Personal Update Article
Creating a New World Order:
The U.N. Millennium Forum: Reinvention of Global Government
by John Loeffler, World Affairs Editor
Over the last decade, the United Nations has unabashedly been reinventing itself
into a global government, striving to obtain
the legal teeth and financial resources to implement its policies. Government
reinvention is frequently an effort to avoid the
consequences of failed policies in the past, or to justify a government's continued
expansion by posing solutions to the
problems it has created.
Historically, government never downsizes voluntarily; it always increases its power
and minimizes accountability to its citizens.
This is one reason bloody and non-bloody revolutions have been fought throughout
history.
In 1995, the United Nations Commission on Global Governance published a report
entitled, Our Global Neighborhood , 1
which called for a World Conference on Global Governance, to have been originally
held in 1998 but which never
materialized. The Commission made a number of eye-opening recommendations
for changes to the United Nations,
including:2
o A system of global taxation;
o A standing U.N. army;
o A Court of Criminal Justice;
o Expanded authority for the Secretary General;
o An Economic Security Council;
o U.N. authority over the global commons (especially the oceans and all areas of
sovereign territories that influence the
oceans);
o An end to the veto power of permanent Security Council members;
o A new parliamentary body of "civil society" representatives (NGOs).3
The report denied it was supporting "global government," preferring the term "global
governance," but its contents reveal all
elements required for a genuine government. Besides, a little reflection yields the
following question: How can one have
global "governance" without global "government"?
It has been argued that the Commission was not an official body of the U.N. "It
was, however, endorsed by the U.N.
Secretary General and funded through two trust funds of the United Nations
Development Program (UNDP), nine national
governments, and several foundations, including the MacArthur Foundation, the
Ford Foundation, and the Carnegie
Corporation."4
The foundations involved have been promoting globalism and socialism for years.
Although no conference was ever held,
implementation of the Commission's recommendations are well under way.
Global taxation, such as the proposed Tobin tax, will free the U.N. from relying on
members' dues for financial income. A
U.N. standing army, once made possible by global taxation, will establish the U.N.
as a military power in its own right, not
dependant on the armed forces of member countries.
The dream of an international court of criminal justice was accomplished two years
ago in July of 1998 (in Rome) when the
International Criminal Court was created. The court claims jurisdiction over all
countries of the world, even those which do
not ratify the implementation treaty. The Court believes its verdicts to be binding on
all countries.
Expanded authority for the Secretary General will convert him to a global prime
minister. The economic security council will
manage international finances. Regulation of global trade is already under way
through another nongovernmental organization,
the World Trade Organization (WTO) via the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade (GATT).
Note that GATT was in reality a treaty, which should have been ratified by the U.S.
Senate. However, public outcry would
likely have prevented ratification so calling it an "agreement" executed an end-run on
that necessity.
Eliminating the veto power of permanent Security Council members (the U.S., Great
Britain, Russia, China, etc.) creates
equity; thereafter it's one nation, one vote and no vetoes if you don't like the
outcome of world opinion.
The Millennium Assembly: Formation of a World Parliament
The next big item on the U.N. agenda is a new parliamentary body of "civil society"
representatives scheduled this September
when the U.N. People's Millennium Assembly begins. The Assembly's purpose is
to create a global parliament.
On May 25, 2000, a preliminary workshop on the forum was held, featuring Dr.
Andrew Strauss, currently involved in
hammering out the structure of the "people's parliament," along with Jim Garrison,
President of the Gorbachev Foundation in
San Francisco, California. In an interview with Joan Veon, Dr. Strauss said:
...we could think of this meeting symbolically, where civil society has been officially
called in to have this meeting at
the U.N. as the end of the "old paradigm." And what is the old paradigm of
sovereignty? It says "citizens, if they are
going to be represented at the international level, are going to be represented
through their states"...I think perhaps if
the very meaning is about anything, it is about the end of that order; that citizens
want to be directly represented at
the international order; that the old idea of sovereignty of politics for citizens within
or between states is over. That
leaves us with a very big question which we are far from resolving, and that is how
citizens should be represented.5
According to Dr. Strauss, the old idea of national sovereignty is out. Local
lawmaking bodies will be bypassed. The new
parliament will begin as an advisory body, but the ultimate goal is to convert it into a
global lawmaking body. Currently it is
uncertain how members of the world body will be elected. Several proposals have
been placed on the table:
o Establishing some kind of consultative assembly of parliamentarians to which
parliaments all over the world would appoint
representatives.
o Creating a consultative assembly consisting of nonelected NGO organizations,
which already provide input to the U.N.
major conferences.
o An assembly directly elected by all the people of the world.
o Direct democracy by way of the Internet, so that any "world citizen" could vote on
any items they could so choose at any
time.6 This would probably be an electronic form of the ancient Greek
"mobocracy."
Global Government Rising
The issues driving the "need" for the global government are often genuine or
over-hyped issues such as environment, war,
children's issues, weapons of mass destruction, genocide, justice and equity, et al.
However genuine the problems, 20th
century history teaches that evil frequently rides on the back of a white horse: the
solution to a real problem that becomes far
worse and abusive than the original problem ever was.
Global government has been a long time in coming, supported by a wide panoply of
luminaries over the years. Our Global
Neighborhood said the surrender of sovereignty is "a principle that will yield only
slowly and reluctantly to the imperatives of
global environmental cooperation." 7
Sixty years ago, famed globalist H.G. Wells in his book, The New World Order,
put it another way: "Countless people...will
hate the New World Order [his words]...and will die protesting against it...we have
to bear in mind the distress of a generation
or so of malcontents..." 8 Bottom line: globalists recognize that the new order will
have to be shoved down a lot of people's
throats whether they like it or not.
According to Henry Lamb of EcoLogic, "the foundation of global governance is a
set of core values, a belief system, which
contains ideas that are foreign to the American experience and ignores other values
and ideas that are precious to the
American experience. The values and ideas articulated in the Commission's report
are not new. They have been tried, under
different names, in other societies. Often, the consequences have been
devastating."9
These values, which we would label socialist at best and Marxist at worst, have
consistently appeared in U.N. documents
since the late 1980s. Appearing with repackaged names, they have dominated all
international conferences, agreements, and
treaties. Marxist transfer-of-wealth schemes, the demonization of capitalism,
enforced equity among peoples, etc. are all part
and parcel of the new globalist rhetoric.
As global government is locked into place, people should understand that the legal
safeguards against government abuse do
not exist at the international level nor are there plans to create them. The political
bent of the U.N. has always been toward
socialist ideology and the concept that government is all good, all knowing. The
rights enshrined in the U.S. Bill of Rights -
property and financial rights, freedom of speech and religion, the right to bear arms
against invaders and abusive government,
protection against double jeopardy, trial by a jury of one's peers, right to petition for
redress of grievances, et al. - do not exist
in the same form at the U.N. level.
Where the U.N. appears to guarantee rights, there are often "weasel words," which
allow the so-called rights to be set aside
at the will of government. As always, the devil is in the details - literally.
Article 19, Paragraph 1 and 2 of the U.N.'s International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights states:
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include
freedom to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or
in print, in the form of art, or through any
other media of his choice."10
So far, everything sounds good. But read Paragraph 3:
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in Paragraph 2 of this article carries with it
special duties and responsibilities. It may
therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are
provided by law and are necessary (a) For
respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) For the protection of national
security or of public order (ordre public), or of
public health or morals."11
So the right to freedom of speech can be limited any time a state believes it to be in
its own best interests or to protect its own
corrupt politicians. The "weasel words" of Paragraph 3 destroy the guarantees of
Paragraphs 1 and 2.
Another example: The U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) lays
out what seems to be a wonderful
series of rights, similar to the U.S. Bill of Rights. Article 18 of the UDHR upholds
"the right to freedom of thought, conscience
and religion...." Article 19 affirms "the right to freedom of opinion and
expression...and to seek, receive and impart information
and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Sounds great! But then Article 29 states that "these rights and freedoms may in no
case be exercised contrary to the purposes
and principles of the United Nations." In other words, these "rights" or "freedoms"
don't apply to politically incorrect people
who refuse to conform to U.N. policies. What is the purpose of freedom of speech
if not to openly discuss and critique
government? According to U.N. ideology, that won't be tolerated. The U.N. has a
track record of showing zero tolerance
toward those who oppose its goals.
Americans, Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders are unaware of how
radical the internationalist agendas really are,
and how they are filtering through each of their governments with the full
cooperation of many in them. Implementation is slow
but inexorable everywhere. Some are becoming aware that something is going
amiss, but few have a clue as to the origin of
the changes that will shortly affect their lives and religious belief systems.
The entire push to globalism has tremendous significance for Christians for several
reasons. First, we are witnessing the
formation of what the Bible predicted 2,000 years ago: a (somewhat) unified
universal political, financial and religious system.
Christians note that the new global paradigm has a moral and religious component
that will not tolerate opposition or dissent
by religious factions that do not agree with it!
Let's say it again: the new globalism will not leave the Christian church alone. It will
use legal and other pressures to co-opt,
coerce, or eliminate religious groups to force them into conformity to the new ideals
or go out of business. Unlike secular
humanism, the new global pantheistic socialism will not leave the church alone! No
clearer warning can be sounded as to the
dangers to faith on the road ahead.
Thus our closing caveat: no matter how slow the implementation-given the current
course-when the changes are all done, they
will be binding on all by artifice of law, international treaty and internal regulation
conforming to the dictates of the United
Nations, against which citizens of the world will have little established methods of
recourse or redress.
* * *
For more information on United Nations policies and how they will affect us, we
recommend the following sites:
www.crossroad.to, www.freedom.org, www.sovereignty.org, and www.un.org.
Notes:
1."Our Global Neighborhood," Oxford University Press, 1995, ISBN
0-19-827998-3.
2.Lamb, Henry, "Report of the Commission on Global Governance: Our Global
Neighborhood,", Jan/Feb, 1996.
3.Non-governmental organizations. These are private organizations, which are
granted NGO status by the United Nations
and which have tremendous influence at U.N. conferences for creating and
implementing treaties and policy.
4.Op cit , Lamb, Henry.
5.Veon, Joan, Workshop on Civil Society and Partnerships with the U.N.,
Transcribed interview with Dr. Andrew
Strauss, May 25, 2000.
6.Ibid.
7.Op Cit .
8.Buchanan, Pat, "The Millennium Conflict: America First of World
Government," Speech to the Boston World Affairs
Council, January 6, 2000. Citing H.G. Wells's book, The New World Order .
9.Op cit . Lamb, Henry.
10.International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, U.N.T.S. No. 14668, vol
999 (1976), p. 171.
11.Ibid
Taken from Personal Update NewsJournal from Koinonia House.
Call 1-800-KHOUSE-1 to order your free one year subscription!
Visit http://www.khouse.org/ for more great articles like this one!
