Okay, *NOW* **WHAT**????
John A. Quayle
blueoval at SGI.NET
Wed Sep 6 15:16:19 MDT 2000
U.N. Millennium Summit: 'Frightening' Power Grab
Wednesday, Sept. 6, 2000
olicy experts will be watching the actions of the U.N. Millennium
Summit this week for further evidence of what one analyst described as a
"frightening" push for global governance.
he leaders of more than 150 nations will converge in New York
today to iron out details of their Charter for Global Democracy, also
called Charter 99.
he U.N. Internet site indicates the charter includes "12 areas for
urgent action" to be discussed. Those topics fall under four headings:
* strengthening international democracy,
* creating a full-time international security force,
* furthering human rights and promoting higher standards of living for all.
Supporters of the charter want the ability to "monitor and
regulate international corporations and financial institutions," "give U.N.
institutions additional...revenue," "ratify the international criminal
court" proposal, and "create an international environmental court."
Most alarming to critics are the U.N. recommendations to create a
global taxing system, establish an international court and eliminate any
allowance for Permanent Member Status and veto power in the Security
Council, privileges that the United States and several other countries enjoy.
Henry Lamb, the executive vice president of the Environmental
Conservative Organization and a member of the nonprofit Sovereignty
International agency, said he has studied and analyzed the actions of the
U.N. for the past several years and what impact their policies would have
on the U.S.
"This is frightening," Lamb said, referring to the U.N. push to
abolish veto power and Permanent Member Status in its Security Council. "It
is one of the last means of control that the U.S. has over the U.N.
"When you combine that recommendation with the global taxing
proposals...and international criminal courts," he continued, "we see the
U.N. is posturing itself to have not only the authority but the means to
implement and enforce national policy."
The U.N. can create such a system of global governance even
without the approval of the U.S., Lamb said, by gaining the support of
other "heads of nations and the U.N. Security Council." The U.S., if it
fails to comply, would then open itself to sanctions from other countries,
"Economic seclusion is the current method of sanction," Lamb
explained, trying to simplify and condense what he termed a "very
"If we fail to conform our laws, then we are immediately subject
to fines by the World Trade Organization," and refusing to pay cannot be
considered a long-term option.
"The WTO is the only enforcement mechanism the U.N. has at this
time," Lamb said. "But once the U.N. has real enforcement power through the
international court, then we're talking a different game."
Any debate over whether the U.S. would comply willingly with parts
or all of the Charter 99 proposals may be a moot point, Lamb and another
U.N. analyst said, pointing to House resolution 4453.
The bill, introduced by Rep. James P. McGovern, D-Mass., in May
and officially titled the United Nations Rapid Deployment Police and
Security Act of 2000, seeks to "establish a U.N. ... police and security
force under the authority of the Security Council that is trained to
standardized objectives," recruits force members, and provides "reliable
The security force, as suggested by McGovern and outlined in his
bill, would include up to 6,000 volunteers from U.N. members who would act
as rapid-deployment "peacekeepers" and human rights enforcers.
Twenty-five congressional members are listed as co-sponsors, from Neil
Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, and Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., to Tom Lantos,
D-Calif., and Robert Wexler, D-Fla.
"Let's just say that the intentions of the U.N. are good," said
Kent Snyder, executive director of Liberty Study Committee, a group of U.S.
congressmen and nationwide activists who promote constitutional ideals.
"World peace, happiness for all ... that's all good, and let's say we don't
differ on the ends, but we differ on the means."
"But the consensus is," Snyder continued, "that centralized power
is the enemy of liberty, and history is replete with examples: Germany,
Soviet Russia, the hierarchy of royal families, Cleopatra, the war lords of
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Rushtalk