Interestingly, as far as I know, there has been no UN intervention in places
like Chechnya, but they have sent troops to places like Sierra Leone. So
I suppose his statement should now be qualified with the caveat «
...unless they are bigger and stronger than we are, and have nuclear
weapons! » The UN hasn't shown much inclination to go
into Myanmar (Burma) either, where human rights are surely being violated
by the hour.
under the U.N.
Now, in early September, the United Nations Millennium Assembly plans to
celebrate the emergence of the new One World Government (OWG) under the
U.N. In its own words, the 188 member United Nations has stated that: «
When Heads of State and/or Government of the Member States of the
United Nations converge on the Headquarters of the United Nations in New
York to participate in the Millennium Summit on 6 – 8 September 2000, it
is likely to be the largest single gathering of Heads of State and/or Government
ever held in the world. The Summit will be a historic opportunity to agree
on a process for fundamental review of the role of, and challenges facing
the United Nations in the new century. »
This assembly has been very carefully designed to make lasting changes
in the way the world works and will set the world on the road towards global
governance under the authority of the United Nations. The new scheme will
fund and give power to the UN to become the supreme governmental authority
on our planet. Carefully chosen non-governmental organizations (NGOs),
called civil society, will become representatives of the people and the
implementers of United Nations' policies. Over 130 international organizations
(IGOs) will be consolidated as direct administrative agencies of the new
U.N. system. This will mean ultimately that national governments will become
administrative units reporting through the appropriate IGO, to the supreme
authority of the United Nations. Sovereignty seems to be on the way out.
At least it will be if all the proposals being bandied about come to pass.
The overall theme of the September Assembly is « The
United Nations in the 21st Century ». The main
sub-topics being proposed are:
The Assembly is viewed as providing « an opportunity
to spur new political momentum for the international co-operation and solidarity
that the peoples of the world increasingly demand. »
I must be growing very deaf in my old age because
I haven't heard much about these demands before. When you look at the other
themes being proposed for discussion, these changes will affect every aspect
of our lives, and the democracy we thought we knew would be dead. We will
be reduced to mere pawns controlled by the U.N. through the press and television.
and security, including disarmament;
including poverty eradication;
« It is becoming quite clear that moves are being made in the general
direction of setting up a New World Order of Global Government. »
In 1995 the Commission on Global Governance published a blueprint which
was followed by a Charter for Global Democracy made available to the public
(with no fanfare, at least as far as I heard!) on UN Day, October 24 1999.
Allegedly, influential leaders in 56 nations have already signed this –
so the question that springs to mind is, has someone signed Canada up for
all of this? If so, who did the signing? The document is, in reality, a
charter for the abolition of individual freedom. The Charter for Global
Democracy contained 12 so-called Principles:
If influential people of some fifty-six nations have already signed up
for this, they have done so without holding any referenda and seemingly
without the electorate even knowing about it, or it would have filtered
out to the world press (Or would it?). These Principles should have required
a referendum to be held for each one.
of all international agencies under the direct authority of the U.N.
by the U.N. of all transnational corporations and financial institutions,
requiring an « international code of conduct »
concerning the environment and labour standards.
of an independent source of revenue for the U.N., such as the «
Tobin tax »(1)
and taxes on aircraft and shipping fuels, and the licensing the use of
the global commons. The « global commons »
are defined to be « outer space, the atmosphere, non-territorial
seas, and the related environment that supports human life ».
of the veto power and permanent member status on the Security Council.
United Nations army.
of all arms and the reduction of all national armies « as
part of a multilateral global security system » under
the authority of the U.N.
and national compliance with all U.N. « Human Rights
» treaties and declarations
Criminal Court, making the International Court of Justice compulsory for
all nations, and giving individuals the right to petition the courts to
remedy social injustice.
institution to establish economic and environmental security by insuring
« sustainable development ».
of an International Environmental Court.
that climate change is an essential global security interest that requires
the creation of a « high level action team »
to allocate carbon emission based on equal per-capita rights.
of all debt owed by the poorest nations, global poverty reductions, and
for « equitable sharing of global resources »,
as allocated by the United Nations.
The potential for fraud in this U.N. monolith is limitless and will be
uncontrollable. The secretary-general in his May 1999 report called for
« further intensified discussions »
but these must all be secret, behind closed doors, and unknown to the unsuspecting
public, because they are getting no publicity on TV, etc. Unless, that
is, my eyesight is declining along with my hearing. We seem to be entering
an era where our political culture involves what someone has called «
debate-free acquiescence ».
Most of us ought to find this troubling, although not of course the politicians
among us, they must believe themselves about to step into a political heaven
which is being tailor made for them. One might think, having listened to
the rhetoric over the years, that the United States would be the least
likely nation to become part of a global government since it would mean
clearly the abolition of its own sovereignty. Perusal of the above Principles
shows most of them in diametric opposition to the views expressed by the
United States in the recent past.
Yet, two Congressmen, elected by the people of their respective states,
have introduced a resolution calling for the Tobin Tax, which is one of
the highest priority items on the agenda of the U.N. Millennium Assembly.
The resolution bears the tongue twisting title Congress Concurrent Resolution
on Taxing Cross-border Currency Transactions to Deter Excessive Speculation
(H.Con.Res.301) introduced on April 11, 2000 by Congressman Peter DeFazio
(D-OR) and Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN).
In addition, two different bills have been introduced which call for a
U.N. standing army. They are HR 4453, introduced by James McGovern (D-MA),
John Porter (R-IL), and Connie Morella (R-MD); and H.Con.Res.346, introduced
by Albert Wynn (D-MD).
Whether any of these bills will receive final approval I do not know, but
it is becoming quite clear that moves are being made in the general direction
of setting up this New World Order of Global Government.
James Tobin is/was a well respected Nobel Prize winning economist from
Yale and in the Janeway Lecture at Princeton in 1972 he proposed his tax
on capital movement. Tobin thought that a small tax, say 0.2 % or less,
should be charged on every movement of capital in or out of a country.
This would discourage speculation by making it more costly to move large
amounts of money frequently. Assuming a tax of 0.2% then the tax would
amount to $200 if $100,000 was changed into another currency. This would
not be much of a tax if you wanted to leave your money in that country
for a lengthy term. However, if you remove it after a few days or weeks
then the cost of removing it is also $200, because the tax is payable each
time the investment crosses a border. If such an investment made the round
trip every month the cost is $4,800 a year, if it is made every week the
cost is $20,000 a year, if it is moved daily then the cost would be well
idea was to slow down capital movement. Since about $1.2 trillion a day
moves around the world the tax would be fairly substantial. Of course it
would not be 0.2% on all of it because of the slowing down effect mentioned.
currency speculators of course dislike the idea and, as far as I know,
the nearest it has got to being discussed before was at the G7 meeting
in 1995 when a Canadian economist recommended it. However, the politicians
withdrew the idea at the last minute and it was never discussed.