U.N.U. calls for global governance
By Henry Lamb
web
posted May 14, 2001
It's getting serious. When the Commission on Global Governance (CGG) issued its 410-page report, Our Global Neighborhood, in 1995, not a single ripple troubled the political waters in the United States. The report is a detailed plan to achieve global governance, calling for such things as:
1. Eliminating the veto in the U.N. Security Council;
2. Independent U.N. financing through the Tobin tax;
3. Creation of a Global Peoples' Assembly;
4. Creation of an Economic Security Council; and
5. Establishing a standing U.N. army.
The very few Congressmen who would even listen to our concerns, scoffed at these ideas, saying that the United States would never let any of these things happen.
When a coalition of NGOs (non-government organizations), funded in part by the U.N. incorporated these recommendations into its "Charter99" (Charter for Global Democracy), no one seemed to care.
When the official NGO Forum included these provisions in its report to the Millennium Assembly, with each of the five recommendations of the CGG was included, it drew a massive "ho-hum" from officials and the media.
There was some concern was expressed by conservative organizations, but others felt the NGO agenda was nothing more than a wish list compiled by radical socialist. "Don't worry. It'll never happen," was the response from the few officials who were even aware of the document.
Then comes the official agenda for the U.N. Millennium Assembly, which included all of these recommendation in somewhat watered-down, diplomatic language. The Millennium Declaration, adopted by the heads of state from more than 150 nations, included language that embraced each of these recommendations.
The Millennium Assembly occurred in September, 2000, when the Presidential race was just getting into high gear. No one was interested in what the U.N. was doing. What difference does it make; they just blow smoke anyway. Right!
There was virtually no public resistence to these previously released documents. Now, the United Nations University has issued a new, official, study, and a report that can be used to apply political pressure for global governance on member nations. The massive report, entitled "New Roles and Functions for the U.N. and the Bretton Woods Institutions," is subtitled: "Governing globalization: don't wait for crisis before reforming key institutions."
It's time to make some ripples. In fact, it's time to raise a tidal wave of resistence to the relentless drive to global governance.
This study is not the product of a bunch of radical NGOs; it is the official Research Institute of the United Nations University. The Institute is located in Helsinki. It has a research staff of 15 senior researchers, four Ph.D. interns, and a support staff of 14. The Institute includes staff from nine United Nations organizations, among which are the IMF and World Bank.
The other documents containing these recommendation issued over the last six years, were released by "unofficial," but closely affiliated organization. Their releases were trial balloons, to see how much public resistence would be generated. If the heat became too hot, the U.N. could simply disclaim the documents, as the work of "outside" organizations.
Of course, the United States is the primary target. Most of the other permanent members of the Security Council have already indicated their willingness to forego the veto - if the United States follows suit. Why would they be willing to give up the veto? Simply because they can outvote the U.S. anytime they wish.
The proposed new Security Council would have 23 members, appointed on a geographic basis. Members would serve staggered terms. With about 188 member nations currently, the United States would have a representative on the Security Council about every 8th term. If the terms are two years (the term length has not been decided), the U.S. would have a representative on the Security Council no more that two years out of every 16 years. So would every other nation.
This arrangement is fraught with the potential for bureaucratic abuse. The U.N. Secretariat would be in a perfect position to ramrod virtually any policy through the Security Council by controlling the information the members received, and because the expenses of the members from more than half of the nations are paid by the U.N.
The new U.N. study says that "Circumventing the veto...and enlarging the membership...are imperative for the U.N.'s continued credibility."
Elimination of the veto is one of five essential reforms necessary to give the U.N. absolute control over the entire world.
Independent financing is another essential reform. The Tobin tax has been promoted for years as a way to fund United Nations operations. It is simply a tax on the exchange of currency. Most estimates predict that the tax would produce about $1.5 trillion per year. That's trillion with a " T" - about 150 times more than the U.N.'s current budget.
Picture this: the United Nations with nobody to veto its policies or actions, with $1.5 trillion per year to fund is programs (and the power to set the tax rate to produce even more dollars). Not a pretty picture.
To give the U.N. the appearance of legitimacy, the Global People's Assembly would meet annually before the U.N. General Assembly (as the NGO Forum met before the Millennium Assembly last year), and provide direct input from the "civil society" of the world.
Only NGOs accredited by the U.N. would be eligible to send representatives. Then, a committee selected by the U.N. would actually choose which NGO representatives would attend a People's Assembly. This is how the delegates to the NGO Millennium Forum were chosen last year.
It is the normal U.N. process for allowing NGO participation. To be accredited by the U.N., an NGO must pledge to support the "aims of the U.N." and produce proof of two years of activity in support of the U.N.
The picture keeps getting better – if you are a socialist.
Now comes the new Economic Security Council. It, too, would have (proposed) 23 members, appointed in much the same way as the other Security Council. The difference is that this Council would govern the consolidated global financial mechanisms: the IMF; the World Bank; the Global Environment Facility; the U.N. Development Program; the World Trade Organization; and several other agencies and organizations connected with finance and development.
Under the auspices of this Security Council would come "...the system of governance for transnational corporations," as the study puts it. These transnational corporations have "rights and responsibilities" that only the U.N. can guarantee.
Here too, is where the "cross-border movements of people" could be authorized and monitored. The International Labor Organization (ILO) could be integrated into this consolidated conglomeration, since labor it is an economic activity.
How do these new rules and regulations get enforced? With the Voluntary Peace Force, of course. The International Criminal Court is already a reality, having been adopted by nearly 150 nations, and awaiting ratification by only a couple-dozen more of the 60 nations required. This new U.N. creature was also proposed back in 1995 by the Commission on Global Governance. It was created in 1998, and is expected to enter into force next year.
With the court in place and functioning, and with $1.5 trillion per year to pay its Volunteer standing army, and with no U.S. veto in the Security Council, the United Nations will, in fact, be a world government. It will have the power to do whatever it wishes, and the United States will be powerless to prevent it – politically or economically.
Why did the U.N. choose to release this study now? To prepare for acceptance and adoption at next year's "Earth Summit on Sustainable Development" in Johannesburg, South Africa. The Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, in 1992, produced Agenda 21. Next year's event, nicknamed Rio+10, is expected to draw 64,000 environmental enthusiasts – the largest environmental pep-rally the world has ever seen.
The Kyoto Protocol's entry into force was supposed to be the highlight of this event, but with Bush's withdrawal, this is not likely to happen. The U.N. advocates are stepping up their agenda, looking to make the 10-year celebration of Agenda 21 as productive as possible.
Global governance is the goal. It's not "black helicopter" speculation; it's hard, cold facts from the official documents of the United Nations. If the reaction to this report is the same as the reaction to the 1995 report, and the Millennium Declaration, we will have a world government in short order.
Only the United States can prevent this global transformation. For the
last eight years, there has been no political will to stop the momentum.
In fact, the United States promoted much of the global governance agenda.
We are truly about to see whether or not the political winds have shifted.
If the United States allows the recommendations by the U.N. University
to be implemented – turn out the lights, the party's over. 
Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization, and chairman of Sovereignty International.
Other related articles: (open in a new window)
- A
new era of U.N.-U.S. relations? by Henry Lamb (December 18, 2000)
Henry Lamb calls on President-Elect George W. Bush to give America's relationship with the United Nations a close look
- Global
governance is global socialism by Henry Lamb (August 7, 2000)
If you think Henry Lamb is overstating his case with the provocative title of this piece, wait until you read why he did it. The proof is out there - The
Un-American United Nations by Steve Farrell (August 23, 1999)
The UN continues to be marketed as an international version of American ideals; but a study of its founders, charter, and history reveals quite a different picture, says Steve Farrell