This is now about how the UN can install a Neo-World government, perhaps with Obama the new “President.” Remember that the EU also started small, as the European Iron and Steel Community of six nations in the mid-1950s. We need to find a new “Agent Orange” to kill this seedling before it becomes a behemoth.

I’d say, given Chavez’ rant, it’s right there in the speechifying.

….nnnn..’o.o’..uu!u….algie
Illegitimi nOn carborundum

….nnnn..’o.o’..uu!u….algie
Illegitimi nOn carborundum

It’s abundantly clear that no one who matters actually believes the AGW stuff, it’s just an excuse to get money and power, with the LDC’s shaking down the DC’s and within the DC’s the political, financial and industrial leadership planning to shake down their entire countries.

AGW is just what Hitchcock called the Maguffin—it’s the thing supposedly being pursued or fought over, but in itself is meaningless—it’s just the excuse on which the author hangs the plot, and anything will do.

Why do we even bother with it?

I was with you up until the mention of Amanpour–do you really think her opinion matters to anyone?

As any US Soldier or Marine who has served on a major PKO can tell you, the reasons they work (i.e. get participation) are

1) meeting altruism and security interests for the nations with a serious military and a mindset to preserve security (e.g. U.S., Canada, GB, France, Denmark, OZ); 1a) the ability to improve one’s own security and to work some mischief under the guise of behaving well (e.g. Russia); 2) permitting some nations to indulge in only sometimes unhealthy cheap moral vanity along with the appearance of bolstering national prestige via some level of military prowess (France, Canada, Spain); 3) the ability to look strong on defense issues while being permitted an easy job that doesn’t require major loss of blood or treasure while other nations do the fighting (Netherlands used to be this way, but manned up); 4) the ability to earn a seat at the Big Boys’ Table on security matters, and maybe win some allies (e.g. Poland, Czech Republic, South American nations); and, most importantly, 5) the ability to subsidize military units, and earn hefty bonus pay (both for the soldiers, and the nation sponsoring them) for an otherwise dangerous class of people, a large and underpaid standing army (e.g. Jordan, Kenya, Pakistan.

Oh yeah, all that, plus Christiane Amanpour thinks PKOs are the bee’s knees.

I keep trying to imagine what happens as 2nd and 3rd world countries realize that they have been dupped or mislead or just plain negotiated badly. We are talking trade wars, the likes of which have not occurred in over a century, and that means quite possibly real wars as well. Using a phony pretext, like AGW, will only make this possible outcome even more likely.

Except that, given the level of competence displayed by the organization, the delegate would probably leap from a first-floor window.

Remember UN action on Angola? “Hold on a few more months, Angola, help is on the way!” They’re still waiting.

See “Copenhagen and the politics of cultural despair”:

http://vulgarmorality.wordpress.com/2009/12/12/copenhagen-and-the-politics-of-cultural-despair/

BULLDOZE THE UN BUILDING INTO THE RIVER AND TELL THEM TO BUILD ONE IN SOME OTHER COUNTRY WHERE WE ARE NOT WELCOME AND WON’T BE VISITING.

I just noticed that Dan Simon anticipated this thought in his comment…

The real difference, I would argue, is that decision-makers in the developed world–the ones who decide how much cash to pony up for these efforts–believe that peacekeeping efforts are effective. They may not actually solve regional crises, but they frequently do provide some friction against the resumption of armed conflicts, and less armed conflict generally means more peace, stability and prosperity for developed countries. The developed world thus really does reap its share of indirect benefits from its investment.

On the other hand, none of the folks who hand out checks on behalf of first-world nations believes for an instant that forking over tens of billions of dollars to third-world kleptocrats will somehow miraculously solve the problems of economic backwardness or (if it is indeed a problem) climate change disaster avoidance.