Time: Mon Dec 15 14:13:41 1997
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Global Governance (fwd)
Bcc: sls

>                              [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.

Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail