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