Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.
Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Statement of principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests were adopted by more than 178 Governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992.
The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was created in December 1992 to ensure effective follow-up of UNCED, to monitor and report on implementation of the agreements at the local, national, regional and international levels. It was agreed that a five year review of Earth Summit progress would be made in 1997 by theUnited Nations General Assembly meeting in special session.
The full implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Commitments to the Rio principles, were strongly reaffirmed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg, South Africa from 26 August to 4 September 2002.
The battle over Agenda 21 is raging across the nation. City and County Councils have become war zones as citizens question the origins of development plans and planners deny any international connections to the UN’s Agenda 21. What is the truth? Since I helped start this war, I believe it is up to me to help with the answers.
The standard points made by those who deny any Agenda 21 connection is that:
Local planning is a local idea.
Agenda 21 is a non-binding resolution not a treaty, carries no legal authority from which any nation is bound to act. It has no teeth.
The UN has no enforcement capability.
There are no “Blue-Helmeted” UN troops at City Hall.
Planners are simply honest professionals trying to do their job, and all these protests are wasting their valuable time.
The main concern of Agenda 21 is that man is fouling the environment and using up resources for future generations and we just need a sensible plan to preserve and protect the earth. What is so bad about that?
There is no hidden agenda.
“I’ve read Agenda 21 and I can find no threatening language that says it is a global plot. What are you so afraid of?”
And of course, the most often heard response – “Agenda 21, what’s that?”
And after they have proudly stated these well thought out points, they arrogantly throw down the gauntlet and challenge us to “answer these facts.”
Well, first I have a few questions of my own that I would love to have answered.
Will one of these “innocent” promoters of the “Agenda 21 is meaningless” party line, please answer the following:
If it all means nothing, why does the UN spend millions of dollars to hold massive international meetings in which hundreds of leaders, potentates and high priests attend, along with thousands of non-governmental organizations of every description, plus the international news media, which reports every action in breathless anticipation of its impact on the world?
It if all means nothing, why do those same NGO representatives (which are all officially sanctioned by the UN in order to participate) spend months (sometimes years) debating, discussing, compiling, and drafting policy documents?
If it all means nothing, why do leaders representing nearly every nation in the world attend and, with great fanfare, sign these policy documents?
Time after time we witness these massive international meetings, we read the documents that result from them, and when we question their meaning or possible impact on our nation, we are met with a dismissive shrug and a comment of “oh, probably not much…”
Really? Then why? Why the waste of money, time, and human energy? Could it be that the only purpose is to simply give diplomats, bureaucrats, and NGOs a feeling of purpose in their meaningless lives, or perhaps a chance to branch out of their lonely apartments? Or could it really be that these meetings and the documents they produce are exactly as we say they are – a blueprint for policy, rules, regulations, perhaps even global governance that will affect the lives, fortunes, property and futures of every person on earth? Which is it? You can’t have it both ways.
Why the fear of Agenda 21?
Those who simply read or quickly scan Agenda 21 are puzzled by our opposition to what they see as a harmless, non-controversial document which they read as voluntary suggestions for preserving natural resources and protecting the environment. Why the fear? What exactly bothers us so much?
The problem is, we who oppose Agenda 21 have read and studied much more than this one document and we’ve connected the dots. Many of us have attended those international meetings, rubbed elbows with the authors and leaders of the advocated policies, and overheard their insider (not for public distribution) comments about their real purpose.
The New Hampshire House of Representatives voted to ban UN Agenda 21 polices.
This legislation will prevent local, county and state governments from adopting the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) programs.
ICLEI is a UN agency that provides “local” community plans, software and training to towns and cities that pay their dues. Other private organizations in league with ICLEI are:
• National League of Cities
• International City/County Management Group
• National Governors Association
• American Planning Group
NH is not the only state to pass anti-Agenda 21 legislation:
- In Kansas a resolution was approved that quashed Agenda 21 from taking over the state.
- Tennessee also resolved an anti-Agenda 21 resolution that failed to receive Governor Bill Haslam’s signature.
- The Arizona House of Representatives voted down a ban that resembles the NH ban.
- Louisiana and Alabama have resolutions against Agenda 21 that are still under consideration.
- Irving, Texas Mayor Beth Van Duyne and city manager Tommy Gonzalez pushed back by withdrawing membership from ICLEI.
Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the UN, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human beings impact the environment.
Agenda 21 is described by The Huffington Post as the U.N.’s “program of recommended sustainability measures adopted in 1992.”
In recent days, Republican-led lawmakers in both Kansas and New Hampshire have advanced measures to block Agenda 21’s execution.
How scary is Agenda 21? Well, you can read it for yourself here on the U.N. web site — that’s the Agenda 21 “RIO DECLARATION ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT” from June 1992.
Despite being an old document, the U.N. claims that “the full implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Commitments to the Rio principles, were strongly reaffirmed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg, South Africa from 26 August to 4 September 2002.”
Here’s my take: at first the document reads like something out of a high school student government assembly… It’s extraordinarily vague and idealistic. Keep in mind, the recent issue with NDAA’s indefinite detention provisions, and with cybersecurity bill CISPA, stemmed from the vague language within those bills.
It starts to get creepy further down, however. “Women have a vital role in environmental management and development. Their full participation is therefore essential to achieve sustainable development,” the document affirms under Principle 20.
It’s worth noting that the human rights of female citizens in the United States are protected by the Constitution, not by some obscure U.N. declaration.
Here’s a quote from another Principle: “States shall enact effective environmental legislation. Environmental standards, management objectives and priorities should reflect the environmental and developmental context to which they apply. Standards applied by some countries may be inappropriate and of unwarranted economic and social cost to other countries, in particular developing countries.”
This would seem to suggest that developing nations would be granted rights and privileges that developed nations such as the United States would not be able to enjoy. An unequal footing.
Furthermore, despite the extraordinarily vague wording of the declaration, and the fact that “environmental sustainability” sounds like a nice idea — at least in theory — some have extrapolated that Agenda 21 would be used within the United States to bring about forced relocation, private property seizure, and re-forestation programs.
It goes without saying that such measures would be blatantly unconstitutional.
It goes without saying that Agenda 21 needs a closer look. The United States should not be bound by creepy “sustainability” declarations that were decided upon decades ago by non-citizens, who are not U.S. elected officials.
While Agenda 21 could amount to nothing more than bureaucratic rambling, it deserves our attention, especially in the wake of a string of bizarre proposals in Congress to curtail online communication, allow for censorship, and revoke due process rights for U.S. citizens — and even to revoke one’s citizenship altogether. I’ll leave further research to more talented minds… I’m frankly exhausted by the NDAA fight, and need some downtime before digging deeper.