Regional Integration – National Disintegration
What was the 1983 La Paz Treaty with Mexico? North‐South regional integration. The purpose of the treaty was for environmental cooperation in the border region. It was a plan conceived by the Socialist International’s President, Willy Brandt and requested by Robert McNamara who at the time was President of the World Bank.
What was the 1986 Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste Treaty with Canada? North‐South regional integration. Excerpt – recognizing international law in connection with environmental issues:
REAFFIRMING Principle 21 of the 1972 Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, adopted at Stockholm, which asserts that states have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their won resources pursuant to their own environmental policies and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other states or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction;
For the purpose of this Agreement: (a) “Designated Authority” means, in the case of the United States of America, the Environmental Protection Agency and in the case of Canada, the Department of the Environment.
NAFTA Agreement (Excerpt) – North‐South regional integration
BUILD on their respective rights and obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and other multilateral and bilateral instruments of cooperation.
Article 101: Establishment of the Free Trade Area The Parties to this Agreement, Consistent with Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, hereby establish a free trade area;
Article 104: Relation to Environmental and Conservation Agreements
1. In the event of any inconsistency between this Agreement and the specific trade obligations set out in:
(a) the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, done at Washington, March 3, 1973, as amended June 22, 1979,
(b) the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, done at Montreal, September 16, 1987, as amended June 29, 1990,
(c) the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, done at Basel, March 22, 1989, on its entry into force for Canada, Mexico and the United States, or
(d) the agreements set out in Annex 104.1,
such obligations shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency, provided that where a Party has a choice among equally effective and reasonably available means of complying with such obligations, the Party chooses the alternative that is the least inconsistent with the other provisions of this Agreement.
2. The Parties may agree in writing to modify Annex 104.1 to include any amendment to an agreement referred to in paragraph 1, and any other environmental or conservation agreement.
Bilateral and Other Environmental and Conservation Agreements
1. The Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America Concerning the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste, signed at Ottawa, October 28, 1986.
2. The Agreement Between the United States of America and the United Mexican States on Cooperation for the Protection and Improvement of the Environment in the Border Area, signed at La Paz, Baja California Sur, August 14, 1983.
The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal was the link for the bilateral and trilateral environmental agreements to come under the authority of international law in a step‐by‐step strategy of turning our government into merely a puppet regime of an international system of environmental law directed by international communists of the United Nations ‐ aided and abetted by their U.S. embedded counterparts.
The U.S. Senate ratified the Basel Convention in 1992. The retention of sovereign rights domestically was meaningless because of the design and structure of the EPA and CEQ through the implementation of NEPA. By way of example:
When the NAFTA Agreement was passed by Congress in 1993, what that did was to consolidate the La Paz Treaty with Mexico and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and the Basel Convention for international law jurisdiction to complete the hangman’s noose for the American system of government.
In 1994, the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) was formed. The Council is the CEC’s governing body and is composed of the highest‐level environmental authorities (cabinet level or equivalent) from Canada, Mexico, and the United States. The Council oversees the implementation of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) and serves as a forum for the discussion of environmental matters within the scope of the Agreement.
The CEC is an intergovernmental organization located in Montreal, Quebec. The charter for them is the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation. It’s not clear that the Congress ever voted on it – or that it would be necessary for them to vote on it because the authority for it was in the La Paz Treaty – and NAFTA agreement. Excerpts:
Notice the last clause – REAFFIRMING the Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment of 1972 and the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development of 1992;
If you’ve been following along – understanding the content of the agreements from the La Paz Treaty forward, you should be able to see that the CEC is the real government in the shadows and the people who present themselves as representing the American government are impostors working as puppets in a puppet regime.
International Law for the Environment
In 1981, the United Nations Environment Programme held their first conference to discuss the mechanisms to building a body of international environmental law. The meeting was held in Montevideo, Uruguay. In 1982, the program developed in 1981 was adopted by the Governing Council of UNEP and it became known as the Montevideo Programme. They followed the pattern established at the first conference to meet every ten years – followed by a meeting in the next year to adopt the body of international law written in the previous ten years. Adoption meetings occurred in 1992 in Rio de Janiero and 2002 in Johannasburg, South Africa. They appear to have changed the schedule for the Fourth Montevideo conference. It was held in 2009 and Montevideo IV was adopted in 2010.
Excerpt from Montevideo II – “In order to further elaborate the Montevideo Programme to address emerging environmental problems and develop relevant legal regimes, UNEP convened two sessions of the Meeting of Senior Government Officials Expert in Environmental Law for the Review of the Montevideo Programme in Rio de Janiero in October/November 1991 and in Nairobi in September 1992 respectively. Through the two sessions, government experts from more than 80 developing countries and developed countries and observers from relevant organizations attended the meeting. Participants of the latter session of the meeting, taking into account the outcome of UNCED, in particular Agenda 21, considered a draft Programme prepared by the UNEP secretariat and agreed on the Programme for the Development and Periodic Review of Environmental Law for the Present decade.”
Note: the links were changed so the originals were retrieved from the Internet archive. If you go to the UNEP website and search, you will find information on the Montevideo Programme.