‘Indigenous Rights’ King Anders Breivik of Norway vs ‘Multiculti’ Queen Elisabeth II response to Idle No More Red People’s Indigenous Rights Movement

‘Indigenous Rights’ King Anders Breivik of Norway vs. ‘Multiculti’ Queen Elisabeth II response to Idle No More Red People’s Indigenous Rights Movement



Andrea Muhrrteyn | Ecofeminist v Breivik | 18 January 2013

Correspondence (PDF) to Anders Behring Breivik c/o & via: Geir Lippestad

CC: Queen Elisabeth II c/o Martin Callanan MEP
CC: Prime Minister Stephen Harper
CC: Idle No More: Sheelah McLean, Sylvia McAdam, Jess Gordon, Nina Wilson
CC: Former Senator Sam Nunn, CEO: Nuclear Threat Initiative
CC: Canada Treaty Policy Directorate
CC: Army General Martin E Dempsey, c/o US Army Environmental Command
CC: Richard B Fadden, Dir: CSIS, c/o: Royal Canadian Mounted Police

RE: Request Clarification: What would ‘Indigenous Rights’ King Anders Breivik of Norway’s suggestion be to ‘Multiculti’ Queen Elisabeth II, in response to Indigenous Rights Protest Demands of Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence and the Idle No More Red People’s Indigenous Rights Movement?

Question #1: Should Queen Elisabeth honour the Treaty’s made with the First Nations, by Queen Victoria and demand that Prime Minister Stephen Harper meet with First Nation Leaders, to establish a Nation to Nation relationship between First Nations and the Government of Canada, rather than a relationship as defined in the Indian Act to address issues and (2) social and environmental sustainability?

Question #2: If we are to establish a credible International European Code of Honour, we should demand the assassination of any European leader who (a) legislates Flat Earth ‘War is Peace Whore’ Tragedy of the Constitutional Commons Suicide Pacts, i.e. a ‘Peace Treaty’ which ignores confronting the Scarcity Combatant role of overpopulation and overconsumption to scarcity as an underlying cause of conflict; and/or (b) refuses to address and resolve Flat Earth ‘War is Peace Whore’ Treaties enacted by their dishonourable European predecessors who ignored confronting the Scarcity Combatant role of overpopulation and overconsumption to scarcity as an underlying cause of conflict?

RE: Request Clarification: What would ‘Indigenous Rights’ King Anders Breivik of Norway’s suggestion be to ‘Multiculti’ Queen Elisabeth II, in response to Indigenous Rights Protest Demands of Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence and the Idle No More Red People’s Indigenous Rights Movement?

Question #1: Should Queen Elisabeth honour the Treaty’s made with the First Nations, by Queen Victoria and demand that Prime Minister Stephen Harper meet with First Nation Leaders, to establish a Nation to Nation relationship between First Nations and the Government of Canada, rather than a relationship as defined in the Indian Act to address issues and (2) social and environmental sustainability?

Question #2: If we are to establish a credible International European Code of Honour, we should demand the assassination of any European leader who (a) legislates Flat Earth ‘War is Peace Whore’ Tragedy of the Constitutional Commons Suicide Pacts, i.e. a ‘Peace Treaty’ which ignores confronting the Scarcity Combatant role of overpopulation and overconsumption to scarcity as an underlying cause of conflict; and/or (b) refuses to address and resolve Flat Earth ‘War is Peace Whore’ Treaties enacted by their dishonourable European predecessors who ignored confronting the Scarcity Combatant role of overpopulation and overconsumption to scarcity as an underlying cause of conflict?

Issues Addressed:

• Euro/Norwegian Indigenous Rights Freedom Fighter Anders Breivik
• Red People’s Idle No More Indigenous Rights Movement
• Queen Elisabeth declines to intervene in Chief Spence’s protest
• British Crowns Responsibility to Treaties Signed with First Nations
• Historical Treaties of Canada: British Crown and First Nations
• Colonization of Indigenous People’s is a consequence of Overpopulation and/or Overconsumption, and Flat Earth War is Peace Whore’ Tragedy of the Constitutional Commons Suicide Pacts, i.e. ‘Peace Treaties’ which ignore/d confronting the Scarcity Combatant role of overpopulation and overconsumption to scarcity as an underlying cause of conflict.
• International Military Doctrine Environmental Security & Peace Strategies addressing Scarcity as an underlying Cause of Violent Conflict
• Credible Peace Treaty must include National Environmental Security and Peace Strategy, confronting Overpopulation and Overconsumption’s Role in Scarcity as underlying Cause of Conflict
• SA Concourt Endorses Flat Earth ‘War is Peace Whore’ Tragedy of the Constitutional Commons Suicide Pact & SA’s Impending Race War

Euro/Norwegian Indigenous Rights Freedom Fighter Anders Breivik:

In your closing statement to the court on 22 June 2012, you said: “This trial should be about finding the truth. .. Norwegian academics and journalists work together and make use of [..] methods to deconstruct Norwegian identity, Christianity, and the Norwegian nation. How can it be illegal to engage in armed resistance against this? The prosecution wondered who gave me a mandate to do what I did. [..] I have answered this before, but will do so again. Universal human rights, international law, and the right to self-defense provided the mandate to carry out this self-defense. Everything has been triggered by the actions of those who consciously and unconsciously are destroying our country. Responsible Norwegians and Europeans who feel even a trace of moral obligation are not going to sit by and watch as we are made into minorities in our own lands. We are going to fight. The attacks on July 22 were preventive attacks in defense of my ethnic group, the Norwegian indigenous people. I therefore cannot acknowledge guilt. I acted from necessity (nødrett) on behalf of my people, my religion and my country.”

Red People’s Idle No More Indigenous Rights Movement:

The movement was initiated by activists Nina Wilson, Sheelah Mclean, Sylvia McAdam and Jessica Gordon in November 2012, during a teach-in at Station 20 West in Saskatoon called "Idle No More", held in response to the Harper government's introduction of Bill C-45.

C-45 is a large omnibus bill implementing numerous measures, many of which activists claim weaken environmental protection laws. In particular, laws protecting all of the country's navigable waterways were limited in scope to protect only a few waterways of practical importance for navigation. Many of the affected waterways pass through land reserved to First Nations.

Law blog writer/observer Lorraine Land, and Idle No More itself, have identified the following current bills as affecting natives or native sovereignty:

• Bill C-38 (Budget Omnibus Bill #1)
• Bill C-45 (Budget Omnibus Bill #2)
• Bill C-27 First Nations Financial Transparency Act
• Bill S-2 Family Homes on Reserve and Matrimonial Interests or Right Act
• Bill S-6 First Nations Elections Act
• Bill S-8 Safe Drinking Water for First Nations
• Bill C-428 Indian Act Amendment and Replacement Act
• Bill S-207 An Act to amend the Interpretation Act
• Bill S-212 First Nations Self-Government Recognition Bill
• “First Nations” Private Ownership Act

This led to a series of teach-ins, rallies and protests that were planned by the founders in a National Day Of Action on Dec. 10th which coincided with Amnesty Internationals Human Rights Day. These coincided with similar protests already underway in British Columbia over the Northern Gateway and Pacific Trails pipelines.

The protests were timed to coincide with the announcement that Chief Theresa Spence of Attawapiskat was launching a hunger strike (no solid foods, limited to tea, water and broth) to demand a meeting with Prime Minister Harper and the Governor General of Canada to discuss Aboriginal rights. The Assembly of First Nations then issued an open letter 16 December to Governor General David Johnston, calling for a meeting to discuss Spence's demands.

Also on 17 December the Confederacy of Treaty No. 6 First Nations issued a press release saying that they did not recognize the legality of any laws passed by the federal parliament, "including but not limited to Bill C-45, which do not fulfill their constitutionally recognized and affirmed Treaty and Aboriginal rights; as well as the Crown's legal obligations to meaningfully consult and accommodate First Nations."

As of January 4, 2013, the main goals have been narrowed down to (1) the establishment of a Nation to Nation relationship between First Nations and the Government of Canada, rather than a relationship as defined in the Indian Act to address issues and (2) social and environmental sustainability.

Idle No More Manifesto

We contend that:

The Treaties are nation to nation agreements between Canada and First Nations who are sovereign nations. The Treaties are agreements that cannot be altered or broken by one side of the two Nations. The spirit and intent of the Treaty agreements meant that First Nations peoples would share the land, but retain their inherent rights to lands and resources. Instead, First Nations have experienced a history of colonization which has resulted in outstanding land claims, lack of resources and unequal funding for services such as education and housing.

Canada has become one of the wealthiest countries in the world by using the land and resources. Canadian mining, logging, oil and fishing companies are the most powerful in the world due to land and resources. Some of the poorest First Nations communities (such as Attawapiskat) have mines or other developments on their land but do not get a share of the profit. The taking of resources has left many lands and waters poisoned – the animals and plants are dying in many areas in Canada. We cannot live without the land and water. We have laws older than this colonial government about how to live with the land.

Currently, this government is trying to pass many laws so that reserve lands can also be bought and sold by big companies to get profit from resources. They are promising to share this time…Why would these promises be different from past promises? We will be left with nothing but poisoned water, land and air. This is an attempt to take away sovereignty and the inherent right to land and resources from First Nations peoples.

There are many examples of other countries moving towards sustainability, and we must demand sustainable development as well. We believe in healthy, just, equitable and sustainable communities and have a vision and plan of how to build them.

Queen Elisabeth declines to intervene in Chief Spence’s protest:

In a letter dated Jan. 7, Buckingham Palace wrote to Jonathan Francoeur, a small businessman in British Columbia who took it upon himself to write to the Queen on Dec. 15, that the chief should deal instead with the federal cabinet.

Buckingham Palace’s Deputy to the Senior Correspondence Officer: Jennie Vine wrote:

The Queen as asked me to thank you for your recent letter, from which Her Majesty has taken careful note of the concern you express for the welfare of Attawapiskat First Nations Chief Theresa Spense who is currently on a politically-motivated hunger strike in Canada.

Perhaps I might explain, however, that this is not a matter in which The Queen would intervene. As a constitutional Sovereign, Her Majesty acts through her personal representatives, the Governor-General, on the advice of her Canadian Ministers and, therefore, it is to them that your appeal should be directed.

Nevertheless, your concern for the welfare of First Nations Chief Theresa Spence is understood.

British Crowns Responsibility to Treaties Signed with First Nations:

“This stone was taken from the grounds of Balmoral Castle in the Highlands of Scotland – a place dear to my great-great-grandmother, Queen Victoria. It symbolises the foundation of the rights of First Nations peoples reflected in treaties signed with the Crown during her reign. Bearing the cypher of Queen Victoria as well as my own, this stone is presented to the First Nations University of Canada in the hope that it will serve as a reminder of the special relationship between the sovereign and all First Nations peoples.” - Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, 2005

Historical Treaties of Canada: British Crown and First Nations:

1867 Canada Confederation: By the time Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario and Quebec form the Dominion of Canada, the Robinson Treaties, Upper Canada Land Surrenders and Peace and Friendship Treaties are already in place.

1870 Purchase of Rupert's Land: Canada acquires Rupert’s Land and the adjacent North-Western Territory from the Hudson’s Bay Company. Manitoba enters Confederation.

1871 Treaty No. 1 & Treaty No. 2:. The first post-Confederation treaty, Treaty One, is concluded in August 1871 and covers Manitoba as it existed then. Treaty Two is concluded a few weeks later and covers areas needed for expansion and settlement in the west and north of the Province. British Columbia enters Confederation on the understanding that construction of the east-west railway will begin in two years and will be completed in ten.

1873 Treaty No. 3: After three years of negotiations, the Dominion of Canada and the Saulteaux tribe of Ojibway Indians entered into treaty at the North-West Angle of the Lake of the Woods. With the Saulteaux surrendering title to an area of 14,245,000 hectares, Canada acquired land for agriculture, settlement and mineral discovery. More importantly, Canada secured communications with the North-West Territories, including the route of the future Canadian Pacific Railway. In 1873, Prince Edward Island enters Confederation, bringing the number of provinces in the Dominion to seven.

1874 Treaty No. 4: Initiated by Indians and Métis concerned about the declining numbers of animals which provided them with a living. Treaty 4 covers present-day southern Saskatchewan. Provisional boundary set in northern Ontario.

1875 Treaty No. 5: This treaty originated in two historical processes. The southern part, negotiated in 1875, was one of the southern Prairie treaties, and was in large part a result of the insistence of the Native people of that region that their aboriginal rights be recognized by the Canadian government, which had recently acquired title to their lands. The northern part of Treaty 5 was negotiated in 1908.

1876 TreatyNo. 6: The negotiation of this treaty took place during a difficult period for the Plains Cree, who were suffering from the rapid decline of the buffalo. The documents indicate that their concerns included medical care and relief in case of need.

1877 Treaty No. 7: The last of the numbered treaties negotiated and signed during the 1870s. The treaty covers the southern part of present-day Alberta.

1880 Addition of Arctic Islands: British rights to these islands pass to Canada.

1881 Addition to Manitoba:. The boundaries of Manitoba are extended to include substantially all the area covered by Treaties One, Two and Three.

1889 Treaty No. 6 Adhesion (Montreal Lake): Addition to Ontario (Kenora District)

1898 Creation of the Yukon: The Yukon becomes a Territory separate from the North-West Territories. The boundaries of Quebec are extended north, almost complementing the revised northern boundary of Ontario.

1899 Treaty No. 8: The first of the northern treaties covered an area of 324,900 sq miles and represents the most geographically extensive treaty activity undertaken. It comprises what is now the northern half of Alberta, the northeast quarter of British Columbia, the northwest corner of Saskatchewan, and the area south of Hay River and Great Slave Lake in the Northwest Territories.

1905 Treaty No. 9: In response to continuous petitions from the Cree and Ojibwa people of northern Ontario, and in keeping with its policy of paving the way for settlement and development, the federal government in 1905-1906 negotiated Treaty 9, also known as the James Bay Treaty. For the first and only time, a provincial government took an active role in negotiations. Together with the area acquired by adhesions in 1929-1930, Treaty 9 covers almost two-thirds of the are that became northern Ontario. In 1905, Alberta and Saskatchewan are created.

1906 Treaty No. 10: Covers 220,000 square kilometres of northern Saskatchewan and Alberta. Unlike the land in southern Saskatchewan, the Treaty 10 lands were deemed unsuitable for agriculture and so the federal government did not respond to demands from the region’s Native people for a treaty until the early 20th century, when the mixed-blood people of northern Saskatchewan began to demand compensation for loss of aboriginal rights and the Provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta had been created.

1908 Adhesion to Treaty No. 5: Though requested for many years by the Native people, this adhesion was the result of government initiative.

1912 Ontario and Manitoba attain their present boundaries: Quebec extends northward to absorb the Ungava District and agrees to negotiate surrender of the Indian title to the territory; the Quebec-Labrador boundary remains in contention.

1921 Treaty No. 11: The last of the numbered treaties covers most of the Mackenzie District . The land in the area was deemed unsuitable for agriculture, so the federal government was reluctant to conclude treaties. Immediately following the discovery of oil at Fort Norman in 1920, however, the government moved to begin treaty negotiations.

1923 Williams Treaties: Treaty-making activities along the north shore of Lake Ontario in 1783-84, variously known as the Toronto Purchase, the Carrying Place Purchase, the Crawford Purchases and the Gunshot Treaty, produced lingering uncertainties that are resolved in large part by the Chippewa and Mississauga Agreements negotiated in 1923.

1949 Newfoundland and Labrador enter Confederation.

1999 Creation of Nunavut.

Colonization of Indigenous People’s is a consequence of Overpopulation and/or Overconsumption, and Flat Earth War is Peace Whore’ Tragedy of the Constitutional Commons Suicide Pacts, i.e. ‘Peace Treaties’ which ignored confronting the Scarcity Combatant role of overpopulation and overconsumption to scarcity as an underlying cause of conflict.

SQSwan is a black swan movement to alter Human Eco-Consciousness. Anyone, from extreme right to extreme left is welcome as an individual, or group; as long as you subscribe to the SQSwan principles.

SQSwans assert that a majority of society's problems - crime, violence, unemployment, poverty, inflation, food shortages, political instability, vanishing species, garbage and pollution urban sprawl, traffic jams, toxic waste, energy and non-renewable resources (NNR) depletion and scarcity are symptoms of Ecological Overshoot, resulting from Ind:Civ:F(x) world war against nature . Ecological Overshoot and Scarcity as a cause of conflict, cannot be addressed without confronting Overpopulation and Overconsumption.

The European colonization of Canada, USA, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand resulted from an overpopulated and over-consuming greedy Europe, hungry for other nation’s natural resources.

The Muslim colonization of Europe is the migratory result of an overpopulated Middle East and Africa. The overpopulation of Africa is a result of the greed of Anglo-Americans.

Colonization of Indigenous People’s and their cultures – whether white, black, brown or red, by each other, or by ethnically unconscious Multinational ‘Multicultural’ corporations to exterminate all cultures into one ‘multiculti consumptionist’ zombie culture -- shall not end until International Law is established which clearly and succinctly defines Sustainability, Sustainable Rights and Sustainable Security, including Guerrylla Laws to regulate procreation and resource utilization behaviour.

Seriously confronting Overpopulation and Overconsumption requires clear and succinct definitions of Sustainability, Sustainable Rights and Sustainable Security, including Guerrylla Laws to regulate procreation and resource utilization behaviour.

These Guerrylla Laws must (A) simply and very specifically clarify the difference between the consumption and procreation behaviour of a Scarcity Combatant (Unsustainable) vs an Eco-Innocent (Sustainable); (B) International Implementation of Dr. Jack Alpert and Jason Brent's One Child Only per family policy, for all future procreators until humanity is once more living in harmony with natural law’s carrying capacity requirements; and (C) until then be used in courts to confront Scarcity Combatants of their Breeding / Consumption combatant behaviours aggravation of Scarcity related socio-economic problems.

Sustainability: A Sustainable society regulates human procreation and/or resource utilization behaviour , to ensure sustainability.

Sustainable Rights: Laws of Nature determine that Environmental or ecological rights and responsibilities are the sine qua non foundation for all other Rights . A Scarcity Combatant whose procreation or consumption violates their region’s carrying capacity laws of nature, should not be entitled to the same rights as an Eco-Innocent whose procreation and consumption lifestyle is in accordance to the laws of nature (carrying capacity), and who consequently should be entitled to all other rights.

Sustainable Security: ‘There is no security without sustainability’ : In the absence of an international new moral order where Ecocentric Guerrylla laws are implemented to regulate and reduce human procreation and resource utilization behaviour, towards a sustainable, pre-industrial lifestyle paradigm; “overpopulation and resource scarcity will result in conflict and war” (perhaps nuclear ) confronting regions at an accelerated pace , resulting in the “collapse of the global economic system and every market-oriented national economy” by 2050 .

Guerrylla Laws: define the procreation and consumption behaviour of an individual as an Eco-Innocent (sustainable) or Scarcity-Combatant (unsustainable), based upon (A) a sustainable bio-capacity of 1 global hectare (gha) (60 % of 1.8 gha ) in accordance with the proactive conservation policies of Bhutan ; and (B) the Oregon University study that concludes that every child increases a parents’ eco-footprint by a factor of 20 .

Eco-Innocent:
* 0 children, consumption < 20 gha (Intn'l Biocapacity (1 gha) x 20)
* 1 child, consumption < 1 gha (Intn'l biocapacity (1 gha (2007))
* 2 children, consumption < 0.05 gha (Intn'l biocapacity 1 gha ÷ 20)
* 3 children, consumption < 0.025 gha (Intn'l biocapacity 1 gha ÷ 40)

Scarcity Combatant:
* 0 children, consumption > 20 gha (Intn'l biocapacity (1 gh) x 20)
* 1 child, consumption > 1 gha (Intn'l biocapacity (1 gh (2007))
* 2 children, consumption > 0.05 gha (Intn'l biocapacity 1 gh ÷ 20)
* 3 children, consumption > 0.025 gha (Intn'l biocapacity 1 gh ÷ 40)

International Military Doctrine Environmental Security & Peace Strategies addressing Scarcity as an underlying Cause of Violent Conflict

“There is also a new and different threat to our national security emerging—the destruction of our environment. The defense establishment has a clear stake in this growing threat... one of our key national security objectives must be to reverse the accelerating pace of environmental destruction.” - Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA), Senate, June 28, 1990

“According to a growing body of literature, scarcity of freshwater to meet the many needs of Third World countries is rapidly escalating. Furthermore, many of the remaining exploitable sources of freshwater are in river basins shared by two or more sovereign states. These facts present the potential for violent conflict over water unless affected states can develop and use their common water resources in a cooperative, sustainable, and equitable manner. The United States, in its National Security Strategy and Foreign Affairs Policy, has called attention to the problem of resource scarcity as having important implications for American security.”

“The effect of environmental problems on national security, now commonly referred to as "environmental security," is important to the US military. The concept first appeared in the 1991 National Security Strategy (NSS), when President Bush recognized that the failure to competently manage natural resources could contribute to potential conflict. The 1993 National Security Strategy echoed this concern and included the environment as an element of economic power. When A National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement was published in February 1996, it amplified the importance of the environment as a component of United States national security even further. The 1996 NSS recognizes that competition for natural resources "is already a very real risk to regional stability around the world." It also states that national and international environmental degradation poses a direct threat to economic growth and to global and national security. Thus, as one of the institutions charged with protecting our national security, the US military also should be concerned with all aspects of environmental security.”

“Environmental issues can adversely influence our national security in two important ways. One of these is potential or actual conflict between nations or groups that can arise as a result of disputes over natural resources or transnational environmental problems. A second way that environmental issues can directly affect national security is by destabilizing governments or institutions in a country afflicted with environmental degradation. Haiti is a good example. As early as 1978, the President's Council on Environmental Quality noted that deforestation in Haiti was almost complete and then predicted that social disruption and instability would soon follow. It took 16 more years and a military overthrow of duly elected President Aristide to spark renewed US military involvement in Haiti. However, it is clear that the environmental devastation of that country's forests, soil and water supplies created a cause and effect between environmental issues and Haiti's economic deprivation, massive migration and the basic instability of virtually every economic or governmental institution in the country.”

1974: NSSM 200: National Security Study Memorandum: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth For U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (The Kissinger Report) :

Rapid population growth adversely affects every aspect of economic and social progress in developing countries. It absorbs large amounts of resources needed for more productive investment in development. It requires greater expenditures for health, education and other social services, particularly in urban areas. It increases the dependency load per worker so that a high fraction of the output of the productive age group is needed to support dependents. It reduces family savings and domestic investment. It increases existing severe pressures on limited agricultural land in countries where the world's "poverty problem" is concentrated.

It creates a need for use of large amounts of scarce foreign exchange for food imports (or the loss of food surpluses for export). Finally, it intensifies the already severe unemployment and underemployment problems of many developing countries where not enough productive jobs are created to absorb the annual increments to the labor force.

Even in countries with good resource/population ratios, rapid population growth causes problems for several reasons: First, large capital investments generally are required to exploit unused resources. Second, some countries already have high and growing unemployment and lack the means to train new entrants to their labor force.

Third, there are long delays between starting effective family planning programs and reducing fertility, and even longer delays between reductions in fertility and population stabilization. Hence there is substantial danger of vastly overshooting population targets if population growth is not moderated in the near future.

[..] Moderation of population growth offers benefits in terms of resources saved for investment and/or higher per capita consumption. If resource requirements to support fewer children are reduced and the funds now allocated for construction of schools, houses, hospitals and other essential facilities are invested in productive activities, the impact on the growth of GNP and per capita income may be significant.

In addition, economic and social progress resulting from population control will further contribute to the decline in fertility rates. The relationship is reciprocal, and can take the form of either a vicious or a virtuous circle.

Implications of Population Pressures for National Security

It seems well understood that the impact of population factors on the subjects already considered -- development, food requirements, resources, environment -- adversely affects the welfare and progress of countries in which we have a friendly interest and thus indirectly adversely affects broad U.S. interests as well.

[..] A recent study* of forty-five local conflicts involving Third World countries examined the ways in which population factors affect the initiation and course of a conflict in different situations. The study reached two major conclusions:

1. ". . . population factors are indeed critical in, and often determinants of, violent conflict in developing areas. Segmental (religious, social, racial) differences, migration, rapid population growth, differential levels of knowledge and skills, rural/urban differences, population pressure and the special location of population in relation to resources -- in this rough order of importance -- all appear to be important contributions to conflict and violence...

2. Clearly, conflicts which are regarded in primarily political terms often have demographic roots: Recognition of these relationships appears crucial to any understanding or prevention of such hostilities."

[..] Professor Philip Hauser of the University of Chicago has suggested the concept of "population complosion" to describe the situation in many developing countries when (a) more and more people are born into or move into and are compressed in the same living space under (b) conditions and irritations of different races, colours, religions, languages, or cultural backgrounds, often with differential rates of population growth among these groups, and (c) with the frustrations of failure to achieve their aspirations for better standards of living for themselves or their children. To these may be added pressures for and actual international migration.

These population factors appear to have a multiplying effect on other factors involved in situations of incipient violence.

These adverse conditions appear to contribute frequently to harmful developments of a political nature: Juvenile delinquency, thievery and other crimes, organized brigandry, kidnapping and terrorism, food riots, other outbreaks of violence; guerrilla warfare, communal violence, separatist movements, revolutionary movements and counter-revolutionary coupe. All of these bear upon the weakening or collapse of local, state, or national government functions.

Beyond national boundaries, population factors appear to have had operative roles in some past politically disturbing legal or illegal mass migrations, border incidents, and wars. If current increased population pressures continue they may have greater potential for future disruption in foreign relations.

Perhaps most important, in the last decade population factors have impacted more severely than before on availabilities of agricultural land and resources, industrialization, pollution and the environment. All this is occurring at a time when international communications have created rising expectations which are being frustrated by slow development and inequalities of distribution.

Population growth and inadequate resources. Where population size is greater than available resources, or is expanding more rapidly than the available resources, there is a tendency toward internal disorders and violence and, sometimes, disruptive international policies or violence. The higher the rate of growth, the more salient a factor population increase appears to be. A sense of increasing crowding, real or perceived, seems to generate such tendencies, especially if it seems to thwart obtaining desired personal or national goals.

2. Populations with a high proportion of growth. The young people, who are in much higher proportions in many LDCs, are likely to be more volatile, unstable, prone to extremes, alienation and violence than an older population. These young people can more readily be persuaded to attack the legal institutions of the government or real property of the "establishment," "imperialists," multinational corporations, or other ── often foreign ── influences blamed for their troubles.

3. Population factors with social cleavages. When adverse population factors of growth, movement, density, excess, or pressure coincide with racial, religious, color, linguistic, cultural, or other social cleavages, there will develop the most potentially explosive situations for internal disorder, perhaps with external effects. When such factors exist together with the reality or sense of relative deprivation among different groups within the same country or in relation to other countries or peoples, the probability of violence increases significantly.

Butts, Kent (25 April 1994): Environmental Security: A DOD Partnership for Peace ; US Army War College:

[Report on the Dept of Defense effort to create a Proactive Environmental Security Peace Strategy as part of the Fifth Senior Environmental Leadership Conference.]

“Environmental degradation imperils nations' most fundamental aspect of security by undermining the natural support systems on which all of human activity depends.” - Michael Renner, 1989

The DOD environmental security mission has its roots in the fact that environmental problems that lead to instability and contention are being ignored, and U.S. combat forces are becoming involved in the resulting conflict. In addition, DOD's environmental security mission supports the National Security Strategy (NSS) of the United States and must be understood in that context.

As stated by the National Security Strategy, "The stress from environmental challenges is already contributing to political conflict." Recognizing the importance of environmental issues to U.S. national security interests, the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Environmental Security defined DOD's role in environmental security to include "mitigating the impacts of adverse environmental actions leading to international instability."

Instability and conflict often result from the poverty created by the economic regression of resource depletion or scarcity. The abuse of power by the leaders of many developing countries has frequently manifested itself in exploitive resource management practices, a wasting away of the economic infrastructure, human suffering and ethnic-based competition for increasingly scarce resources, and, ultimately, to conflict.

[..] The global population has grown geometrically and will double over the period from 1950 to 2000, bringing environmental issues to the fore. Rates of global population continue to increase, particularly in the vulnerable developing world, accelerating demand for food and a broad range of other natural resources. The global rates of consumption of natural resources are far greater than the ecosystem has previously endured.10 The world is rapidly moving beyond local shortages, which historically have created local conflict, to regional or transboundary resource shortages with the potential to escalate into far reaching hostilities involving U.S. forces. In numerous regions the ability of the earth to replenish its renewable resources, even with the human intervention of irrigation and fertilizer, has already been exceeded. Indeed, these very interventions often create unforeseen, adverse environmental consequences. Thus, the frequently ignored, long-lead-time environmental factors have reached their thresholds and are causing instability that security policy analysts cannot ignore.

[..] The most notable environmental threats to U.S. security are:

• Global: competition for or threatened denial of strategic resources; ozone depletion; global warming; loss of biodiversity; proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; effects of demilitarization of nuclear, chemical, biological and conventional weapons; space debris; and inability or unwillingness of countries to comply with international environmental agreements and standards.

• Regional: environmental terrorism, accident or disaster; vector-borne communicable diseases; regional conflicts caused by scarcity/denial of resources; cross border and global common contamination; and environmental factors affecting military access to land, air, and water.

• State: environmental degradation of the resource base on which governmental legitimacy depends; risks to public health and the environment from DOD activities; increasing restrictions on military operations and access to air, land, and water; inefficient use of military resources; reduced weapons systems performance; demilitarization of nuclear, chemical, and conventional weapons systems; and erosion of public trust.

Recommendations:

• Appoint a special assistant to the National Security Advisor for International Environmental Security Affairs and create an interagency working group, chaired by the Special Assistant, to develop a Presidential Decision Document establishing U.S. environmental security policy.

• Establish environmental security as a principal objective of the National Security Strategy and include environmental issues in National Security Council threat assessments and foreign policy planning.

• Emphasize the linkage between environmental security objectives and the achievement of current, primary congressional and administration interests of democratic reform, economic development, and conflict resolution.

• In conjunction with the United Nations, use DOD capabilities to enforce international treaties and agreements.

• Create a DOD Environmental Crisis Monitoring Center to warn the policymaking community of chronic environmental issues before political positions have hardened and policy options have narrowed.

Department of the Army, Field Manual 100-23, Peace Operations . Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the Army, December 1994, p. 28.

The seventh principle of humanitarian action in armed conflict says: “Contextualization: Effective humanitarian action should encompass a comprehensive view of overall needs and of the impact of interventions. Encouraging respect for human rights and addressing the underlying causes of conflicts are essential elements. (own emphasis)

1995: White House: National Security Strategy :

“Increasing competition for the dwindling reserves of uncontaminated air, arable land, fisheries and other food sources, and water, once considered 'free' goods, is already a very real risk to regional stability around the world. The range of risks serious enough to jeopardize international stability extends to massive population flight from man-made or natural catastrophes, such as Chernobyl or the East African drought, and to large-scale ecosystem damage caused by industrial pollution, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, ozone depletion, desertification, oceanic pollution and ultimately climate change.

April 1996: MAJ William E David, USA Military Intelligence: Environmental Scarcity as a Cause of Violent Conflict , School of Advanced Military Studies; United States Army Command and General Staff College

This monograph argues that the Army is unprepared for the implications of environmental scarcity as a cause of violent conflict. The proof follows in the next three chapters. Chapter Tow provides a conceptual model for examining the causal relationship between environmental scarcity and violent conflict. It shows causation by answering two questions. First, does scarcity cause specific social effects, such as population migration and poverty? Second, so the social effects that result from scarcity cause violent conflict? [..] [This chapter concludes that conflicts arising from environmental scarcity will occur more frequently in the future and threaten U.S. national security interests. Third, does doctrine address conflicts caused by environmental scarcities? The doctrinal review reveals that the Army does not recognize environmental scarcity as a cause of conflict. Chapter Four synthesizes the findings from the preceding chapters, showing that the Army is intellectually unprepared for conflicts caused by environmental scarcity. The monograph ends with two recommendations. First, the Army should recognize environmental causes of war in its doctrine. Second, the Army should adopt the Modified Conflict Causality Model as a doctrinal tool for predicting and evaluating future conflicts.

[..] Humans adversely affect the environment. Contaminated water, deforestation, soil erosion, and the depletion of fisheries are but some of the outcomes. Although few people would disagree with the causation between human activities and environmental degradation, their reactions place them in one of two categories: cornucopians or neo-Malthusians. Cornucopians do not worry about protecting any single natural resource. They believe that human ingenuity will always allow the substitution of more abundant resources to produce the same products and services. Neo-Malthusians put less faith in ingenuity, arguing that "renewable resources' is a misleading term.

[..] The divergence between cornucopians and neo-Malthusians enters into the debate corcerning the causes of conflict. Corncopians remain prisoners of the industrial revolution. They assume that there are only social cuases for social and political changes, neglecting the role of nature. However, Robert Kaplan noted: "nature is coming back with a vengeance, tied to population growth. It will have incredible security implications"[1] Neo-Malthusians realize that humans cannot seperate themselves from nature. The following causality analysis adheres to the neo-Malthusian perspective. therefore, it takes a holistic approahc toward causality, combining conflict studies and the study of the physical environment. After providing a conflict causality model, this chapter uses six case studies to prove that violent conflicts can arise from environmental scarcities.

13 Mar 1997: Col BX Bush: Promoting Environmental Security during Contingency Operations ; US Army War College

“The effect of environmental problems on national security, now commonly referred to as "environmental security," is important to the US military. The concept first appeared in the 1991 National Security Strategy (NSS), when President Bush recognized that the failure to competently manage natural resources could contribute to potential conflict.[1] The 1993 National Security Strategy echoed this concern and included the environment as an element of economic power.[2] When A National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement was published in February 1996, it amplified the importance of the environment as a component of United States national security even further.[3] The 1996 NSS recognizes that competition for natural resources "is already a very real risk to regional stability around the world."[4] It also states that national and international environmental degradation poses a direct threat to economic growth and to global and national security.[5] Thus, as one of the institutions charged with protecting our national security, the US military also should be concerned with all aspects of environmental security.”

“Environmental issues can adversely influence our national security in two important ways. One of these is potential or actual conflict between nations or groups that can arise as a result of disputes over natural resources or transnational environmental problems. A second way that environmental issues can directly affect national security is by destabilizing governments or institutions in a country afflicted with environmental degradation. Haiti is a good example. As early as 1978, the President's Council on Environmental Quality noted that deforestation in Haiti was almost complete and then predicted that social disruption and instability would soon follow.[6] It took 16 more years and a military overthrow of duly elected President Aristide to spark renewed US military involvement in Haiti. However, it is clear that the environmental devastation of that country's forests, soil and water supplies created a cause and effect between environmental issues and Haiti's economic deprivation, massive migration and the basic instability of virtually every economic or governmental institution in the country.”

Spring 1997: Canadian Security Intelligence Service Archived: Commentary No. 71: Environmental Scarcity and Conflict , by Peter Gizewski, Project on Environment Population and Security, Peace and Conflict Studies Program, University of Toronto

The past decade has witnessed growing recognition of the importance of environmental factors for national and international security. In 1987, the UN World Commission on Environment and Development pointed to environmental stress as "a possible cause as well as a result of conflict". In 1992, the UN Security Council warned that sources of instability in the economic, social, humanitarian, and ecological fields included military and political "threats to peace and stability".

Two years later, the Clinton Administration observed that "terrorism, narcotics trafficking, environmental degradation, rapid population growth and refugee flows ...have security implications for present and long-term American policy".

A wealth of popular commentary in the past few years has asserted the existence of general links between environmental stress and violence and security concerns. But proponents of such linkages tend to sensationalise the issue, ignoring empirical research and exaggerating the importance of environmental pressures as a conflict-generating force. In fact, until recently, scholars and policy makers functioned with relatively limited understanding of the causal mechanisms by which environmental scarcity can lead to conflict.

Recent work has yielded results which partially fill this gap. Employing a series of detailed examples in which environment exhibits a prima facie link to social instability, such case studies carefully trace a causal connection between scarcity and conflict, and advance a set of key propositions which describe these links and the conditions under which they apply.

General Insights:

Current work on linkages between environment and conflict emphasizes the conflict-generating potential of renewable resource scarcities (i.e. cropland, fresh water, fuel wood and fish). While the strategic significance of non-renewable resources (e.g. petroleum, minerals) has long been recognized, market forces which reduce their demand and stimulate substitution and technical innovation have served increasingly to mitigate their scarcity and conflict-generating potential. Such forces have been less effective in preventing scarcities of renewables-scarcities which, growing evidence shows, threaten the internal stability of a number of developing countries.

According to the University of Toronto's Thomas Homer-Dixon, scarcities of agricultural land, forests, fresh water and fish are those which contribute the most to violence. These deficiencies can be demand-induced, a function of population growth within a region; supply-induced, resulting from the degradation of resources within the region; or structural, the result of an unequal distribution of resources throughout the society. The three processes are not mutually exclusive and may-and often do-occur simultaneously, acting in tandem.

The degradation and depletion of renewable resources can generate a range of social effects. It can work to encourage powerful groups within society to shift resource distribution in their favour. This process, known as "resource capture" generates profits for elites while intensifying the effects of scarcity among the poor or weak.

A process of "ecological marginalization" often follows with poorer groups forced to seek the means of survival in more ecologically fragile regions such as steep upland slopes, areas at risk of desertification, tropical rain forests, and low quality public lands within urban areas. The high population densities in these regions, combined with a lack of capital to protect the local ecosystem, breeds severe environmental scarcity and chronic poverty.

Other social effects can include decreased agricultural potential, regional economic decline, population displacement and a disruption of legitimized institutions and social relations. Most significantly, these scarcities can, either individually or in combination, generate forces and processes which contribute to violent conflict among groups within society.

Such scarcities may act to strengthen group identities based on ethnic, class or religious differences, most notably by intensifying competition among groups for ever dwindling resources. At the same time, they can work to undermine the legitimacy of the state and its capacity to meet challenges. As the balance of power gradually shifts from the state to the challenging groups, the prospects for violence increase. Such violence tends to be subnational, diffuse and persistent.

States may prove capable of avoiding suffering and social stress by adapting to scarcities. They can pursue programs and policies which encourage more sustainable resource use. Alternatively, a state may disengage itself from reliance on scarce resources by producing goods and services less dependent on such resources. The resulting products could then be traded for items which local scarcities preclude the state from producing. More often, however, countries lack the social and technical ingenuity needed to adapt successfully to the shortages they face.

10 Apr 2000: LTC Kurt F. Ubbelohde: Freshwater Scarcity in the Nile River Basin , US Army War College

“According to a growing body of literature, scarcity of freshwater to meet the many needs of Third World countries is rapidly escalating. Furthermore, many of the remaining exploitable sources of freshwater are in river basins shared by two or more sovereign states. These facts present the potential for violent conflict over water unless affected states can develop and use their common water resources in a cooperative, sustainable, and equitable manner. The United States, in its National Security Strategy and Foreign Affairs Policy, has called attention to the problem of resource scarcity as having important implications for American security.”

Sep 2010: Bundeswehr: Peak Oil: Security Policy Implications of Scarce Resources
Effects of Peak Oil on Armed Forces

Severe impediments to mobility as a consequence of peak oil would have a considerable effect on all German security bodies, including the Bundeswehr.

In the long run, not only all societies and economies worldwide but armed forces as well will be faced with the various and difficult challenges of transformation towards a “post-fossil” age. Implications for Germany: A markedly reduced mobility of the German Armed Forces would have various consequences – not only for the available equipment and training, but also for their (global) power projection and intervention capabilities. Given the size and complexity of many transport and weapon systems as well as the high standards set for qualities like robustness in operation, alternative energy and drive propulsion systems would hardly be available to the necessary extent in the short term. One of the consequences to be initially expected would be further cutbacks in the use of large weapon systems for training purposes in all services, thus raising the need for more “virtualised” training. However, effects on current and planned missions would most likely be even more severe. Deployment to the theatre of operations, the operation of bases and the mission itself are considerably more energy- and above all fuel-intensive than the mere upkeep of armed forces.

[..] Peak oil, however, is unavoidable. This study shows the existence of a very serious risk that a global transformation of economic and social structures, triggered by a long-term shortage of important raw materials, will not take place without frictions regarding security policy. The disintegration of complex economic systems and their interdependent infrastructures has immediate and in some cases profound effects on many areas of life, particularly in industrialised countries.

2010: White House: National Security Strategy :

Challenges like climate change, pandemic disease, and resource scarcity demand new innovation. Meanwhile, the nation that leads the world in building a clean energy economy will enjoy a substantial economic and security advantage. That is why the Administration is investing heavily in research, improving education in science and math, promoting developments in energy, and expanding international cooperation. Transform our Energy Economy: As long as we are dependent on fossil fuels, we need to ensure the security and free flow of global energy resources. But without significant and timely adjustments, our energy dependence will continue to undermine our security and prosperity. This will leave us vulnerable to energy supply disruptions and manipulation and to changes in the environment on an unprecedented scale.

2012: January: Department of Defense: Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for the 21st Century Defense :

In this resource-constrained era, we will also work with NATO allies to develop a “Smart Defense” approach to pool, share, and specialize capabilities as needed to meet 21st century challenges. [..] Whenever possible, we will develop innovative, low-cost, and small-footprint approaches to achieve our security objectives, relying on exercises, rotational presence, and advisory capabilities. [..] A reduction in resources will require innovative and creative solutions to maintain our support for allied and partner interoperability and building partner capacity. However, with reduced resources, thoughtful choices will need to be made regarding the location and frequency of these operations. [..] The balance between available resources and our security needs has never been more delicate.

Dec 2012: U.S. Forest Service: Report Predicts a Strain on Natural Resources Due to Rapid Population Growth .

U.S. Forest Service report outlines how a growing population and increased urbanization in the next 50 years will drain the nation's natural resources including water supplies, open space, and forests.

Agriculture Under Secretary Harris Sherman had this to say about the report: "We should all be concerned by the projected decline in our nation’s forests and the corresponding loss of the many critical services they provide such as clean drinking water, wildlife habitat, carbon sequestration, wood products and outdoor recreation."

Credible Peace Treaty must include National Environmental Security and Peace Strategy, confronting Overpopulation and Overconsumption’s Role in Scarcity as underlying Cause of Conflict:

Nobel Peace Prizes Awarded for Reducing Scarcity: 0
Nobel Peace Prizes Awarded for Reducing Overpopulation: 0
Nobel Peace Prizes Awarded for Reducing Overconsumption: 0
900 Vietnam, 40 Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans returned their ‘bullshit’ medals to U.S. Congress and NATO.
Nobel Peace Laureates returned their War is Peace Whore Medals: 0

The Norwegian Nobel Committee’s Nobel Peace Prize is effectively a ‘War is Peace Whore’ Prize. Its mandate is to award ‘Peace Prizes’ to individuals who "work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

Not one of the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prizes has ever been awarded to any individual who addresses the root causes of war, by educating and advocating on behalf of Sustainable Security: living in harmony with nature’s carrying capacity, by reducing overpopulation and overconsumption, which are the primary causes of resource scarcity.

The Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize Committee has refused to consider the role of overpopulation and overconsumption as root cause factors of resource scarcity pushing society to conflict and war, where surplus populations are used as standing armies, and how those profiteering from overconsumption use their profits to promote pretend peace congresses and pretend Nobel Peace Prizes, awarding War is Peace Whore Prizes to perpetuate the ‘Control of Reproduction’ Human Farming War Economy Racket paradigm.

SA Concourt Endorses Flat Earth ‘War is Peace Whore’ Tragedy of the Constitutional Commons Suicide Pact & SA’s Impending Race War:

The Alien on Pale Blue Dot v. Afriforum, et al Application to the South African Constitutional Court requests a (A) Review of the “Kill Boere” Mediation Agreement order of the Supreme Court of Appeal, Bloemfontein under case number 815/2011 that was Entered into by and between: ANC, Mr. Malema, Afriforum and TAU-SA., as unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous; (B) Review of the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions Anthropocentric Flat Earth Worldview and Tragedy of Constitutional Commons Suicide Pact; and (C) a Declaratory Order that a Credible Proactive Peace Plan requires confronting Peak NNR & Sustainable Security: Scarcity as Cause of Violent Conflict; (D) Alternatively; to order all South African’s to prepare for SA’s Race War in the impending Peak NNR Crisis of Conflict.

Declaring that a Credible Proactive Peace Plan for South Africa requires (a) confronting geopolitical reality of Peak Non-Renewable Resources (NNR) and implementing (b) Sustainable Environmental Security plan in accordance with the Scarcity as cause of Violent Conflict principle, by (c) Determining the answers to the questions:

1. If Peace and conflict are defined not as descriptions of behaviour between nations, but as trends describing social conditions. Put differently: Conflict is not defined as the violence between neighbours and nations, but as the unwanted intrusion of one person’s existence and consumption behaviour upon another person.

2. There are two kinds of conflict: Direct: he took my car, he enslaved me, he beat me, he raped me, he killed me; and Indirect. Indirect intrusions are the by-product of other people's behaviour. ‘All the trees on our island were consumed by our grandparents,’ is an indirect intrusion of a past generation on a present one. ‘The rich people raised the price of gasoline and we can't afford it,’ and ‘The government is offering people welfare to breed more children’ are current economic and demographic intrusions by one present group on another present group.

3. System conflict is the sum of intrusions experienced by each constituent, summed over all the constituents. A measure of the existing global conflict is the sum of six billion sets of intrusions. A measure of South Africa’s conflict is the sum of 50 million sets of intrusions.

4. Using this definition of conflict, to establish whether South Africa’s socio-economic and political system is moving towards peace or towards conflict; based upon the questions:

A. How many children per family leads to peace; or conversely how many children per family, contributes to greater resource scarcity, and exponential increase in conflict, i.e. an individuals’ ‘breeding war combatant’ status? [According to the research of Dr. Jack Alpert , the answer is one child per family]

B. How much consumption relative to the nation’s footprint carrying capacity leads to peace; or conversely how much consumption relative to the nations bio-capacity per person, contributes to greater resource scarcity, and exponential increase in conflict, i.e. an individuals ‘consumption combatant status’?

The application was filed on 28 November 2012, however the Constitutional Court Registrar refuses to process the application, or to provide the Constitutional Court Justices with the appeal of her refusal to process the application.

» » » » [EcoFeminist v Breivik :: (PDF)]