I'm trying to put the pieces together as to how my world really works. Trying to understand the bizarre policies governments forever insist on employing. Policies that fly in the face of what makes a healthy, free, sustainable and prosperous society.
So the following is an assertion. I might be wrong - or not quite right. For me this is still hypothetical. I invite any contributions because I don't know how tight all my facts are on this. Regardless, I have a developing suspicion that NZ politics works something like what I explain and describe in the following.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treaties:
We know that the USA has a famous constitution that protects individual rights. How exactly does that constitution work? Like this: The leader plus the senate passes a new bill. The bill is then sent to the supreme court. The supreme court determines if the new laws contained within the bill are consistent with the Constitution (constitution = constant law, regardless of government will). So what if the bill is not consistent? The supreme court then throws the bill out and tells the executive branch to try again. So, the constitution is in fact the highest law of the land - higher than the president. The constitution is (and was) designed to protect the public from the ever-present danger of governmental corruption or stupidity.
Point being? Treaties are functionally the same thing. When your nation signs an international treaty they give up a part of their sovereignty, because the government is bound to make no law that is inconsistent with the treaty.
Yes, treaties are serious business. In theory you can sign a nation into oblivion with them, because once employed there's nothing that your democracy can do to (legally) rebel from them. Again, like constitutions treaties ride above governmental power.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Zealand and its treaties:
The following paragraph was extracted from the international treaties list, dated July 2011, obtained from the New Zealand Foreign Affairs and Trade website.
Begins.
New Zealand is currently party to approximately 1,500 international treaties. As many treaties are in force for a limited period of time, New Zealand has been party to a total of almost twice that number. Each year, New Zealand is engaged in a multitude of international negotiations that may result in the conclusion of new treaties. In addition, existing treaties may be amended as international circumstances require.
Ends.
Are we looking at New Zealand's real functional government i.e. that mass of treaties? I'm not too sure. I have requested a comprehensive (though condensed) copy of our treaty list which I hope will be posted to me soon.
In particular what I'm interested in is the possibility of Auckland (and other councils) having planning policies which are now legally rooted into some form of international agreement. It would explain a lot.
For example, a few years ago I sent my article on Smart Growth [an older, smaller version] to Mike Lee, Chairman of the [then] Auckland Regional Council. He got back to me saying that although he did not agree with my position fundamentally, after reading my piece carefully he accepted that my points were valid. Weird! Many of those points in that article are pretty damn juicy. I couldn't see how he could accept my piece as valid in principle, yet still hold the view that forced intensification should be Auckland's future.
But then maybe I'm not talking to ideology after all, but law? Again, it would explain a lot. I still don't believe that our politicians are as dumb as they look.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The politics:
From here let's operate on the presumption that that mass of treaties we've signed up to is basically New Zealand's functional government. What, then, would be the meaning of the political show that we're exposed to?
Obviously its purpose would be public relations - upholding the fantasy that we're a sovereign nation.
A naive politician with good intentions might enter parliament and say..."Ok guys, I wanna do this"...and then have an official within the public service say back to them..."Sorry but we can't. It would contradict our international obligations (treaties). And doing too much of that would make us a rouge state which in turn may invoke UN sanctions. We still need to import that oil, Sir".
If that scenario is (basically) the game, then we can know that our politicians will be in no hurry to come out and tell us that our country's sovereignty has been too signed-away for them to take a major new action on our behalf. You would probably end up with riots in Wellington if they did this, and that would and could achieve nothing if the UN retains its power to induce maybe devastating sanctions.
-Remember I'm thinking theoretically when I state all this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interdependence:
The power of the UN to enforce sanctions (that hurt) equates to the level of interdependence.
I have already expressed in a previous post that I see no reason why New Zealand needs to be so obsessed with developing its trade economy, considering we are so well endowed with the resources to take care of our needs locally.
But there is a good reason to advance the trade economy. It creates interdependence, and likewise advances the UN's latent power to hurt us with sanctions. Quite simply, the more we need to import fundamentals like oil, the more we can't afford to tear up our treaties.
Is this the real reason why top politicians have been pushing for a proportionally larger trade economy, and for so many years? I wouldn't be too surprised.
Independence institutes domestic vulnerability and in turn enhanced UN power. We should remember that interdependence can be a form of economic weaponisation.
(I understand that the UN has already starved many thousands of Iraqi children with sanctions. You're particularly vulnerable when you can't even grow your own food).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justifying the treaties:
Most treaties, as I currently assume at least, are or will be based on that which specifically affects other nations. So you can justify the implementation of a treaty for where and when we deal with other countries. Likewise, the larger the trade economy (interdependence, again) the more "invasive" the treaty process can become, as you create larger grounds for their implementation and impact on our lives.
Also we have treaties on human rights and the environment, as these concerns can be interpreted as International.
Human rights:
Treaties on human rights are of concern because that would represent international law dictating to domestic-only operations. So although it can be justified as a defence for sovereign individuals, it is (or can be) distinctly intrusive nonetheless. Also, when treaties on human rights include sub-categories such as "rights of indigenous people" then things can get particularly controversial I believe, because you are then beginning to define the human rights-status of individuals on the grounds of their ancestry, which is philosophically spurious to say the least. My point is that toying with definitions can make international treaties step well beyond their mark. Slippery slope?
Environment:
What we do domestically can have environmental impacts world over. Hence, in principle, you can justify treaties here. And as we know this is exactly where we are moving with the anthropogenic global warming scare. Because everything we do today depends on oil, we therefore have a basis for forming treaties that may dictate to nations to just about any explicit degree. Indeed is that the idea? Use the AGW nonsense scare to justify treaty-formation that cuts deep into the operation of nations?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who signs the treaties?
The next question to my hypothesis is: "Who, then, signs the treaties?". Don't know. But if the goal is indeed the progressive subversion of national sovereignty, then it would have to be a groomed infiltrator working for the UN or maybe even a level above it. I understand that the UN is a private organisation? If so then who are the money men behind the UN, and how deep and pervasive is their reach?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The argument for it:
The rationalisation for an international government, that basically has existing nations under its thumb, is for many serious reasons sound. This is why I consider the move, if it's happening today, to be tangible.
And likewise if it's happening then it seems logical that creating a world bound by international treaties, and a world highly vulnerable to sanctions (interdependent), would be the most robust way of achieving that ends. Maybe even the only way? At the end of the day a functional world government must be locked-down into law. This, I think, is how you can do it.
No comments:
Post a Comment