Time: Mon Dec 15 14:13:41 1997
To:
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Global Governance (fwd)
Cc:
Bcc: sls
References:
<snip>
>
>http://www.4bypass.com/stories/ecologic.html
> [Media Bypass]
>
> Tis' The Season For Global Governance
>
> By the Eco-Logic Staff
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Response to the term 'global governance' engenders either hope or
> fear among Americans. Many people -- including billion-dollar Ted
> Turner -- see global governance as a new opportunity for peace and
> prosperity around the world; others see the loss of individual
> freedom, property rights, national sovereignty and ultimately,
> inescapable oppression. Few, however, understand what global
> governance is, how it operates, or what its ultimate impact may be.
>
> Global governance differs from previous attempts to establish world
> government: There is no marauding military force behind a
> modern-day Hitler, nor will the question be put to a vote by a
> "league" of nations. Global governance is simply being constructed
> by an incredibly small number of people who have developed an
> ingenious strategy and structure to achieve objectives that have
> been pursued for centuries.
>
> There is no conspiracy. Throughout most of the 20th century, the
> strategy evolved in secrecy among individuals and organizations
> that are now readily identifiable. The "conspiracy theories"
> advanced in the past are now all put to rest by the publication of
> dozens of official United Nations documents which lay bare both the
> argument for global governance, and the plan by which it is to be
> achieved. Indeed, many people of the world can draw hope from the
> emergence of global governance because its primary objective is to
> provide "security" for all people of the world. Global governance
> aspires to provide, to every person on earth, security from the
> threat of war, environmental degradation, and from the injustice of
> poverty, intolerance, and disease. The oppressed people of the
> world surely take great hope from such noble aspirations. The
> central theme of global governance is embodied in the concept of
> "sustainable development": the integration of economic activity
> with social justice and environmental protection.
>
> The United Nations is neither the instigator of the strategy nor
> the architect of the structure. Those honors fall to three
> international NGOs (non-governmental organizations): the
> International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN); the
> World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF); and the World Resources Institute
> (WRI). A part of the structure is a system of accreditation by the
> U.N. for consultation with NGOs. Of course, these three NGOs are
> fully accredited by the U.N., and in fact operate programs jointly
> with the UN and publish major documents under joint authorship.
> Membership of the IUCN in-cludes more than 100 government agencies
> (the U.S. State Department contributes more than $1 million
> annually to the IUCN), as many sovereign nations, and 550 other
> NGOs, such as the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Federation,
> the Nature Conservancy, and most of the other mainstream
> environmental organizations, many of which have independent U.N.
> accreditation or are granted benefits of accreditation by virtue of
> their affiliation with accredited NGOs.
>
> The concept of accreditation was pioneered by the IUCN, which
> successfully lobbied the U.N. to adopt "ECOSOC Resolution 1296,"
> May 23, 1968, authorizing the participation of accredited NGOs.
> Maurice Strong originally defined the role NGOs play in preparation
> for the first Earth Summit in 1972, of which he served as Secretary
> General. Strong, more than any other individual, shaped the role of
> NGOs in U.N. activity by serving on the boards of the IUCN and the
> the WWF, and currently as chairman of the WRI. While concurrently
> serving on the board of the Rockefeller and other foundations, and
> serving several administrative capacities with the U.N. --
> including the position of Executive Director of the United Na-tions
> Environmental Programme -- Strong maximized the influence of NGOs,
> both in policy development and policy implementation. By
> coordinating the lobbying, litigation and public-relations
> activities of the local affiliates of accredited NGOs, policies
> developed by the U.N. were readily adopted by national governments.
> The growth in influence of environmental organizations between 1970
> and 1990 was phenomenal, and no accident. It was the result of
> carefully crafted strategies, coordinated tactics and targeted
> funding by private foundations and the federal government.
> Accredited NGOs are the principal instrument of both the
> development and implementation of global governance.
>
> Proponents need no marauding armies, nor do they need to risk
> rejection of their policies by the U.S. Congress or other elected
> bodies of government. They have learned how to achieve their
> objectives without arm-ies, while bypassing those people who were
> elected to make public policy. The great dangers of global
> governance lie in both the policies, and in the process by which
> policies are implemented. The policies of the United Nations are,
> in fact, the policies of NGOs that drive the U.N. agenda. The U.N.
> is the mechanism through which those polices are given official
> status through international treaties and "soft law" documents such
> as Agenda 21, the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, the Earth
> Charter and dozens of "Plans of Ac-tion" adopted by various U.N.
> conferences, commissions, and working groups.
>
> The process of global governance is transforming the social
> structure of the world. In many countries where public policies are
> established by the current dictator, the process of global
> governance may be a welcome alternative. In a constitutional
> Republic such as America, the process is a repudiation of the
> proven principles of self-governance that produced the greatest
> advance in social progress in the history of the world. The U.S.
> government should be working to influence the international
> community to adopt the principles of self-government which produced
> America; instead, the U.S. government is working to influence
> American citizens to adopt principles of governance that have
> consistently failed, under a variety of names, throughout history.
>
> The first principle of global governance is the centralization of
> power, while claiming to decentralize power. The power to develop
> global social policies is already centralized in the partnership
> between accredited NGOs and the United Nations. Evolving between
> the two Earth Summits (only two decades), the power to pronounce
> global social policy is abundantly demonstrated in Agenda 21, the
> Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Framework Convention on
> Climate Change, all products of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de
> Janeiro.
>
> The centralization of power to implement global policies is also
> largely established through the coordinating capabilities of the
> accredited NGO community, and the various governments and
> governmental agencies that hold IUCN membership. The rapid
> implementation of Agenda 21 could not have occurred without
> substantial coordination among the NGO community and government
> agencies. The Earth Council, an international NGO created and
> chaired by Maurice Strong shortly after the Rio Conference, has
> promoted and coordinated the creation of National Councils on
> Sustainable Development in 180 nations. In the United States, the
> President's Council on Sustainable Development, is working
> hand-in-glove with accredited NGOs and federal agencies affiliated
> with the IUCN to implement Agenda 21.
>
> Centralization of the power to enforce global policies is not yet
> fully developed. The World Trade Organization (WTO) is the most
> significant step toward concentrating en-forcement power in the
> United Nations. The WTO has the power to enforce trade sanctions
> against nations and against individual industries within nations.
> The WTO Charter implies a power to enforce environmental treaties
> and has been actively discussed by climate change negotiators as a
> possible mechanism for enforcing greenhouse gas-emissions
> reductions on the United States and other developed countries.
>
> New enforcement mechanisms are being created, including an
> International Criminal Court, supported by a panel of prosecutors
> who will be authorized to investigate within the sovereign borders
> of any member nation -- without interference from national
> governments. Disarmament negotiations continue, with the ultimate
> objective being to place control of the manufacture and
> distribution of all munitions under the authority of the U.N. A
> world army, under the command of the U.N. Secretary General, is the
> first step in centralizing the enforcement power. Until enforcement
> power is centralized, national laws and enforcement mechanisms are
> utilized through the third-party lawsuit provisions of
> environmental legislation enacted since the 1969 National
> Environmental Pol-icy Act -- a technique introduced by NGOs.
>
> Another principle of global governance is to limit participation in
> the policy process, while claiming to expand democratic
> participation. For those people who live under the rule of a
> dictator, and have no participation in policy development, the U.N.
> process may be, again, a welcome alternative. In America, the
> process -- euphemistically called a "collaborative consensus
> process" -- is a major step backward. The process has been adopted
> by the President's Council on Sustainable Development, the federal
> government, and the accredited NGOs selected to participate in the
> policy process.
>
> Agenda 21 is a non-binding "soft law" document developed by the
> three primary international NGOs and their affiliates under the
> auspices of U.N. resolutions. It is a massive collection of policy
> recommendations that encompasses virtually every aspect of human
> life. The President's Council on Sus-tainable Development,
> consisting of carefully selected representatives from accredited
> NGOs, federal agencies and a few individuals who are described as
> representing industry, spent three years Americanizing Agenda 21's
> policies and are now in the process of implementing those policies
> at the local level through a nationwide campaign, funded to a large
> extent by the federal agencies that helped develop the policies.
> The PCSD's own very generous estimate is that about 5,000 people
> have followed its work. A much smaller number of people have
> followed its work. A much smaller number of people actually
> produced the work. As few as 100 people, most of who are either
> PCSD staff or liaisons with accredited NOGs, produced the work
> proudly entitled "Sustainable America: A New Consensus." Congress
> has played no role in the development of national policies that are
> being implemented across the land.
>
> The American government was designed to maximize individual freedom
> and to protect individual, inalienable rights. Government was
> charged with performing those specific, enumerated functions that
> individuals could not perform for themselves. In addition to
> national defense, a system of fair and impartial courts, the new
> American government created a new process for the development of
> public policy. Public policy, in America, should rise from the
> wishes of the people through elected representatives. Conflicting
> ideas should be resolved through free and open debate and
> ultimately resolved by a public, recorded vote of the officials who
> are responsible to the electorate. The process is open to all who
> wish to participate. The pro-cess is inefficient. It is boisterous,
> noisy, and subject to political pressures. Public policy advances
> at a snail's pace. But the process eliminates much imprudence and
> produces the best policies human minds are capable of producing at
> the time. Most importantly, the process provides the electorate
> with direct ac-countability and recourse to their elected officials
> if they wish to change a public policy.
>
> The new policy development process -- collaborative consensus
> building -- is far more efficient. It is far more orderly. But the
> new process fails the two most critical tests required by our
> Constitution: These policies do not rise from the people governed
> through their elected representatives; nor are the policy makers
> accountable to the electorate. The new policy-development process
> begins with policies developed by the international community of
> accredited NGOs. The PCSD began with Agenda 21 and simply
> Americanized its language. As the agencies of the federal
> government move across the land to implement the policies, elected
> government bodies are systematically bypassed and implementation is
> effected in spite of elected officials, rather than because of the
> elected official's response to constituent wishes.
>
> The process by which elected government bodies are bypassed is
> ingenious. Agencies of the federal government, working in
> collaboration with selected NGOs, will target a community or a
> region for the implementation of Agenda 21 policies. The NGO may be
> recognizable as an affiliate of a mainstream environmental
> organization, or it may be a new organization created specifically
> for the purpose of working on a single project. The NGO gives the
> appearance of a local citizens' initiative. The NGO, which often is
> nothing more than a few professionals masquerading as a grassroots
> organization, typically will recruit officials from local, or state
> government agencies who are induced to participate by the promise
> of federal grants. Other NGOs and influential civic leaders are
> privately recruited to support the convening of a "visioning, or
> stake holders" council to begin the process of developing a vision
> of a better -- sustainable -- community. IF there happens to be a
> local elected official who has demonstrated sympathy with the aims
> of the NGO, he or she is recruited to give the appearance of
> government support. Often, elected officials are totally ignored
> until the very end of the process.
>
> Using the consensus process, the convener will engage a trained
> facilitator to lead the carefully selected group of invited
> participants through a series of exercises designed to reveal the
> agenda and eliminate dissent. This phase of the process is called
> "capacity building." The immediate objective of this phase is to
> develop a planning document that can be said to represent the
> consensus of the stake holders within the community. In reality,
> the plan represents only the interests of those chosen to
> participate, usually on the basis of known, or suspected agreement
> with the aims of the convener. The geographic area of the plan
> almost always encompasses more than one political jurisdiction.
> This is a necessary element to justify the activity of the selected
> group rather than to take policy proposals to a governmental body.
> Agenda 21 and Sustainable America: A New Consensus specifically
> call for the creation of "transboundary" councils.
>
> As the first phase of the process nears completion, the media is
> courted to begin building public support for the objectives
> expressed in the planning document. At this point the general
> public first becomes aware that public policies are being
> formulated for them by self-appointed individuals who are not
> accountable to the electorate. As the process unfolds, federal
> grants are promised and frequently, dignitaries are called upon to
> endorse the work of the council. The idea is to generate so much
> public support through the media that elected officials are afraid
> to question or oppose the initiative. A few courageous elected
> officials have resisted the process only to be ridiculed publicly
> by powerful NGOs, and the media.
>
> Through memoranda of agreement and other devices, the council
> secures authority to "coordinate" the activities addressed in the
> plan among the government agencies operating within the plan area.
> Somewhere along the way, the council itself usually incorporates as
> a not-for-profit NGO in order to become eligible for federal and
> foundation grants. Once the process has reached this point,
> implementation of the U.N.'s Agenda 21 is well underway.
>
> All the while the federal government and the accredited NGOs are
> busily implementing Agenda 21, they can (and often do) say that the
> policies have nothing to do with the United Nations. They can say,
> factually, that the United Nations has no authority over national
> policies, that national sovereignty has not been infringed, and
> moreover, they can point to a series of public meetings and
> identify a variety of "public interest groups" that participated in
> what is called a transparent democratic process. The result is the
> implementation of U.N. policies that effectively bypass elected
> governmental bodies.
>
> Advocates of global governance envision a world in which all people
> are free from the threat of war, and are guaranteed to have at
> least their basic nutritional needs and adequate housing met. U.N.
> policy documents assert that all people have a "right" to this
> "security," and a "right" to a clean and healthy environment, and a
> "right" to be free from intolerance and discrimination. But with
> these "rights," granted by the government, comes the
> "responsibility" to behave as the government dictates. The result
> is a managed society.
>
> Given the condition in which most of the world lives, it is easy to
> understand why most of its people eagerly await the arrival of
> global governance. Many people who have little or nothing welcome
> the idea of being managed, in order to have the security of food
> and shelter.
>
> Throughout Europe and the Scandi-navian countries, governments are
> providing their citizens with more security against job loss,
> hunger and homelessness. CBS's "60 Minutes" recently featured
> Norway, and its system of social justice. Norway -- never a part of
> the Communist bloc -- is considered to be a democratic nation. But
> its form of government is vastly different from democracy in
> America.
>
> In Norway, workers have the option of taking off work for 42 weeks
> for child and receive full salary. Or, they may choose to take 52
> weeks off at 80 percent of their salary. All medical expenses are
> paid by the state. Education is free. Subsidies are available from
> the government for everything from housing to custom-made car
> seats, and for automobiles and the money to operate them. The crime
> rate is almost non-existent -- no one needs to steal anything, they
> simply apply to the government for whatever they want. People in
> other countries, including America, who have less than they need
> look longingly for a system of governance that will supply those
> needs. Global governance seeks to provide those needs to every
> person on earth.
>
> How does Norway do it? If Norway, and other social democracies in
> Europe can do it, why should we not transform the world into a
> social democracy under the benevolent auspices of the United
> Nations?
>
> Analysis of Agenda 21, and related U.N. documents, demonstrate that
> the concept of Sustainable Development, is in fact, nothing more
> than a new name for the form of Harlem Brundtland, Prime Minister
> of Norway during the 1980s, chair of the 1987 Brundtland
> Commissions which introduced the concept of global sustainable
> development, vice chair of the 1992 UNCED at which the concept was
> adopted in Agenda 21. Brundtland strongly influenced the direction
> that global governance is taking the world.
>
> Norway's taxes are among the highest in the world -- between 60 and
> 70 percent of income, depending on whose data is accepted. Industry
> works, not for shareholders, but to provide revenue to the state to
> equalize the wealth. In U.N. language this is called "sharing
> equitably in the benefits of resources." The recipients of this
> equity strongly support the idea of redistributing wealth; the
> pro-viders, in Norway and other social democracies, have no choice.
> So what's wrong with a system that provides everyone with what they
> need?
>
> A lot. Such a system is not sustainable. The Soviet Union offers
> abundant proof. Socialist purists, such as Brundtland and Maurice
> Strong, counter that the Russian leadership got greedy and became
> corrupt. Duh.... that is the point, or one of them.. What happens
> to citizens who become addicted to government handouts, when the
> government cannot or will not continue to hand out? To whom do the
> citizens turn for redress?
>
> And the time will come when government cannot continue to hand out.
> More likely, the time will come first when the government will not
> continue to hand out. But the cannot is inevitable. Historically,
> in such systems, the government simply prints more money to meet
> the increasing demands of its addicted citizenry. Each new infusion
> of manufactured money devalues the entire money supply. Collapse is
> inevitable -- demonstrated time and time again.
>
> In a global system, however, it will take decades, if not a century
> or more, to drain America and other capitalist nations of their
> wealth. The developing nations of the world will have a hey-day,
> and worship the wonderful United Nations redistribution mach-ine.
> Under the expanding system of global governance, the developing
> nations will develop, the developed nations will un-develop. As the
> dream of global governance is realized, America will diminish as
> the rest of the world rises -- until there is an economic
> equilibrium. In U.N.-speak, it is called "social equity."
>
> The integration of economic, environmental and social justice
> activity is "sustainable development," which is no more than
> government control of economic activity to assure equal
> distribution of wealth -- once called socialism.
>
<snip>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail