GlobalismТs Growing Grasp

Open Admissions

But the accumulation of power in the hands of a world authority is no fantasy Ч and neither is the patient planning behind it. Strangely, admissions to this effect are no longer buried in Insider publications but are appearing with greater frequency in the mainstream media, the same media that warns against Уconspiracy theoriesФ and Уanti-governmentФ extremists.

Consider, as Exhibit A, the cover story in the January 17th issue of The New Republic. The provocative headline on the cover states: УAmerica is surrendering its sovereignty to a world government. Hooray.Ф Inside, teaser copy above a less descriptive title (УContinental DriftФ) proclaims: УWorld government is coming. Deal with it.Ф The author of the piece, Robert Wright, notes that, Уin recent years, more and more people have raised the specter of world governmentФ and have sensed Уan alarming concentration of planetary power in one or more acronyms: WTO, U.N., IMF, and so forth.Ф УOf course,Ф he continues, Уthese people Е are widely considered fringe characters Ч flaky, if not loony. And their eccentric visions have been punctured by legions of sober observers.Ф

However, says Wright, Уthis may be one of those cases when the flaky are closer to the truth than the sober. Much power now vested in the nation-state is indeed starting to migrate to international institutions, and one of these is the WTO [World Trade Organization]. This doesnТt mean that two or three decades from now weТll see world government in the classic sense of the term Ч a single, central planetary authority. But world government of a meaningful if more diffuse sort is probably in the cards.... And, whatТs more, itТs a good idea.Ф To the contrary, itТs not a Уgood ideaФ; it would become less diffuse over time; and it would be used as an instrument of authoritarian control by the would-be rulers of the world. But if Wright were to adopt those conclusions, he would instantly be regarded as an exponent of УextremismФ rather than of Уrespectable opinion.Ф

For Exhibit B, consider globalist Henry GrunwaldТs candid admissions in his January 1st Wall Street Journal op-ed article entitled УA World Without a Country?Ф and subtitled УNot right away. But the idea of the nation-state is in for some profound changes.Ф Grunwald, former editor in chief of Time Inc. and former U.S. ambassador to Austria, is a member of the nongovernmental Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a pillar of the American establishment and a promoter of global governance. In his Journal article, Grunwald predicts that the Уnation-state will undergo sharp limitations of its sovereigntyФ and that, Уjust as the old, petty principalities had to dissolve into the wider nation-state, the nation-state will have to dissolve into wider structures.Ф Moreover: У[I]t will be increasingly difficult for the future nation-state to argue that its treatments of its own citizens is a purely internal matter. Less dramatic forms of international law will also increasingly restrain the nation-state, touching on environment, drugs, communications, air and ocean traffic.Ф

Grunwald imagines that the Уnation-stateФ will continue to exist in this emerging new world order, if only to provide an appearance of flags and nationhood. У[P]eople need more from a state than practical services,Ф he reasons. УThey need inspiration and some sort of spiritual uplift. That is why the forms and trappings of the nation-state will be with us for a long time, although perhaps only as a kind of ceremonial show business.Ф

For Exhibit C, consider veteran newsman Walter CronkiteТs call for Уan international rule of lawФ in his January 28th interview on the BBC. Cronkite, who anchored the CBS evening news program for almost 20 years, has been referred to by the BBC and others as УAmericaТs most trusted man.Ф In his interview, he stated that Уwe need not only an executive to make international law, but we need the military forces to enforce that law and the judicial system to bring the criminals to justice....Ф The УAmerican people are going to begin to realize that perhaps they are going to have to yield some sovereignty to an international body to enforce world law,Ф he predicted, Уand I think thatТs going to come to other people as well.Ф

Clinton Connection

In his clarion calls for world government, Cronkite is not waxing philosophical about what he hopes will evolve over the next millennium. Last October 19th, when he accepted the World Federalist AssociationТs (WFAТs) УNorman Cousins Global Governance Award,Ф he implored his fellow one-worlders: УWe cannot defer this responsibility to posterity. Time will not wait. Democracy, civilization itself, is at stake. Within the next few years we must change the basic structure of our global community from the present anarchic system of war and ever more destructive weaponry to a new system governed by a democratic UN federation.Ф He also stated that Уthe first priority of humankind in this era is to establish an effective system of world lawФ and that Уwe must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government patterned after our own government with a legislature, executive and judiciary, and police....Ф

On the occasion of the WFAТs tribute to Cronkite, First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton congratulated him for having received the Global Governance Award. У[T]hank you Walter, thank you for inspiring all of us to build a more peaceful and just world,Ф she gushed. УWe are still listening to your every word. And with your continuing leadership, we can sail across these unnavigated seas into the 21st century. And thereТs no better captain I can imagine, than you.Ф

УFor more than a generation in America, it wasnТt the news, until Walter Cronkite, told us it was the news,Ф Hillary recalled. УFor decades you told us, Сthe way it is.Т But tonight we honor you for fighting for Сthe way it could be.ТФ Never mind that the cause for which Cronkite was being honored was the cause of world government, and world government would mean the loss of the U.S. Constitution Ч the document to which her husband had sworn allegiance.

But President Clinton himself had already praised an earlier recipient of the Norman Cousins Global Governance Award, then-U.S. Ambassador at Large Strobe Talbott, for having earned this УdistinguishedФ honor. That praise came in the form of a written statement dated June 22, 1993, which was read at the award ceremony two days later. Therein Mr. Clinton approvingly noted that WFA founder Norman Cousins had Уworked for world peace and world governmentФ and that TalbottТs Уlifetime achievements as a voice for global harmony have earned him this recognition.Ф

The previous year Talbott had written an article for Time magazine entitled УThe Birth of the Global NationФ (July 20, 1992 issue), wherein he argued the case for world government. He also gave his forecast of the future: Уnationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority.Ф У[I]t has taken the events in our own wondrous and terrible century to clinch the case for world government,Ф he said.

TalbottТs advocacy for world government did not prevent President Clinton from inviting him into his administration, where he now serves as Deputy Secretary of State. How could it? Both Talbott and Clinton are members of the world-government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations, as are almost 500 other U.S. government officials. In addition, both are also Уmembers in public serviceФ of the Trilateral Commission, an even more exclusive establishmentarian club greasing the skids for global governance.

The WTO and Beyond

President Clinton explicitly referred to Уworld governmentФ in his written statement to the WFA. In more public settings, he has not been so explicit, preferring instead to use more innocuous-sounding terminology such as Уglobalization.Ф His meaning is clear enough, however, for those observers who know how to read between the lines.

In his January 29th address to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Mr. Clinton stated that Уgreater economic integration and political cooperation are positive forces.Ф And in case any of the assembled political, business, and economic leaders were in doubt as to his meaning of УintegrationФ and УcooperationФ (Mr. Clinton, as we know, sometimes assigns novel meanings to ordinary words), he called for Уrules-based tradeФ under a strengthened WTO. У[W]e all have to play by the rules and abide by the WTO decisions,Ф he added, Уwhether we win or whether we lose.Ф That is, nations must not be allowed to set their own trade policies but must instead abide by the dictates of the WTO.

Mr. ClintonТs vision for global regulation extends far beyond trade. УThose who believe globalization is only about market economics Е are wrong...,Ф he said. УWe have a well-developed WTO for dealing with the trade issues. We donТt have very well-developed institutions for dealing with the social issues, the environmental issues, the labor issues, and no forum within which they can all be integrated.Ф And that, Mr. Clinton complained, is why people were Уin the streetsФ protesting the WTO.

Last October 8th, Mr. Clinton made an appearance at the first Forum of Federation Conference in Mont-Tremblant, Canada, to talk about Уthe ways we in the United States are working to renew and redefine federalismФ and how he sees Уthe whole concept of federalism emerging internationally.Ф Mr. Clinton told the assembly, УIt is fitting that the first global conference would be held here in North America, because federalism began here Ч a founding principle forged in the crucible of revolution, enshrined in the Constitution of the United States....Ф Yet the new species of federalism he envisions for the 21st century is not confined to the division of powers within the borders of nations but entails global federation. Predicting that there will be Уmore [of this species of] federalism rather than less in the years ahead,Ф he cited Уas Exhibit A the European Union [EU].Ф

As Mr. Clinton put it, the EU is Уa new form of federalism, where the states Ч in this case, the nations of Europe Ч are far more important and powerful than the federal government [of Europe], but they are giving enough functions over to the federal government to sort of reinforce their mutual interest in an integrated economy, and in some integrated political circumstances.Ф What he did not mention is that the EU is gradually becoming more powerful than the individual nations of Europe, in much the same way that the U.S. government has gradually usurped powers that, in our federal system, are reserved to the states.

The United States of Europe

The EU did not acquire its present powers instantly but in a series of steps that began decades ago. It was once known as the Common Market but was renamed the European Economic Community, then the European Community, then the European Union as its powers accumulated. In the beginning it was presented to Western Europeans as a Уfree tradeФ arrangement designed to facilitate the flow of goods and people Ч much as the more recent WTO and NAFTA arrangements are being presented. But instead of genuine free trade the incipient European government put in place a system of regulated trade and established a single European currency known as the euro. This economic unification is now leading to political unification.

This expanded role for the EU was not accidental. THE NEW AMERICAN accurately projected the lines when it warned in its April 10, 1989 issue: Уthe much-touted Сfree-market reformsТ are really only bait laid out to entice Europeans into the trap of an (eventually) all-powerful supranational government.Ф That same year a European Community document admitted: Уeconomic integration is not meant to be an end in itself but merely an intermediate stage on the road to political integration.Ф Now, says Henry Grunwald in his Journal op-ed article, УBrussels [the seat of the EU] prescribes everything from working conditions to the contents of cheese. More astonishingly, the euro is replacing once-sacrosanct national currencies. The process will repeat itself elsewhere in the world.Ф (Emphasis added.)

ThatТs the idea, of course. Robert Wright predicts in The New Republic that УWTO rulings will probably become more binding, whether through sheer custom or through tougher sanctions.Ф But in so doing, УThe WTO isnТt breaking new ground.... ItТs following in the footsteps of a body thatТs much further down the road of supranational governance: the European Union.Ф It is not surprising, therefore, that the globalist President in the White House sees the EU as a model for other regional and global trade arrangements such as NAFTA and the WTO. Nor is it surprising that Mr. Clinton supports these stepping stones to regional and global governance Ч or that he is now calling for an expansion of WTO powers to include international labor standards, a significant step made more politically palatable by the demands of the labor union demonstrators in Seattle. Wright is on target when he observes: УFor an American president to say that global laws on the treatment of workers should be enforced with real sanctions authorized by a worldwide body was a milestone in the evolution of global governance.Ф

A Government of the World

The WTO is just one of the planks in the house of world order that is now being erected. Writing in the April 1974 issue of the CFR journal Foreign Affairs, Richard N. Gardner explained that this house Уwill have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great Сbooming, buzzing confusion,Т Е but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.Ф

Gardner specifically mentioned seeking new rules Уfor the conduct of international trade,Ф and a strengthening of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), as intermediate steps on the road to world order. (Years later a new GATT agreement gave birth to the WTO.) But he listed a number of other steps as well, including Уa continued strengthening of the new global and regional agencies charged with protecting the worldТs environmentФ and a revitalization of the International Monetary Fund. УIn short,Ф he wrote, Уthe case-by-case approach can produce some remarkable concessions of СsovereigntyТ that could not be achieved on an across-the-board basis.Ф

GardnerТs article, entitled УThe Hard Road to World Order,Ф was not written to the uninitiated but to his fellow CFR coterie. His desire for world government, and his piece-by-piece approach for achieving it, no doubt УqualifiedФ him for the several foreign policy posts he has held over the years, including U.S. ambassador to Spain in the Clinton administration.

If all goes according to plan, the United Nations will become the nucleus of the incipient world government, around which the other globalist bodies would revolve. Of course, the UN was not originally established as a government, any more than the European Common Market was. But the UN was originally established as the framework for a world government. In 1950, globalist insider John Foster Dulles, who later became U.S. Secretary of State in the Eisenhower administration, revealed as much when he wrote in his book War or Peace: УThe United Nations represents not a final stage in the development of world order, but only a primitive stage. Therefore its primary task is to create the conditions which will make possible a more highly developed organization.Ф UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan expressed a similar view in a speech at UN headquarters on January 14th of this year, when he stated that Уa framework of international law has [already] been builtФ during the UNТs first half-century.

According to Annan, УLocal communities have their fire departments and town councils. Nations have their courts and legislatures. In todayТs interdependent world, the peoples of the world must have the rules and institutions they need to manage their lives....Ф By this he meant world government, as he had made even clearer a month earlier, in a December 14, 1999 press conference: Уevery community needs rules. The international community needs them as much as a local community or a district.... [T]he challenge on the global level Ч what I will call global governance Ч is something that is going to confront us all very, very starkly.Ф

In his January 14th speech, Annan called for Уa new, more broadly defined, more widely conceived definition of national interestФ Ч a definition based on the premise that, Уin a growing number of challenges facing humanity, the collective interest is often the national interest.Ф (Emphasis added.) One area in which the UN has been increasingly active in redefining the national interest as the collective is the area of human rights. УWhere once these humanitarian crises might have been considered internal matters,Ф said Annan in his January 14th speech, Уtoday the balance seems to be shifting Ч shifting towards an international community willing to uphold human rights for all.Ф Based on this doctrine, the UN has intervened many times over the years in the internal affairs of nations, from the tragedy of Katanga in the 1960s to that of Somalia in this decade. The UN, though, also seeks to intervene based on criteria other than so-called human rights. Those criteria include the environment, disarmament, discrimination, drug trafficking, and terrorism Ч all of which, according to Annan, are Уproblems without borders.Ф If Kofi Annan is allowed to make his grandiose vision for the UN a reality, it would be hard to imagine any human endeavor falling outside the UNТs jurisdiction.

Step-by-step Usurpation

Kofi AnnanТs rantings notwithstanding, the only way the UN could ever gain control over the United States would be for U.S. leaders to surrender power to the UN. For this reason, the unchecked globalist policies of President Clinton are far more troubling than those of Annan.

But the U.S. governmentТs globalist agenda existed long before Mr. ClintonТs rise to power. In 1961, President John F. Kennedy submitted to the UN a three-stage disarmament proposal entitled Freedom From War (a.k.a. State Department Publication 7277). It stipulated: УIn Stage III progressive controlled disarmament and continuously developing principles and procedures of international law would proceed to a point where no state [nation] would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force....Ф The following year this same subversive scheme was incorporated into another State Department document entitled Blueprint for the Peace Race, and in that form has remained the official policy of the U.S. government ever since.

In 1978, the UN General Assembly adopted by consensus a UN document on disarmament known as the Final Document. Not surprisingly, it stipulated a policy similar to that of the U.S. In the words of the Final Document: УGeneral and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control shall permit States to have at their disposal only those non-nuclear forces, armaments, facilities and establishments as are agreed to be necessary to maintain internal order and protect the personal security of citizens and in order that States shall support and provide agreed manpower for a United Nations peace force.Ф

Were the UN to acquire the military clout stipulated by both U.S. and UN documents, it would be more powerful than any national government. Although that has not yet occurred, a dangerous step in that direction is the use of American forces as a surrogate army for the UN or NATO (the latter a regional arrangement authorized by the UN Charter). Such was the case when Mr. Bush sent U.S. forces to Iraq, and such was the case when Mr. Clinton sent U.S. forces to Kosovo. Other dangerous UN usurpations to watch out for include:

An International Criminal Court (ICC): The U.S. has not ratified the ICC treaty, which would go into effect when ratified by 60 nations. Nonetheless, according to the treaty the ICC would possess the authority to arrest and try citizens of any country Ч regardless of whether or not the country agreed to the treaty. This would include American soldiers accused of war crimes.
Global environmental controls: The UNТs 1992 УEarth SummitФ in Rio de Janeiro approved a mammoth proposal known as Agenda 21, which would regulate myriad activities to achieve Уsustainable developmentФ and cost hundreds of billions of dollars to implement. The UNТs proposed Kyoto (global warming) treaty, not ratified by the United States, would mandate a radical reduction in so-called greenhouse gases in the developed nations, thereby restricting industrial production.
Global gun control: The UNТs УReport of the Group of Governmental Experts on Small Arms,Ф submitted by Annan to the UN General Assembly on August 19th of last year, recommends that nations Уexercise effective control over the legal possession of small arms [including revolvers],Ф and Уconsider the prohibition of unrestricted trade and private ownership of small arms and light weapons specifically designed for military purposes....Ф
International taxation: The United Nations Development ProgramТs (UNDPТs) Human Development Report 1999 suggests a number of taxing schemes, including Уpolluter-pays charges on global pollutionФ; Уrents or royalties on the use of such Сglobal commonsТ as under-seabed mineral resources or radio wavesФ; Уtaxes on such items as international air ticketsФ; Уa charge on short-term financial movementsФ Ч and even a УСbit taxТ Е on the amount of data sent through the Internet.Ф

The Human Development Report also proposes a global central bank, a world environment agency, an expanded mandate for the WTO, and Уa two-chamber General Assembly to allow for civil society representation.Ф The latter proposal would create the appearance of a УdemocraticФ UN, exercising its authority in the name of all of humanity.

Get US out!

Appearances aside, a world government under the UN would be a nightmare, not a blessing, for mankind. A single planetary authority powerful enough to enforce world peace would also be powerful enough to enforce world tyranny. The latter would be the inevitable consequence, not only because such an extraordinary concentration of power would have an extraordinary corrupting influence, but also because of the despotic regimes that infect the UN and the flawed nature of the UN system itself.

In the American constitutional system, powers are divided between the states and the federal government Ч with the latter possessing few powers, all of which are enumerated. Those enumerated powers are further divided among three branches of government, and those branches possess constitutional means to check each other. The UN does not possess these kinds of constitutional safeguards to prevent the abuse of power. Moreover, UN human rights declarations are in actuality socialist manifestos calling for a vast expansion of government power. What corrupt politicians have thus far been able to accomplish in subverting the American constitutional system would be minuscule compared to what they could accomplish in a socialistic world government.

In fact, the absorption of America into such a world government would mean the elimination of the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the very existence of the American republic. Moreover, it would mean the unbridled exercise of raw power resulting in untold death and misery.

Fortunately, the means to save the American republic from the increasingly open UN conspiracy were wisely bequeathed to posterity by the Founding Fathers in the form of the Constitution and the U.S. Congress. It is now more important than ever for the American people to use these tools to preserve a legacy of independence and freedom by urging their senators and representatives to Get US out! of the United Nations.


			© 2004 http://www.stoptheftaa.org/