|
[Again we want to thank Mr. Hindson for letting us post these articles to our web-site. We hope that by presenting the situation that is being foisted on our Canadian neighbors it will drive home to more of our hard-to-convince American citizens just how serious the situation has become and how fragile the freedoms we hold so dear (if so "for granted") really are.]
This is the last in a series of articles intended to provide readers an insight into the political and social implications of the global environmental movement which spawned, as one of its many "children," the Ontario government's program called Ontario's Living Legacy (previously called Lands for Life). To conclude, we will look the experience of other countries under environmental programs similar to Ontario's.
Tourism is always touted as an economic benefit of park creation and environmental protection. However, tourism is not a wealth creator. Tourism, while a valid industry, can do no more than redistribute wealth. Today, eco-tourism is the rage because it is supposed to be environmentally benign. The establishment of eco-regions (e.g., Ontario's Living Legacy), UN World Heritage Sites (e.g., Banff National Park) attract a plethora of visitors, including the myriad of those sent by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) on paid "research" junkets. Eventually, as restrictions prevent human access, tourism will dry up. According to UN documents, tourism is undesirable, hence must be restricted.
Brazil's view of their so-called tourists was cited in the Executive Intelligence Review (EIR) of November 7, 1997. The security director for Rio de Janeiro was quoted as saying, "The permissive operations of the NGOs in national territory truly constitute a threat to national security. It is public and well-known that the NGOs conspire against the very existence of the state upon which they rely, constantly, for funds. Who supervises the NGOs? Who finances them? Who controls the unproductive tourist visits of the NGOers?"[Ed. note: the action of NGOs not only threatens the security of a nation it severely restricts the freedoms of the nation's citizenry.]
To express the magnitude of the problem EIR quotes the magazine Veja which had documented that there exist more than 5,000 NGOs in Brazil, with more than 80,000 activists. "Of these, 60,000 live exclusively from their work in the NGOs. Many of these called themselves 'Marxist-revisionists' in the 1970s. In 1994, nearly $700 million a year passed through the Brazilian NGOs, of which at least $560 million came from donations from abroad."
Green Cross International (GCI) is a major, international NGO which deserves special attention. Its president is former President of the USSR, Mikhail Gorbachev. In December, 1997 GCI's website reported the following gem entitled, "Ecological Battalions in the Bolivian Army," which said:
"In agreement with the Bolivian Army, Green Cross Bolivia is already training and educating 400 army officials who will then in turn train up to 20,000 soldiers every six months. As materials are developed within three Bolivian ecosystems, there is an emphasis not only on what the soldiers learn, but also on how they can initiate and encourage involvement of the local civilians in specific actions for resource protection."
On May 30, 1997, the Johannesburg, South Africa, Mail And Guardian reported, "Conservation groups make a killing in the paramilitary" and said the World Wide Fund for Nature "was allegedly involved in serving the paramilitary interests of the apartheid government." The article said, "South African conservation groups are pursuing [a] lucrative business in paramilitary training across Southern Africa . . . . and exporting paramilitary know-how."
On November 7, 1997, the African News Service reported that while other segments of South African Society were being subjected to the inquiries of the "Truth Commission" conservation groups had gotten off scot free. "The story of conservation during this period is an unedifying and sometimes sordid tale of collaboration with those in power."
We have pointed out that over time, protected areas can and will be enlarged. On October 31, 1998, The South Africa's Daily Telegraph reported two bioregional reserves, one in Botswana and the other in South Africa, were being merged to create a park larger than Ireland's 75,000 square miles, effectively erasing the border between the two states.
On August 7, 1998, EIR published a speech by Maximiliano Londono, Colombian president of the Ibero-American Solidarity Movement (MISA). Londono said that talks in Mainz, Germany, are under way between Colombian officials and "all the narco-terrorist groups" that would see Colombia divided up between the power brokers. Londono indicates that those areas which correspond to "nature parks" will be taken from Colombians. The nature parks "are sanctuaries, such as Sierra Nevada of Santa Marta where drug production and terrorism thrive." Londono says "this same scheme was used in Africa to achieve goals of splitting up countries. They have created small nature parks which straddle borders, half in one nation and half in the other." He refers to one such nature park situated along the border between Ecuador and Peru which "will be administered by the UN or some private licensee." Canada is in the process of creating such a nature park in British Columbia which will be connected to one directly across the international boundary in the United States. A second biosphere reserve or nature park is being formed in Eastern Canada between Ontario's Algonquin Park and New York's Adirondack State Park. Algonquin lies within the lands set aside by Ontario's Living Legacy.
Readers who have digested this series of articles should now see the connections. In the creation of Ontario's Living Legacy, collaboration has existed between the environmental NGOs, principally the WWF, and the Ontario government. Recently, the Toronto Star drew the connecting lines between the World Wide Fund for Nature, Ontario's Conservative government, prominent business moguls and other corporate connections.
In her extremely well researched and documented book, "Cloak of Green," award winning author Elaine Dewar pointed out the extraordinarily undemocratic nature of the WWF and many other international NGOs. Dewar questioned why people would so willingly give their trust and hard earned money to an organization in which they have no involvement in the nomination or the election of the officers and no say in WWF policy. WWF is run by the elite for the super elite.
A senior staffer from the office of the Governor of Idaho I met with last year in Washington, D.C., told me that her state's administration understands the goal of the environmental movement is not the protection of the environment: "It is the confiscation of our natural resources."
END
[Ed. note: we added the emphasis of the red type highlight.]
|
|
