Keith, You said:
"we certainly need a world army or police force" To deal with infanticide in China? And: "We need bodies which can protect ocean-sized fisheries, for example, or our disappearing rain forests." We recognize the oceans as the common property of Mankind, then use these property rights to set up proper management of fishing grounds, whales, and so on. Also, although places like Costa Rica (otherwise such a delightful place) haven't done well, the large Amazon rain forest isn't much touched and it is 2.5 million miles in extent. The Brazilian government, of course, does everything wrong. They resettled peasants in the rain forest, an absolutely potty thing to do. Under the trees, the ground is essentially barren. The settler burns the trees on his 40 acres and the ashes fertilize his crops the first year - then nothing. (The idiot government brought in fertilizer.) Then, with utter disregard for common sense, they give huge tax breaks to companies who knocked down the forest and turn the land into cattle ranches. Rain Forest trees sit on the land - rather than in it. A couple of bulldozers, joined by a chain, can cut a swath through the trees. Once toppled, they are burned. Hardwood trees are sprinkled through the rain forest. Each one used to be worth $10,000. Probably more now. The idiots - Volkswagen, Xerox, and suchlike - didn't bother to harvest the hardwood. The just burned away and slavered at the thought of the coming tax break. The estimate for the hardwood burned exceeded $250 million. But, of course Brazil needs cattle land. Recall my favorite example of Brazilian land? An 84,000 cattle ranch supporting 200 cattle. To keep the peace, some of that has now been turned over to peasant settlers. Being thoroughly cynical by now - I'm sure it was the worst land on the property! Harry -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keith wrote: >Hi Karen, > >It is ironic that the Reuters story you posted (below) should have >proceeded from a country that is itself divided between ethnic groups. > >In fact, Belgium has three governments for most purposes, with Brussels >(10% of the population) holding the ring between the Dutch-speaking >Flemings in the north (Flanders -- 60% of the population) and the >French-speaking Walloons in the south (Wallonia -- 30% of the population). >This was a sensible arrangement arrived at in 1993 -- given the modest >bouts of actual warfare that existed until recently between two tribes of a >modern nation-state (and hardly known about in the rest of the world) and >the continuing mutual animosity. > >Although there has been no warfare between the Scots, Welsh and English for >a number of centuries, great differences still exist over here and we're >also slowly arriving at more sensible governance that fits our sense of >respective cultural identities. The Welsh and the Scots have always thought >of themselves as primarily Welsh and Scottish rather than British and, in >recent years, increasing numbers of the English (now a slight majority) >have also begun to think of themselves as English rather than British. (I >certainly don't regard myself as British -- with its connotations of >imperialism.) > >But going back to Belgium, the double irony of this confused country is >that it should have passed legislation in 1999 that gave itself >jurisdiction (as regards human rights) over the whole world! Chutzpah indeed! > >Well, we certainly need a universal court of law regarding human rights and >war crimes and stumbling attempts are being made towards this despite the >reluctance of France and America (among others). But we also need several >other sorts of world governance. For example, we certainly need a world >army or police force (originally intended when the United Nations was >founded) which can make legitimate forays into countries where savage >crimes are being perpetrated by tyrannical governments, dictators and >ethnic groups. > >We also need many other types of governance which hold sway over regions >much larger than individual nation-states. We need bodies which can protect >ocean-sized fisheries, for example, or our disappearing rain forests. > >In short, in this increasingly inter-connected world we need governments of >whatever size is appropriate for particular functions, and not the present >type of nation-states which are the byproducts of warfare, geography or >historical accident and led, in most cases, by politicians seeking power or >acclaim to compensate for their emotional deficiencies or by those who gain >political power in order to line their pockets. > >Keith > > >>>> >BRUSSELS, Aug. 8 -- Israel will try to block Belgian legislation that could >pave the way for further war crimes cases to be brought against Prime >Minister Ariel Sharon, an Israeli official said on Thursday. > >Relations between the two countries soured when a Palestinian and Lebanese >group used a disputed Belgian law to file a complaint against Sharon over >his role in a 1982 massacre at Palestinian refugee camps in >Israeli-occupied Beirut. > >A Brussels appeals court dismissed the case -- brought under a 1999 law >granting Belgian courts universal jurisdiction over serious human rights >abuses -- on grounds of Sharon's absence. > >Relations between Israel and Brussels looked set to improve after the June >ruling but suffered another setback when senators drew up a bill last month >that would no longer require a suspect to live in Belgium to be prosecuted >under the law. > >''We're taking it very seriously. We thought the case was over but the new >law could allow a new complaint,'' Israeli embassy official Laurent >Reichman told Reuters. "It's logical that we'll try to use political means >to block it,'' he added. ''We're going to act pre-emptively, but we don't >yet know how.'' > >Belgium's ambassador to Israel has been to brief senior Israeli government >officials twice since the draft law was drawn up three weeks ago. > >''There's probably been a certain level of misunderstanding that is unduly >affecting bilateral relations,'' Belgian Foreign Ministry spokesman Patrick >Herman told Reuters. >''It (the bill) has been regarded in some Israeli circles as targeting the >prime minister because of the legal proceedings that were initiated in >Belgium. We think this issue has been blown out of proportion by the >Israeli media,'' he said. > >Herman said the legislation was not aimed at Sharon and noted that other >leaders were the subject of similar lawsuits. > >Foreign Minister Louis Michel, who is on holiday, is expected to take up >the matter on his return. > >''Foreign Minister Michel is following the case very closely,'' Herman >said. ''He himself will want to explain the situation to try and make sure >the current misunderstanding doesn't affect relations with Belgium.'' > >Michel would probably discuss the draft law with Israel's ambassador in >Brussels, although he has also talked about visiting Israel, Herman said. > >When Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt visited Israel as part of a European >Union delegation last year in the wake of the lawsuit, the mayor of >Jerusalem said he should ''go to hell.'' The case prompted Sharon to cancel >a trip to Brussels in July 2001. ****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002
