If you thought all of the death and pain and destruction of property were the measure of the horrific devastation of war, think again.

Newsflash from the United Nations: War can be bad for the environment.

Well, maybe not news, per se. When Abimelech sowed Shechem with salt (Judges 9:45) — a feat purportedly repeated by the Roman army at Carthage at the end of the Third Punic War — it seems a reasonable guess that no one was thinking about writing an Environmental Impact Statement. And when Josephus reports that the Roman army ringed Jerusalem with crucified Jews until there was neither room for more bodies, nor wood to build crosses, it takes a UN bureaucrat to weigh such an event on the scales of environmentalism.

In the current buildup to December’s Conference on Climate Change in Copenhagen, pressure has been building to approve a new international agreement that would bring in massive redistribution of wealth from First World nations to the Third World for the sake of creating a global "green economy."

But not content to interfere with peaceful industries and the ability of the industrialized nations to continue to sustain their level of development, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has determined to declare a "war on war," not for the sake of mankind, but for the sake of "Mother Earth."

According to a New York Times article (“U.N. Report Calls for More Environmental Protection in Wartime”) a new UN report takes on the thorny problem of saving the earth while the humans are killing one another: 

A report released this month by the United Nations Environment Program and the Environmental Law Institute calls for stronger international laws to protect the environment during times of war.

The report found that although existing laws of war — including aspects of the Geneva Convention — address environmental protection, their wording is imprecise. Strengthening, enforcing and clarifying existing legislation could help protect “natural assets” during wars, the study says.

“Existing legal instruments should be adapted to reflect the predominantly internal nature of today’s armed conflicts,” Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary general, said in a statement.

Internal conflicts within nations are not covered by existing legislation. The study called for new legislation to address this and highlighted the need for laws to protect economically important ecosystems like aquifers, agricultural lands, parks, national forests and habitats of endangered species.

And you thought it was bizarre when thousands of loggers lost their livelihood to rescue owls!

Let’s get this straight: The matter under consideration is, specifically, civil wars/”internal conflicts,” which also tend to be the bloodiest of conflicts. In the midst of the chaos and butchery that have always been present in war, but have been made all the more extreme in an age when the most devastating weapons ever devised are blithely referred to as “WMDs,” the overriding concern should be for the environment? What are the blue-helmeted UN "peacekeepers" going to do? Hand out citations to soldiers for hiding behind trees?

According to the conclusions of the UNEP report (“Protecting the Environment During Armed Conflict”):

Countries that wish to protect the environment during armed conflict should consider reflecting the relevant provisions of international law in national legislation:

In order to ensure that environmental violations committed during warfare are prosecuted, the provisions of international law that protect the environment in times of conflict should be fully reflected at the national level. This will require targeted capacity-building programs for legal drafters and practitioners addressing the following issues:

• Ways to reflect the relevant provisions of international law in existing or new national legislation;
• Options for implementing and enforcing legal provisions protecting the environment in times of armed conflict; and
• Options for using national legislation for holding individuals and corporations accountable for environmental damages committed abroad as underlying acts of war crimes.

Yes, you read that correctly: “...holding individuals and corporations accountable for environmental damages ... as underlying acts of war crimes.” The UN thus lays bare one of the great shortcomings of the Nuremberg tribunal: Where was the justice for all the environmental devastation of the Second World War? Of course, given the enlightened leadership of the modern UN, the leadership of each army involved could have stood trial for their “war crimes,” since undoubtedly all manner of environmental devastation was unleashed during that great conflict.

But not content merely to declare war-related environmental damage a “war crime,” the UNEP recommends a “new legal instrument” (i.e., a treaty) to protect the environmental during wartime:

A new legal instrument is needed for place-based protection of critical natural resources and areas of ecological importance during armed conflicts:

A new legal instrument granting place-based protection for critical natural resources and areas of ecological importance during international and non- international armed conflicts should be developed:

• At the outset of any conflict, critical natural resources and areas of ecological importance would be delineated and designated as “de- militarized zones;”
• Parties to the conflict would be prohibited from conducting military operations within their boundaries; and
• This could include protection for watersheds, groundwater aquifers, agricultural and grazing lands, parks, national forests, and the habitat of endangered species.

Upon reading such an absurdly unworkable proposal, the memory turns to that famous speech of Winston Churchill on June 4, 1940:

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills;
We shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

Why, the very reading of those words would probably be sufficient grounds under the UNEP to try Churchill and his ilk for their environmental “war crimes”— talk about premeditated environmental violence! What was that man thinking, anyway?

Probably that people who are fighting for their very lives are likely to spoil a few lakes, burn a few trees, and kill a few deer along the way.

This latest bit of absurdity from the United Nations cheapens the entire concept of a war crime. Like the boy who cries wolf one too many times, when everything related to warfare becomes a “war crime,” we risk losing our sensitivity to that which is truly a crime against humanity. And the idea that some UN blue helmet is going to declare some particular area "off limits" during war time to preserve a snail darter or a sloth is absurd.

Like Al Gore’s recent bizarre appeal to an act of “collective will” to save the environment, the UNEP report provides further evidence that environmental extremists have simply become unhinged, and their moonbat schemes are increasingly being taken for the very word of Gaia in the corridors of Internationalist authority. The only responsible thing for the nations of the world to do at this point is to take away the soapbox of insanity, which is the very heart of the United Nations.

Rt. Rev. James Heiser has served as Pastor of Salem Lutheran Church in Malone, Texas, while maintaining his responsibilities as publisher of Repristination Press, which he established in 1993 to publish academic and popular theological books to serve the Lutheran Church.  Heiser has also served since 2005 as the Dean of Missions for The Augustana Ministerium and in 2006 was called to serve as Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America (ELDoNA). An advocate of manned space exploration, Heiser serves on the Steering Committee of the Mars Society. His publications include two books; The Office of the Ministry in N. Hunnius' Epitome Credendorum (1996) and A Shining City on a Higher Hill: Christianity and the Next New World (2006), as well as dozens of journal articles and book reviews.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (4)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

Milton

November 23, 2009

67.53.28.211

Votes: +5

• 
• 
• 

Well Said!

Thanks for the great article. The UN is out to control the world and manage it in every possible way. The organization is a grave threat to freedom.

rprew

November 23, 2009

72.201.107.33

Votes: +5

• 
• 
• 

...

Reduce the number and size of wars. Save the environment. Abolish the U.N.

Still Free

November 23, 2009

72.254.140.201

Votes: +3

• 
• 
• 

Get us Out of the UN!

Bring our troops home!

Want to help the environment?

Plant a tree.
Line dry your clothes.
(Read the article entitled "Hanging Out").

Stop the UN madness!

DDW

November 24, 2009

173.74.213.85

Votes: +1

• 
• 
• 

Absolutely incredible!!

And just one one thinks that these people can't become more stupid and/or insane!! Indeed, get these United States out of the UN and get the UN out of these United States.

Write comment

This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.