. The total budget for the FCCC for 1996 was $7.3 million. What drives the global climate Policy?
front groups for governments?
The FCCC recognizes three NGO constituencies: environmental NGOs, industry NGOs, and local government authority NGOs. Who do these NGOs actually represent? It is clear that industry NGOs represent their respective industries and the hundreds of thousands of workers who depend upon those industries to provide jobs. The other two groups of NGOs continually criticize industry NGOs for seeking profits, while they represent themselves to be spokesmen for vast grassroots constituencies of voiceless people. Not quite.
Many environmental NGOs are better described as PGOs --
private governmental organizations. Elaine Dewar, author of
Cloak of Green, describes such NGOs as organized as a
private not-for-profit organization, but funded by a government. Dewar's extensive research reveals how many NGOs
are simply front groups for government interest. The practice was perfected in the work-up to the
1992 Earth Summit that produced the FCCC. Elizabeth May, for example, was appointed to the
Canadian delegation to the preparatory meetings for the 1992 Rio Summit. Although she
represented Cultural Survival Canada, Sierra Club of Canada, and the Canadian Environmental
Network, her expenses were not paid by her constituency, but by the Canadian Industrial
Development Agency (CIDA). Moreover, the Canadian government "put aside $1 million to
spend over the next three years on NGO activities related to the Rio Summit," according to
Dewar. The Center for Our Common Future received $250,000 directly from the Canadian
government between 1990 and 1992.
The International Institute for Sustainable Development, publishers of the familiar Earth Negotiations Bulletin, is actually a PGO, according to Dewar, not an NGO. It was created March 15, 1990 and funded by the Canadian government to the tune of "$23,250,000 taxpayers' dollars," Dewar says. The U.S. government (USAID) also supplies funds to the Institute.
Three other NGOs that are recognized as representing the environmental constituency should also be renamed PGOs: the International Union for the Conservation of Nature; the World Wide Fund for Nature; and the World Resources Institute. In addition to the millions of dollars these PGOs receive in grants from national governments, they are, in fact, an integral part of the United Nations system. Joint projects among these PGOs and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) include: World Conservation Strategy; Caring for the Earth; Global Biodiversity Strategy, and for all practical purposes, Agenda 21; the Convention on Biological Diversity; the Global Biodiversity Assessment; and the Framework Convention on Climate Change. In the April, 1996 report of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), these three PGOs were listed as "Executing Agency," or "Collaborating Organization" for 29 grants totaling $350 million. It's difficult to imagine that these organizations are recognized as representative of the grassroots environmental community.
The organization that claims to represent local government
authorities also appears to be a PGO rather than an NGO. The
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives
(ICLEI) was created in 1990 at the behest of the United Nations
Environmental Program, according to Jeb Brugmann in an
interview with journalist Joan Veon, at the March, 1997 Rio +
Five Conference in Rio de Janeiro. With "generous" funding
from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the fledgling
organization has secured emissions reductions "agreements"
with only 178 cities and counties around the world and now
claims to speak at UN meetings for "local government authorities." In the United States, where
there are more than 3000 county governments and three-times as many cities, ICLEI has secured
43 agreements, according to their 1997 report. Still, the organization, funded essentially by
governments, with a very weak link to a minute segment of local governments, is recognized as
the NGO voice of local government authorities.
Sovereignty International, Inc., by contrast, is not a front-group for anyone. Sovereignty International is funded neither by government nor industry. In its first year of existence, its largest single contribution was $3000. Its work is supported by small gifts from individuals, businesses, and organizations that also pay the taxes which governments so eagerly give to PGOs and United Nations organizations. Sadly, the United Nations has not yet recognized the constituency represented by Sovereignty International. It is a very real and growing constituency -- whether it is recognized or not.