Over the last decade, the United Nations has unabashedly been reinventing
itself into a global government, striving to obtain the legal teeth and
financial resources to implement its policies. Government reinvention is
frequently an effort to avoid the consequences of failed policies in the past,
or to justify a government's continued expansion by posing solutions to the
problems it has created.
Historically, government never downsizes voluntarily; it always increases its
power and minimizes accountability to its citizens. This is one reason
bloody and non-bloody revolutions have been fought throughout
In 1995, the United Nations Commission on Global
Governance published a report entitled, Our Global Neighborhood, 1
which called for a World Conference on Global Governance, to have been
originally held in 1998 but which never materialized. The Commission made
a number of eye-opening recommendations for changes to the United Nations,
o A system of global taxation;
o A standing U.N.
o A Court of Criminal Justice;
o Expanded authority for
the Secretary General;
o An Economic Security Council;
authority over the global commons (especially the oceans and all areas of
sovereign territories that influence the oceans);
o An end to the veto
power of permanent Security Council members;
o A new parliamentary body
of "civil society" representatives (NGOs).3
The report denied it was supporting "global government," preferring the term
"global governance," but its contents reveal all elements required for a genuine
government. Besides, a little reflection yields the following
question: How can one have global "governance" without global
It has been argued that the Commission was not an official body of the U.N.
"It was, however, endorsed by the U.N. Secretary General and funded through two
trust funds of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), nine national
governments, and several foundations, including the MacArthur Foundation, the
Ford Foundation, and the Carnegie Corporation."4
The foundations involved have been promoting globalism and socialism for
years. Although no conference was ever held, implementation of the
Commission's recommendations are well under way.
Global taxation, such as the proposed Tobin tax, will free the U.N. from
relying on members' dues for financial income. A U.N. standing army, once
made possible by global taxation, will establish the U.N. as a military power in
its own right, not dependant on the armed forces of member countries.
The dream of an international court of criminal justice was accomplished two
years ago in July of 1998 (in Rome) when the International Criminal Court was
created. The court claims jurisdiction over all countries of the world,
even those which do not ratify the implementation treaty. The Court
believes its verdicts to be binding on all countries.
Expanded authority for the Secretary General will convert him to a global
prime minister. The economic security council will manage international
finances. Regulation of global trade is already under way through another
nongovernmental organization, the World Trade Organization (WTO) via the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).
Note that GATT was in reality a treaty, which should have been ratified by
the U.S. Senate. However, public outcry would likely have prevented
ratification so calling it an "agreement" executed an end-run on that
Eliminating the veto power of permanent Security Council members (the U.S.,
Great Britain, Russia, China, etc.) creates equity; thereafter it's one nation,
one vote and no vetoes if you don't like the outcome of world opinion.
The Millennium Assembly: Formation of a World
The next big item on the U.N. agenda is a new parliamentary body of "civil
society" representatives scheduled this September when the U.N. People's
Millennium Assembly begins. The Assembly's purpose is to create a global
On May 25, 2000, a preliminary workshop on the forum was held, featuring Dr.
Andrew Strauss, currently involved in hammering out the structure of the
"people's parliament," along with Jim Garrison, President of the Gorbachev
Foundation in San Francisco, California. In an interview with Joan Veon,
Dr. Strauss said:
...we could think of this meeting symbolically, where civil society has
been officially called in to have this meeting at the U.N. as the end of the
"old paradigm." And what is the old paradigm of sovereignty? It says
"citizens, if they are going to be represented at the international level, are
going to be represented through their states"...I think perhaps if the very
meaning is about anything, it is about the end of that order; that
citizens want to be directly represented at the international order; that
the old idea of sovereignty of politics for citizens within or between states is
over. That leaves us with a very big question which we are far from
resolving, and that is how citizens should be represented.5
According to Dr. Strauss, the old idea of national sovereignty is out.
Local lawmaking bodies will be bypassed. The new parliament will begin as
an advisory body, but the ultimate goal is to convert it into a global lawmaking
body. Currently it is uncertain how members of the world body will be
elected. Several proposals have been placed on the table:
o Establishing some kind of consultative assembly of parliamentarians to
which parliaments all over the world would appoint representatives.
o Creating a consultative assembly consisting of nonelected NGO
organizations, which already provide input to the U.N. major conferences.
o An assembly directly elected by all the people of the world.
o Direct democracy by way of the Internet, so that any "world citizen"
could vote on any items they could so choose at any time.6
This would probably be an electronic form of the ancient Greek "mobocracy."
Global Government Rising
The issues driving the "need" for the global government are often genuine or
over-hyped issues such as environment, war, children's issues, weapons of mass
destruction, genocide, justice and equity, et al. However genuine the problems,
20th century history teaches that evil frequently rides on the back of a white
horse: the solution to a real problem that becomes far worse and abusive than
the original problem ever was.
Global government has been a long time in coming, supported by a wide panoply
of luminaries over the years. Our Global Neighborhood said the
surrender of sovereignty is "a principle that will yield only slowly and
reluctantly to the imperatives of global environmental cooperation." 7
Sixty years ago, famed globalist H.G. Wells in his book, The New World
Order, put it another way: "Countless people...will hate the New World
Order [his words]...and will die protesting against it...we have to bear in mind
the distress of a generation or so of malcontents..." 8
Bottom line: globalists recognize that the new order will have to be shoved down
a lot of people's throats whether they like it or not.
According to Henry Lamb of EcoLogic, "the foundation of global governance is
a set of core values, a belief system, which contains ideas that are foreign to
the American experience and ignores other values and ideas that are precious to
the American experience. The values and ideas articulated in the
Commission's report are not new. They have been tried, under different
names, in other societies. Often, the consequences have been
These values, which we would label socialist at best and Marxist at worst,
have consistently appeared in U.N. documents since the late 1980s.
Appearing with repackaged names, they have dominated all international
conferences, agreements, and treaties. Marxist transfer-of-wealth schemes,
the demonization of capitalism, enforced equity among peoples, etc. are all part
and parcel of the new globalist rhetoric.
As global government is
locked into place, people should understand that the legal safeguards against
government abuse do not exist at the international level nor are there plans to
create them. The political bent of the U.N. has always been toward
socialist ideology and the concept that government is all good, all
knowing. The rights enshrined in the U.S. Bill of Rights - property and
financial rights, freedom of speech and religion, the right to bear arms against
invaders and abusive government, protection against double jeopardy, trial by a
jury of one's peers, right to petition for redress of grievances, et al. - do
not exist in the same form at the U.N. level.
Where the U.N.
appears to guarantee rights, there are often "weasel words," which allow the
so-called rights to be set aside at the will of government. As always, the
devil is in the details - literally.
Article 19, Paragraph 1 and 2 of the U.N.'s International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights states:
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right
shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all
kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the
form of art, or through any other media of his choice."10
So far, everything sounds good. But read Paragraph 3:
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in Paragraph 2 of this
article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be
subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by
law and are necessary (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public),
or of public health or morals."11
So the right to freedom of speech can be limited any time a state believes it
to be in its own best interests or to protect its own corrupt politicians.
The "weasel words" of Paragraph 3 destroy the guarantees of Paragraphs 1 and
Another example: The U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR) lays out what seems to be a wonderful series of rights, similar to the
U.S. Bill of Rights. Article 18 of the UDHR upholds "the right to freedom
of thought, conscience and religion...." Article 19 affirms "the right to
freedom of opinion and expression...and to seek, receive and impart information
and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Sounds great! But then Article 29 states that "these rights and
freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of
the United Nations." In other words, these "rights" or "freedoms" don't apply to
politically incorrect people who refuse to conform to U.N. policies. What is the
purpose of freedom of speech if not to openly discuss and critique
government? According to U.N. ideology, that won't be tolerated. The
U.N. has a track record of showing zero tolerance toward those who oppose its
Americans, Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders are unaware of how
radical the internationalist agendas really are, and how they are filtering
through each of their governments with the full cooperation of many in
them. Implementation is slow but inexorable everywhere. Some are becoming
aware that something is going amiss, but few have a clue as to the origin of the
changes that will shortly affect their lives and religious belief systems.
The entire push to globalism has tremendous significance for Christians for
several reasons. First, we are witnessing the formation of what the Bible
predicted 2,000 years ago: a (somewhat) unified universal political, financial
and religious system. Christians note that the new global paradigm has a
moral and religious component that will not tolerate opposition or dissent by
religious factions that do not agree with it!
Let's say it again: the new globalism will not leave the Christian
church alone. It will use legal and other pressures to co-opt, coerce, or
eliminate religious groups to force them into conformity to the new ideals or go
out of business. Unlike secular humanism, the new global pantheistic
socialism will not leave the church alone! No clearer warning can be
sounded as to the dangers to faith on the road ahead.
Thus our closing caveat: no matter how slow the implementation-given the
current course-when the changes are all done, they will be binding on
all by artifice of law, international treaty and internal regulation
conforming to the dictates of the United Nations, against which citizens of the
world will have little established methods of recourse or redress.
* * *
For more information on United Nations policies and how they will affect us,
we recommend the following sites: http://www.crossroad.to/, http://www.freedom.org/, and http://www.un.org/.