E-MAIL THIS LINK
To: 

U-nited N-annies sez no mo’ dirty war...
EFL and sane parts (which aren’t many)
I got this from http://www.junkscience.com
United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan">Kofi Annan">Kofi Annan">Kofi Annan called today for tougher international laws to protect the environment in times of armed conflict.
Tell us how, other than sending combatants a bill, the payee of which would be you?
In a message to mark the observance of the International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict, the Secretary-General said, "I urge the international community to examine how legal and other mechanisms can be strengthened to encourage environmental protection in wartime.
I wonder how hard did greenpeace commies have to grease your hand for you to declare such a day
"Ensuring environmental sustainability is not a luxury; it is a prerequisite for the future peace and prosperity of our planet."
Markets are a prerequisite for peace and prosperity, but I suspect you know that and went ahead to declare this
The instances in which the environment was deliberately targeted have been relatively few, he said, but too many grey areas remained where more care should be exercised to protect the environmental base on which sustainable development and recovery from conflict largely depended.
You mean like your hero, Saddam, draining swamps? I guess the US authority will be expecting a visit and an invoice from you, Kofi?
And don't forget the part about setting fire to oilwells in both GWI and GWII, and the oil-filled trenches (very bad for baby ducks, y'know). And there was that thing with dumping oil into the Gulf during GWI — lotsa pictures of oil-soaked birdies with that one. But I'll bet Kofi wasn't referring to Sammy...
The Geneva Conventions and Protocols and other international laws had discouraged the worst excesses of armed conflict, including targeting civilians, mistreating prisoners of war, and destroying sensitive infrastructure, such as large dams and nuclear power stations, he said.
You ask an dedicated green about dams and they will... well, damn them.
The increasingly devastating potential of modern warfare showed, however, that existing international laws have not fully addressed environmental dangers, such as the indiscriminate use of landmines, the ecological destruction caused by mass movements of refugees and the potential devastation threatened by weapons of mass destruction, he said.
Ahh, I see. This is all a cover for re-energizing a ban on land mines. And I see the green ’concern’ includes those pesky humans you all so hate.
How about IEDs, Kofi? Do we need a convention banning them, too?
Article 35 of the 1977 Geneva Protocol I bans "methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment,"
That protocol was supposed to cover instances of deliberate destruction of such things a foliage, not, as this article advocates, a comprehensive application of current environmental law on battlefields.
"But most legal experts have concluded that these and others fall far short of what is ideal and what is needed," Mr. Toepfer said.
Well, the UN falls well short of what is needed to address resolution of human problems. And my guess is that getting us out of the UN would go a long way towards resolving the problem of niggling, meddling communists at the UN and their enablers, supporters and allies in the green movmement
In a new report commissioned by the German Environment Ministry, Daniel Bodansky of the University of Georgia School of Law in Athens, Georgia, United States, argued that the requirement to prove "widespread, long-term and severe damage" rendered the Geneva Protocol I ineffective for environmental protection, the UNEP chief noted.
Right. It requires you lazy f*ckers to do some work before invoking one of these protocols.
"The Protocol also appears silent on the issue of long-term risk, of the so-called ’precautionary approach’, which guides many of our modern environmental treaties, covering everything from the ozone layer to climate change," Mr. Toepfer said.
Sorta like Kyoto for the battlefield but without all the silly ratifying. Adapt an existing protocol to undermine traditional law. Very sneaky.
Twenty or so years down the road, some of the pollution arising from recent theatres of war might prove to be a long-term environmental and public health hazard, he said, but the Protocol applied to expected damage, rather than possible hazards.
You mean like using ’sexed up’ data, such as the underpinnings of Kyoto?
"Should striking an oil tanker sailing near a coral reef be deemed unacceptable, or a legitimate act of war? Does the crippling of an enemy’s oil supplies justify the killing of an ecosystem upon which hundreds, maybe thousands, of the poor rely for food in the form of fish?" he asked.
The oil tankers of a combatant in time of war is a legal target for destruction, regardless of the consequences
About twenty years ago I read a study on the effects of the large number of Japanese ships that were sunk off coral reef systems in the South Pacific. The immediate effect was large-scale death and destruction to the sea life, which then proceeded to recover and become even healthier as the oil dissipated, the coral restarted, and then spread to the new reef structures — the sunken ships themselves. The cycle to recovery was something on the order of 12 years...
The UNEP chief also reminded the international community that the United States used chemical defoliants on Viet Nam, Iraqis sabotaged oil installations and the Congolese, Rwandans and Sudanese killed scarce wild animals to raise funds for armies.
Of which, the canopy's back in place in Vietnam and Laos, and the Gulf has recovered from Sammy's little gifts. The worst long-term effects are to be found in Africa, where the wildlife (including the pygmies) is also under threat from other types of encroachment.

Posted by: badanov 2003-11-08
http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=20974