World citizens welcome world government (Part 2)

By Henry Lamb

The United Nations first adopted a "New International Economic Order" in 1974 (A/RES/S-6/3201). It called for a global socialist economic system under the auspices of the United Nations. Fortunately, the United States ignored the idea and it faded away, but it did not die.

In 1995, The U.N.-funded Commission on Global Governance released its final report called, "Our Global Neighborhood." Among the many recommendations made to effect global governance was a call to create a new Economic Security Council. Its jurisdiction would include:

"...long-term threats to security in its widest sense, such as shared ecological crises, economic instability, rising unemployment...mass poverty...and the promotion of sustainable development."

The U.S. representative on the Commission on Global Governance was Adele Simmons, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Before he left office, President Bush called a meeting of the G20 to set the agenda for an April meeting in London. They hope to create a global system to finally control the global economy. Whatever the structure that comes out of the meeting, it will likely be empowered to control the global economy and to connect economic actions with ecological and social justice issues as well — just as prescribed by the Commission on Global Governance.

The creation of the World Trade Organization went a long way toward giving a "world body" power to regulate trade. The United States ceded significant sovereignty when it agreed to conform its rules and laws to the dictates of this U.N. agency.

The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the Bank of International Settlements are not yet run by the consensus of boards arbitrarily appointed by the U.N. And so far, the U.N. has not been able to find a way to siphon off a revenue stream from international currency exchange. But this could change beginning with the April 2 meeting in London.

Already, European leaders are making noises about tighter international control over the global economy. Among the ideas advanced in the past are things such as U.N. licensing and even tighter regulation of international trade; U.N. representation in the board rooms of international corporations; and international taxation for the privilege of doing business globally.

Whoever controls the flow of money controls the activity of those who have money, as well as those who want it. For example, whatever international economic structure may arise can insist that a nation adopt U.N.-prescribed global warming goals as a condition for participating in economic flows. This new international economic structure could dictate tax rates, interest rates, and credit terms.

This proposed international economic structure could sap the last vestige of sovereignty from the United States. Aside from Ron Paul and Glenn Beck on the FOX News Chanel, there is very little concern being expressed by the media or by politicians.

Global Governance is at the world's doorstep. Gustav Speth, who served on Bill Clinton's transition team before being appointed to head the U.N. Development program told a 1997 global conference that:

"Global governance is here, here to stay, and, driven by economic and environmental globalization, global governance will inevitably expand."

Strobe Talbott, Bill Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State, said in Time magazine:

"...within the next hundred years...nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority."

Both Speth and Talbott are members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury, and Lawrence Summers, the President's Chief Economic Advisor, will represent the United States at the G20 meeting in April. Both are members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, publicly endorsed world government when she praised Walter Cronkite for his work that earned him the World Federalist Association's "Global Governance" award.

Throughout the Clinton years, and the Bush years, members of the Council on Foreign Relations have pushed to advance global governance. Opposition in the House and Senate, and sometimes, an obstinate President Bush, blocked U.S. participation in the Kyoto Protocol, the International Criminal Court, the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the imposition of a U.N. tax on international currency exchange.

Opposition to global governance has diminished in Congress and has vanished from the White House. With eyes wide open, the United States is welcoming global governance. This administration, with approval of the majority of Congress, will cede our sovereignty to an international system that is beyond accountability and devoid of morality. The U.N. is eager to fund its nefarious adventures with money placed under its care by those who bought the promise of hope and blindly voted for change.

Once the U.N. has an independent revenue stream to fund its "peacekeepers," forces which can enforce treaties and the decrees of the International Criminal Court, there will be no force on earth with the power to overthrow it. When the United States realizes the true cost global governance, it will be much too late. The U.N. will control the flow of both money and energy available to the United States.

Obama and the current Congressional majority will be long gone, leaving the next generation to curse their parent's stupidity — and only wonder what freedom was.

© Henry Lamb