Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to University of Copenhagen professor Ole Wæver, if we don’t act soon the UN Security Council might have to take over and dictate climate policy to member states, just as the EU took control of Greece.
Could climate change become a security issue — and threaten democracy?
RN By Farz Edraki and Ann Arnold for Late Night Live
Action to address climate change has been left so late that any political response will likely become an international security issue — and could threaten democracy.
That’s the view of Ole Wæver, a prominent international relations professor at the University of Copenhagen, who also says climate inaction could lead to armed conflict.
…
When decision-makers — after delaying for so long — suddenly try to find a shortcut to realistic action, climate change is likely to “be securitised”.
Professor Wæver, who first coined the term “securitisation”, says more abrupt change could potentially threaten democracy.
“The United Nations Security Council could, in principle, tomorrow decide that climate change is a threat to international peace and security,” he says.
“And then it’s within their competencies to decide ‘and you are doing this, you are doing this, you are doing this, this is how we deal with it’.”
…
“If there was something that was decided internationally by some more centralised procedure and every country was told ‘this is your emission target, it’s not negotiable, we can actually take military measures if you don’t fulfil it‘, then you would basically have to get that down the throat of your population, whether they like it or not,” he says.
“A bit like what we saw in southern Europe with countries like Greece and the debt crisis and so on.
“There were decisions that were made for them and then they just had to have a more or less technocratic government and get it through.”
…
Read more: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-03/climate-change-international-security-risk/11714284
Be good children, and follow the instructions of the climate professors, otherwise the United Nations is going to take your freedom away.
Professor Ole Waever is delusional, the UN has no such powers or a military to enforce them even if it did. The UN “peace keepers” are only deployed when the UN Security Council authorizes a force be assembled from the militaries of member states.
And does he imagine that a UN force could go toe to toe with the US military?
I may paint some old army helmets blue and put them out on my target range to practice head shots with my AR-15 just for kicks.
They have a navy providing Admiral Greta can borrow a yacht .
They have a one Mann army armed to the teeth with a rather sorry looking hockey stick.
No Air Force however.
But they do have an “Air Farce”
Just FYI, if the AR-15 gets banned for being a scary “assault weapon,” the Ruger Mini-14 is a pretty good stand-in. It looks a lot like the M-1 Garand, and fires .223 and 5.56mm ammunition.
The Mini-14 is on my wish list. Great weapon and below the radar of anti-gun freaks.
Oh yeah I think we are all terrified that the UN is going to take us over 🙂
I had to check the link thinking it was a joke because surely no-one above the age of 12 is that stupid they would actually believe that.
Ahh the UN ,Useless Nutjobs, where the parasites demand the host provide more.
That building on the East River could go a long way to providing a home for the homeless of New York City.
Maybe the UN can get North Korea to advise them on World Domination?
Dillusional is right, especially from a professor of international relations – if the US couldn’t get a free pass at eliminating a homicidal maniac like Sadam, or has to justify having a proper border defense, how in the world does this expert justify military action in an attempt to control the weather? These ecofascists are sounding evermore shrill and scary, as though they are trying to justify the coming coup….
Even professors of international relations can have dreams. Why don’t we look around and see what they have already achieved?
Professor thinks ” … get that down the throat …” could be possible. Must be confused about real world people based on seeing an increase in the number of university students with man-buns.
Delaying any action on ‘climate Change’ will certainly save Democracy!
The fact is that just saying no to democracy is their goal, they view us with contempt, for they see themselves as so far superior to us.
According to my translator, “delusional” in Danish means “Vrangforestillinger.” No one ever said Danish was a language of brevity, but that is what Professor Ole is. Vrangforestillinger. No better description for him.
By the way, the day the UN Security Council even tried something stupid like that, notwithstanding our veto power, my hope is that we would be sending more than a few cruise missiles the way of the UN building in New York, as a way of sending a message that we don’t want you, the UN, in our country anymore.
Joseph Stalin once asked, “”How many guns has the Pope got”?
True in the long run the USSR collapsed, but it was doomed by its managerial ways, not force.
The UN is a body which has always been about World Government, theirs of course, its dominated by the so called Third World countries, and will suffer the same fate that the old League of Nations. suffered.
Democracy with all of its numerous faults and problems is still a lot better than Communism.
MJE VK5ELL
Is this the same UN that couldn’t even agree on military action to take out deranged dictators? The one that spent over a decade telling Iraq that this was their final warning, that we are REALLY angry now, and we are going to have another meeting RIGHT NOW to discuss it? That one?
Yes and even if you get some Dem idiot as President apparently Putin and Xi are just going to roll over and not veto it … well that is what a true green believer thinks 🙂
What a dreamer. He’s living in cloud cuckoo land. Even if the US went along with his ideas after Trump leaves office, the US would still have to have elected a batshit crazy President and Congress.
Then there’s other (permanent) members of the Security Council: Russia and China will never agree to anything significant in order to ‘fix’ climate.
Please don’t take UN lightheartedly. They have weapons, transporters, tanks, choppers.
And often wet-lease airliners to move troops around.
Money, and climateers claim trainloads of it, can buy anything.
A common coffee-time talk is the military option to enforce whatever climate madness du jour. Which could somehow upset Russia. Then ? Is there any “then” ?
The UN has a cash crisis and run out of money 🙂
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/09/un-facing-cash-crisis-warns-staff-could-go-unpaid-in-november.html
How does one pay for an army and do anything without money?
When Trump was pressed about it his answer was blunt “So make all Member Countries pay, not just the United States!”
Seems the climate clowns’ next gen is already here.
I hope this psychopathic buffoon will show his talents at the COP25 gigantic clown show, he deserves it :
– May I suggest him to wear a sort of black toilet bowl on his head, as Darth Vader in Spaceballs ?
You mean “Dark Helmet”
That should read climate action threatens democracy. We all know this is true.
It is the climate cult itself that threatens democracy
https://cliscep.com/2019/07/21/mark-maslins-plans-to-fix-democracy/
Applying the usual mirror to this we may conclude that Climate Action™ is a threat to democracy.
“we can actually take military measures if you don’t fulfil it‘,”
The UN has no military capacity it has to ask member states to supply them. I don’t see many agreeing to supply the means of their own enslavement.
One tends to muse that the US would simply pull its UN funding if they tried that sort of stunt.
The UN is in receipt of grants, it has no fundraising powers.
You would have thought Professors were insufficiently thick to realise that.
Hey, it could happen. Or, Trump could issue an ultimatum to UN members – You’ve got 48 hours to vacate the UN building. We’ve decided to repurpose the building and convert the rooms to low-cost housing for the poor. Have your world domination planning parties elsewhere. CYA!
Just be something in the water there in Denmark.
Something is rotten…?
So if the looney professors and liberal left don’t get their way it is democracy that is threatened and resort to coercion is justified. Well we’ve never heard that before have we?
Exactly the same arguments were being made last night on BBC Newsnight by Jane Fonda who is much more barking mad than even the warnings I’d heard. In the course of a hissy fit of hysterical rambling she claimed 100 million people would die very soon, either in ten, eleven, forty years (it kept changing), the oil companies knew back in the 70s they were going to kill the planet, etc etc.
Even the BBC presenter eventually baulked at all the nonsense and timidly asked where in the IPCC report all these deaths were predicted. It merely set off another hissy fit. I think we should encourage La Fonda – this kind of stupidity is actually making the sceptic case.
Prof Ole, judging by his department, should have a greater knowledge of history ?
From my memory of history there was a thing called the League of Nations that preceded the UN ? Just like the UN it was mostly a talking shop, and a place where leaders of nations not in the first rank were able to grandstand thus invoking the sympathy of nice middle class folk. Trouble was, when the League attempted to flex its muscles in the way that this Ole guy suggests the UN should, a few fairly important members walked away. From there on in it was pretty much game over for the League.
We were told in 45 that the League of Nations was never really any good simply because the USA did not become a part of it. So its remarkable also that Ole does not seem to have noticed that when it comes to CC and the UN, the USA is now not part of that either. Maybe the Board of Regents at his school could arrange some sort of re test for the Prof, just to ensure that he is informed enough to actually be able to teach International Relations 🙂
Any “security” action by the UN would need to be approved by the UN Security Council, but the five “big” allies after WW II have veto powers (USA, England, France, Russia & China). Not one of them would allow the UN to do something crazy like this, because they all know that it would immediately be turned on them.
This guy is supposed to be an expert in international relations, and he doesn’t know this?
You all seem very relaxed about this, methinks. While military action against USA is probably a far-fetched idea, the more subtle and more dangerous threat implied by this kind of thinking is very real, and not that far away. Consider a Trumpless America, one or maybe four years from now. Consider a US President Bernie, or Elizabeth, or Kamala (or half a dozen others)… this is not at all fanciful. USA would be on board and would act in concert with UN to surpress, militarily if necessary (but probably not necessary), any smaller states that step out of line. China and Russia would acquiesce, secure in their continuing pollution and military strength, knowing they’d not be the targets, and seeing advantage in it all for themselves. Votes in the Security Council? Maybe not even necessary. There are plenty of ways to take action without that – after all, it’s an emergency.
The alarmists control the governments of nearly all the free world, nearly all the media, nearly all the civil institutions, all the NGOs, and virtually all the educational establishments. The UK government- right of centre- for instance, recently passed the ‘Climate Emergency’ declaration without a vote, nor any objection at all. Whereas the people of the free world MIGHT eventually turn against their rulers, they might not wake up quickly enough under these circumstances to forestall the final coup. It’s a little way off, but not the remote prospect commenters here seem to believe.
There is a madness afoot, and it is everywhere. Rational debate may take a very long time to return, and may never do so if temperatures continue to rise even slightly. Sorry to be a pessimist – but the other side is not reading this blog, nor any sceptical or even moderate-warmist organ. Not sure we can stop them.
We should shut down the UN. When needed we should go back to the 19th centuary practice of having a Congress between the interested parties. Not perfect but far better than the present set up.
Claim: Delaying Climate Action Could Threaten Democracy
The hypocrisy of this statement could not be purer or sweeter. That brown-shirted foot-soldiers of the ecofascist global coup for the one world totalitarian government under the pretext of a bogus climate crisis, talk about a threat to democracy. It’s like foxes going all tearful over a threat to hens. “Just leave us in charge of the chicken coop.” What could possibly go wrong?