Montréal,  5 février 2000  /  No 55
<< page précédente 
Ralph Maddocks is a retired textile executive and former management consultant. He lives in Cowansville.
by Ralph Maddocks
          For many years now, stealthily and largely unpublicised by the mainstream press, small moves here and there have been taking place with a view to putting in place a World Government. A government to which each country would presumably have to surrender its sovereignty. 
          The concept of World Government is not new, the term has been bandied about for years and when the United Nations was set up after the Second World War many saw it as the forerunner of such a government. Indeed if you listened to a recent comment by Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary, you could be forgiven for thinking that it was already here. Mr Annan stated that only the UN Security Council can authorise the international use of force; and that a nation's sovereignty no longer protects it from intervention should the UN determine that human rights are being violated. Although he doesn't seem to think this applies to Russia's recent intervention in Chechnya, for some undisclosed reason. 
          The UN was set up as a forum for discussing and settling disputes and Mr Annan is simply an employee of that body and not Prime Minister of the World. Under its charter, the UN was established « to maintain international peace and security »; « to develop friendly relations among nations »; and « to achieve international cooperation in solving ... economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian [problems] » and in « encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms ». Members are pledged to fulfill the obligations they have assumed, to settle international disputes by peaceful means, to refrain from the threat or use of force, to assist the UN in actions ordered under the charter and to refrain from assisting any country against which such UN action is being taken, and to act according to the charter's principles. 
UN multistandard 
          Other incidents too have taken place in recent times which, largely unpublicised, point in the same general direction. To name a couple of such incidents. Two years ago a representative of the UN Human Rights Commission visited the United States on a mission to inspect US prisons to see if they were up to UN standards. He visited prisoners on death row to see if their human rights had been violated. This gentleman, one Bacre Waly Ndiaye comes, as his name would suggest, from a continent where human rights rarely seem to be anyone's concern including the UN. Places such as Rwanda, the Congo, Biafra and other parts of Africa spring to mind as examples which seemingly might confirm that view. Yet, here was a man insisting that he had a right to investigate US prisons because the « UN Human Rights Commission speaks for the world » and is a higher authority than the USA. He further justified his claim by saying that he had the right to conduct such inspections based upon the 1992 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, signed by then President George Bush. 
          More recently the US-Mexico border was visited by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson. Mrs Robinson claimed that the heavy presence of the US Border Patrol at the more accessible crossing points was « forcing » illegal immigrants to take more perilous routes into the United States. An interesting concept. « Forcing » people who are trying to enter a country illegally to seek more perilous routes is a violation of their human rights. Really! 
     « A global government could only deliver world peace and harmony at the expense of the freedom of everyone to live their lives the way they want. » 
          Sometime in the 1970's President Carter's later Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote « A global consciousness is for the first time beginning to manifest itself…we are witnessing the emergence of transnational elites…composed of international businessmen, scholars, professional men and public officials. The ties of these new elites cut across national boundaries, their perspectives are not confined by national traditions…and their interests are more functional than national. » He warned also that the rise of this new elite could be derailed by the « politically activated masses, » whose « nativism could work against the cosmopolitan elites ». A clear indication that the creation of any kind of New World Order would have to be achieved by stealth.  
          Over the last few years the politically alert will have noticed references being made, by various politicians and even some trusted spokesmen, to « a single global authority », the current US president declaring himself, last year, to be « a citizen of the world ». Walter Cronkite, allegedly the « Most Trusted Man in America », saying things such as « we must strengthen the United nations as a first step toward a world government… » he added that the US should surrender its power of veto in the United Nations.  
          The World Trade Organisation which, recently, was the subject of attack from various opposition groups in Seattle gives each country one vote out of 135 and prevents the negotiation of reciprocal trade agreements. The Kyoto treaty on global warming which requires the major developed countries, including the USA and Canada, to reduce drastically their use of fossil fuels does not require commensurate cuts by 132 so-called « underdeveloped countries » such as China. 
          The globalisation, of which our politicians speak so often, seems to mean to us the globalisation of trade, free trade etc. This may be simply part of the means by which global government is to be brought about. The countries of Europe are federating and will in time become one block, after each one has surrendered its own sovereignty. There is some resistance to this loss of sovereignty in England which has not yet accepted the new Euro currency and is even having some problems with metrification. Even in France the farmers are rioting to preserve their heavily subsidised way of life. Economic nationalism in Germany has led to the political resurrection of Gerhard Schroeder. 
          Could a global federalist government deliver an ideal world better than a world of nation states? It is very doubtful. A global government could only deliver world peace and harmony at the expense of the freedom of everyone to live their lives the way they want. 
How much for this Utopia? 
          It may be argued by some that a certain loss of these personal freedoms is a price worth paying to achieve this dream of a Utopian world. But who is going to guarantee that the Utopian state that is imposed upon us will be one we will all like?  
          To answer this, it is only necessary to look at the powerful international interests who are working behind the scenes, through the United Nations, to create a world government. Is civil liberties, personal freedom and butter on everyone's bread high up on their list of priorities? It is doubtful that any of these things are even on the list of what they want to achieve. I suppose that most people would like to live in a future world where there were no wars and where each of us has the opportunity and the means to develop his or her full potential and that of the society in which we live.  
          A group of people, eminent in their respective fields and known as the Bilderberg Group met recently in Washington. The major focus of the group according to reports that leaked out was the increase in the size of a solid America First bloc that threatens their plans for increased globalization of America's resources and. expressed fears over growing « isolationism, » which they blame on growing populist and nationalist sentiment. Sentiment which is being led by people like Pat Buchanan, the presidential candidate of the Reform Party.  
          In a speech, Samuel Berger, National Security Advisor to President Clinton, repeatedly expressed fears of « isolationism » and « nationalism » and concerns about institutions such as Liberty Lobby promoting « isolationism ». The Liberty Lobby is not, as its name might suggest, an organization devoted to what readers of this magazine would consider liberty. The Liberty Lobby was founded by a man called Willis Carto and spends a lot of its time promoting the rehabilitation of Hitler's National Socialism. 
          Mr Berger has also written a book that reports approvingly the steps taken toward each of the goals of regionalization and celebrates the « dollarization » of the Western Hemisphere. He complains about congressional cutbacks to the World Bank and the IMF, the two main ways in which American tax dollars are shipped overseas, and the slashing, by 60 percent, of the request for United Nations' « peacekeeping » funds.  
          Although one may have reservations about this projected World Government or even be convinced that it is exactly what is needed, one would hope that we will be invited to vote on the project before it is a fait accompli. 
          If what passes for democracy in the European Union is any example of what this New World will be like, then, as someone ungrammatically remarked, « Include me out ». 
Articles précédents de Ralph Maddocks
<< retour au sommaire