Agenda 21



 The UN's Agenda 21






RED Core Reserves and Corridors - Little to no human use.
YELLOW Buffer Zones - Highly Regulated Use.
TURQUOSE Normal Use Zones of Cooperation.
ORANGE Border 21/La Paz Sidebar Agreement of NAFTA. 124 mile wide International Zone of Cooperation.
PINK Indian Reservations.
GRAY Military Reservations.
BLACK DOTS Cities over 10,000 people.
Some major highways and Interstate rivers are also shown.

Taken from the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity Article ??,* United Nations Global Diversity Assessment Section 1? to ??. US Man and the Biosphere Strategic Plan. UN, US Heritage Corridor Program. "The Wildlands Project," Wild Earth 1992. Also see Science "The High Cost of Biodiversity," 25 June 1993 pp ?? to ?? and the boarder v21 sidebar of NAFTA. The very high percentage of buffer zone in the West is due to the very high percentage of Federal land.



Land Grab on a Global Scale



Among the English-speaking settler societies — U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand — an irrational but powerful myth still prevails. It drove “manifest destiny” and is still alive and well, if usually unconscious.

Divinely inspired colonists wrested lands occupied by native peoples and bestowed the mixed blessings of civilization on them. The rationalization for dispossession then — and now — was that these “primitive” peoples were not making productive use of their lands. What they did not know, and still do not, is that they took over lands that were largely shaped and maintained by indigenous peoples through extensive and intensive land care practices that enabled them to not only survive but also thrive.

Enter the 21st century. The work of indigenous dispossession is about to be completed. The last great global land grab and indigenous asset stripping is happening as I write. (I borrowed these phrases from Rebecca Adamson of First Peoples Worldwide and Andy White of Rights and Resources Initiative at a meeting of the World Bank that I participated in.)

We have a big problem. Some unintended outcomes of well-intentioned climate mitigation measures are below the media radar screen. Land values are dramatically increasing because of demand by northern multinational corporations for land to produce biofuels, plantation monocultures for carbon trading offsets and transfat substitutes such as palm oil in the developing south.

Indigenous peoples presently occupy 22 percent of the Earth’s land surface, are stewards of 80 percent of remaining biodiversity and comprise 90 percent of cultural diversity. As demand increases the value of indigenous lands — already poorly protected — the rate of loss of indigenous assets and livelihood options becomes more rapid. Adding to these losses are losses of homelands set aside by big environmental NGOs and third-world government elites for conservation reserves and parks through forced evictions. Also disappearing is global genetic diversity maintained by indigenous peoples, which is essential for maintaining the capacity of plants and animals to adapt toclimate change.

Disappearing with land and resources are an incalculable wealth of stewardship experience and knowledge. But climate change is here. While the developed north (west) is scrambling for solutions, indigenous peoples are receiving the brunt of the effects of climate change caused by the north. Ignored in the global debate are indigenous cultures that have survived intact for millennia while “great” civilizations have repeatedly collapsed. Indigenous peoples are neither noble nor ignoble.

Some have made environmental mistakes in the past and did not survive. The cultures that survived have done so in proportion as they have learned to adapt. They are just people like everyone else, but people with great practical know-how.

The current economic asymmetry is the result of the myth that wealth will eventually filter down to the poor through so-called free trade and speculative global markets. But as the wealth of a small number of privileged individuals has increased, world poverty has increased fivefold.

The Rio Convention on Biological Diversity (1992), Article 8 (j), and Agenda 21 affirmed that indigenous cultures protect biodiversity and should be compensated for their sustainable practices and products. But the U.S.-dominated Uruguay round of GATT in the same year effectively shut out indigenous peoples from any protection or compensation.

In the meantime the world is losing its best strategy for mitigating climate change — viable indigenous cultures who are the stewards of genetic diversity through traditional land practices. They will also lose the continuing contributions of native knowledge to medicine, sustainable agriculture, health products, lubricants, common foods, wildlife and fisheries management, and more.

The tobacco industry is now liable for costs to states for paying smokers’ health bills. Why not hold the developed nations accountable for the damage to ecosystems and indigenous ecosystem peoples who are suffering from climate change that they didn’t cause? Where is the accountability? Why not support existing national and international laws and treaties that are simply ignored?

We do not want victimhood. We want parity and compensation through recognition of our substantial contributions to your wealth. It is not an “ethnic” issue. Indigenous peoples are the miner’s canary. It is about the survival of all humans and it is about the loss of the collective heritage of our species. It is all of our lands and all of our assets that are being stolen by economic criminals. They benefit and we pay.

Dennis Martinez is founder and co-chairman of the Indigenous Peoples’ Restoration Network of the Society for Ecological Restoration International.


UN Pushes Population Control Agenda

According to the United Nations, the earth’s population will reach seven billion by October 31. For the world body, however, that is not something to celebrate. In fact, the UN Population Fund is focused on ways to decrease the world’s population, and has selected October 31, “7 Billion Day,” as a day to raise awareness about “sustainable development.”

The United Nations has openly proclaimed that the world’s increasing population is a cause for concern. Likewise, the UN has advocated for its Agenda 21 program that seeks to bring about “sustainable development.”

On February 10, The New American’s William Jasper wrote of Agenda 21:

The UN’s Agenda 21 is definitely comprehensive and global — breathtakingly so. Agenda 21 proposes a global regime that will monitor, oversee, and strictly regulate our planet’s oceans, lakes, streams, rivers, aquifers, sea beds, coastlands, wetlands, forests, jungles, grasslands, farmland, deserts, tundra, and mountains. It even has a whole section on regulating and “protecting” the atmosphere. It proposes plans for cities, towns, suburbs, villages, and rural areas. It envisions a global scheme for healthcare, education, nutrition, agriculture, labor, production, and consumption — in short, everything; there is nothing on, in, over, or under the Earth that doesn’t fall within the purview of some part of Agenda 21.

Agenda 21 is yet another means to achieve ultimate control. Additionally, as noted by, a key component of Agenda 21’s sustainable development is population control, since Agenda 21 seeks to achieve reduced consumption, social equity and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity. Proponents of Agenda 21 and sustainable development believe every societal decision should be based on environmental impact, including land use, education, and population control.

A United Nations resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly specifically designed to implement Agenda 21 reads:

….population growth rates have been declining globally, largely as a result of expanded basic education and health care. That trend is projected to lead to a stable world population in the middle of the twenty-first century… The current decline in population growth rates must be further promoted through national and international policies that promote economic development, social development, environmental protection, and poverty eradication, particularly the further expansion of basic education, with full and equal access for girls and women, and health care, including reproductive health care, including both family planning and sexual health, consistent with the report of the International Conference on Population and Development.

Likewise, the March 2009 U.N. Population Division Policy brief began with the statement, “What would it take to accelerate fertility decline in the least developed countries?”

The same theme was prevalent in the 2009 World Population Report released by the United Nations Population Fund entitled “Facing a Changing World: Women, Population and Climate.” That document made a number of frightening assertions:

  • "Each birth results not only in the emissions attributable to that person in his or her lifetime, but also the emissions of all his or her descendants. Hence, the emissions savings from intended or planned births multiply with time."
  • "No human is genuinely "carbon neutral," especially when all greenhouse gases are figured into the equation. Therefore, everyone is part of the problem, so everyone must be part of the solution in some way."
  • "Strong family planning programmes are in the interests of all countries for greenhouse-gas concerns as well as for broader welfare concerns."

Many of our own lawmakers and members of the Obama administration have openly called for population control. Former vice president Al Gore, for example, made the following statement regarding population control:

"One of the things we could do about it is to change the technologies, to put out less of this pollution, to stabilize the population, and one of the principle ways of doing that is to empower and educate girls and women. You have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management so women can choose how many children have, the spacing of the children.

You have to lift child survival rates so that parents feel comfortable having small families and most important – you have to educate girls and empower women. And that’s the most powerful leveraging factor, and when that happens, then the population begins to stabilize and societies begin to make better choices and more balanced choices."

Maurice Strong, head of the United Nations Environmental Program, alluded to population control and more when he stated in 1990, “What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principle risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?”

President Obama’s Science Adviser John Holdren wrote a book in 1977 called Ecoscience in which he indicated support for forced abortions, sterilization through infertility drugs or through the nation’s drinking water or food, having babies seized from single mothers or teen mothers and given away to couples, requiring that “people who contribute to social deterioration…be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” (i.e. more forced abortions or sterilizations), and creating a transnational “Planetary Regime” that controls the global economy and dictates the details of American lives by use of an armed international police force.

Holdren went so far as to say that the United States Constitution permits population control, “Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

Population control has also found support amongst other prominent Americans, including Microsoft’s Bill Gates, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sierra Club Director David Brower, Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger, and David Rockefeller.

Given the United Nation Population Fund’s push for decreased population, and the surprising level of support it has received within our own federal government, groups like the John Birch Society are pushing to defund the UNPF. According to the JBS:

The propaganda from the UNFPA (known as the United Nations Fund for Population Activities from 1969 to 1987) indicates that its programs do nothing more than “reduce poverty and ensure that every pregnancy is wanted, every birth safe, every young person is free of HIV/AIDS, and every girl and woman is treated with dignity and respect.” And how does the UNFPA accomplish such lofty-sounding goals? By promoting “family planning,” access to abortions, and instituting sex-ed programs, especially for youth.…

So, instead of promoting policies that would delay marriage and childbearing for the poverty-stricken of many countries, the UNFPA encourages promiscuity. Instead of abstinence training, a sexual revolution is advanced. And, instead of telling teens the truth about free sex, they hype the glories of condom use that afford little or no protection from sexually transmitted diseases rampant in many third world countries. Shockingly, the UN’sanswer to gender discrimination and sex selection brought about by the one-child policy is “safe” abortions.

Fortunately, the U.S. House of Representatives Relations Committee has introduced HR 2059, which defunds the United Nations Population Fund. The legislation has 83 cosponsors and is said to save taxpayers $400 million.

What’s clear is that the American people must act quickly as civilized nations are beginning to act in accordance with the UN’s drive for population control. In the United Kingdom, for example, the Daily Mail reports that thousands of “abnormal babies” are being selectively aborted each year. This is expected behavior in a world where population control takes center stage.