• On September 5-9, 2000, following the United Nations Millennium Conference of Religious and Spiritual leaders, the U.N. General Assembly held their 55th annual meeting in New York City, called the Millennium Assembly and Summit. Their agenda was to discuss some very far reaching plans that would steer the world away from sovereign, independent nation-states to a world of disparate peoples in subjugation to the Supreme Authority of the United Nations.

Global governance means World Government through incremental steps, chipping away at national sovereignty one treaty at a time, one world conference at a time, one UN commission at a time.

A portion of the Millennium Assembly was designated as the Millennium Summit and was attended by President Bill Clinton and 160 other heads of state which made it the largest gathering of heads of state in history. Meeting at the same time, a short distance away, at the New York Hilton was Mikhail Gorbachev and his State of the World Forum, hoping to help induce heads of state to concur in the Millennium Assembly’s historic actions. Gorbachev had been pushing for a One World Government ever since his 1992 speech at the Churchill Memorial in Fulton, Missouri, where he called for a "global structure", a "democratically organized world community", a "restructured United Nations with an armed forces" and "substantial funding", and "some mechanism tying the UN to the world economy". (An interesting side note: After the collapse of the former Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, the former Communist Leader of the Soviet Union, was allowed to live in the United States where he was given an apartment and large complex for his staff and aids at what used to be the former Marine Corps base, The Presidio. He then was hired to give speeches at colleges and universities around the U.S. and the world, pushing for the One World Government. Also, every October, heads of state from every country in the world, including the United States, would come to San Francisco to attend Gorbachev’s World Forum meetings. One of the ways in which the UN has been considering financing a UN standing military, is to impose a separate UN tax on all of the workers in the world. In other words, we here in the U.S. would have to pay our Federal Income Tax, our State and local taxes plus a United Nations tax, on top of all the other taxes that we are forced to pay.)

The Earth Charter demands that we "demilitarize national security systems" (i.e., eliminate our armed services and their weapons). The Charter proclaims that its "Way Forward" requires "a change of mind and heart" as we move toward "global interdependence and universal responsibility."

The Charter demands that we adopt "sustainable development plans and regulations" (i.e., to subordinate human needs to global fads enforced by environment dictators), and that the UN "manage the use of renewable resources such as water, soil, forest products, and marine life . . . [to] protect the health of ecosystems" (i.e., not the health of mere humans).

The Charter demands that we "act with restraint and efficiency when using energy" (i.e., reduce U.S. energy use and lower our standard of living). The Charter requires that we "eradicate poverty," "promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations," and "relieve them of onerous international debt" (i.e., redistribute U.S. wealth around the world and cancel the debts owed by recipients of U.S. foreign loans).

The Charter exhorts us to affirm "gender equality" and "eliminate discrimination in ... sexual orientation" (i.e., adopt the feminist and gay agendas). The Charter demands that we "integrate into formal education [i.e., assign a UN nanny to monitor our schools] ... skills needed for a sustainable way of life [i.e., indoctrination in how we must subordinate sovereignty to the UN dogma of sustainability]."

The Charter affirms that "all beings are interdependent" (i.e., personal freedom is irrelevant) and "every form of life has value regardless of its worth to human beings" (i.e., animals, plants and insects, but not unborn babies). The Charter demands that we "ensure universal [i.e., global] access to health care that fosters reproductive health [i.e., abortion and contraception] and responsible reproduction [i.e., UN-dictated population control]."

The Earth Charter won't be a treaty that the U.S. Senate can accept or reject. It will be "soft law," a policy document like the UN Declaration on Human Rights, which has no legal standing but gives globalists such as Bill Clinton and global environmentalists such as Al Gore the perch from which they exhort us to "fulfill our international obligations" (even though Americans never accepted such obligations).

The Declaration demands the disarmament of all conventional and nuclear weapons, the prohibition of "unilateral deployment of nationwide missile defense by any country," and a "standing Peace Force" (i.e., a UN standing army). It calls for a "UN Arms register" of all small arms and light weapons (there goes our Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms), and "peace education "covering" all levels from pre-school through university."

The Declaration calls for "eliminating" the veto and permanent membership in the Security Council so that the United States will be merely one of 160 nations. This would reduce the influence of the United States in the UN to that of Cuba or Haiti even though we pay the lion's share of the budget.

The Declaration calls for the UN to impose direct taxes such as a "currency transfer tax," a "tax on the rental value of land and natural resources," a "royalty on worldwide fossil energy production -- oil, natural gas, coal," "fees for the commercial use of the oceans, fees for airplane use of the skies, fees for use of the electromagnetic spectrum, fees on foreign exchange transactions (i.e. the Tobin Tax), and a tax on the carbon content of fuels."

The Declaration calls for "a fair distribution of the earth's resources" (from the United States to the rest of the world, of course), and for the "eradication of poverty" by "redistribution [of] wealth and land." It demands that we "cancel the debts of developing countries." The Declaration demands UN "democratic political control of the global economy so that it may serve our vision" (i.e., control by 160 nations with the U.S. having only one vote). It calls for UN monitoring of U.S. implementation of Agenda 21 and the Copenhagen Declaration.

The Declaration demands that we "integrate" the World Trade Organization under UN control. All the talk we hear from politicians about "free trade" is just pap for the gullible; the goal is managed trade -- managed by UN bureaucrats. The Declaration calls for implementing UN treaties that the United States has never ratified, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (which refuses to recognize the right to private property).

The Declaration calls for the unratified International Criminal Court (ICC) to exercise "compulsory jurisdiction" over all states, enforced by the UN Security Council. The ICC is so dangerous to the constitutional rights of Americans that even Bill Clinton declined to sign it after his Administration had spent years participating in writing and negotiating it. The ICC has been signed by a hundred countries, and now the ICC and the UN are impudently asserting jurisdiction over the United States even though we did not sign it.

These radical UN Plans, which originated with the UN-funded Commission on Global Governance, are promoted by the NGOs, the hundreds of private Non-Government Organizations that have attached themselves to the United Nations like leeches. The UN now accredits 1,603 NGOs. Accreditation is dependent on the organization declaring that its primary purpose is to "promote the aims, objectives, and purposes of the United Nations."

The NGOs are energetic lobbyists for dramatic changes in the mission and structure of the UN to achieve global governance. The most prominent NGOs are the radical environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and the feminist and population-control groups such as Planned Parenthood. The leader of the UN's restructuring plans is a Canadian named Maurice Strong, who was Secretary General of the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 and has built his power base among the NGOs. Secretary-General Kofi Annan appointed him Executive Coordinator of UN Reform.

Maurice Strong and the NGOs publicized their extraordinary plans to achieve global governance through the UN in a 410-page report called Our Global Neighborhood, issued in 1995 by the Commission on Global Governance. This document states (p. 359) that the plans to "strengthen" the UN into global government originated with former West German Socialist Chancellor Willy Brandt. The NGOs work the corridors of the United Nations headquarters in New York like typical corporate lobbyists.

Persistent lobbying has made the NGOs very influential at the various UN conferences, including the Children's Summit in New York in 1990, the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the Human Rights Conference in Vienna in 1993, the Population Conference in Cairo in 1994, the Social Summit in Copenhagen in 1995, the Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995, the Habitat II Conference in Istanbul in 1996, and the World Food Summit in Rome in 1996.

The UN bureaucrats and NGOs have been working ever since on a Charter for Global Democracy to build the framework for a restructured UN, and the plans are now being crystallized in the Earth Charter and the Declaration described above. The NGOs worked for several years under the name NGO Forum and are now becoming the People's Assembly, as recommended by the Commission on Global Governance. This body of unelected pressure groups with leftwing political agendas is supposed to be formally attached to the UN during the Millennium Assembly. Pompously calling themselves the "civil society," they claim to be the voice of the people, in contrast to the General Assembly, which consists of the representatives of national governments. The NGOs dream of becoming the real power in the UN, bypassing the official representatives of nations. (All rather scary stuff, wouldn’t you say?)

Clinton Administration representatives at the United Nations were always very supportive of expanded UN powers. U.S. Ambassador to the UN Richard Holbrook says that "the United Nations must transform its civilian-run peacekeeping department into a larger and more effective military-style operation ..." (New York Times, 6-14-00)

The UN bureaucrats and NGOs are skillful with semantics, and their goal of world government is waffled with words that have specialized meanings but may appear non-threatening. Their jargon words used in a positive connotation are sustainable (their favorite word), global, interdependent, civil society, environmental, inclusive, diversity, common good, demilitarize, fair distribution, international, and universal responsibility. Among the jargon words always used negatively are production and consumption. Forbidden words include independence, freedom and sovereignty.

Much of what has been proposed sounds very nice and Christian, kind of "warm fuzzy", but the cost to our freedoms, our national sovereignty and our safety would be too high a price to pay. Not only would we be signing away our rights and freedoms, and our souls, but we would also be signing these same rights and freedoms of our children and grandchildren.

Annoyed with the Senate's refusal to ratify his various United Nations treaties, Bill Clinton has arrogantly tried to bypass the Senate by signing international agreements to implement them anyway. Each one cedes more U.S. sovereignty to some global organization. Clinton knew that his proposed United Nations Convention (treaty) on the Rights of the Child would never be ratified by the Senate because it would be a codification of Hillary's plan to put the global "village" in charge of raising children instead of parents. So Clinton made an end-run around that obstacle by going to the UN in New York and signing two protocols to the un-ratified Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The first of these protocols, a pet project of the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), would prohibit military service by minors. This encountered stiff resistance from the Pentagon because every year the U.S. Armed Services enlists about 50,000 high school seniors before their 18th birthday. Clinton worked out a compromise; he agreed not to send them into combat until their 18th birthday.

The protocol's first paragraph makes its real purpose clear. It is "to achieve the purposes of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the implementation of its provisions." The protocol is quite lengthy, nine pages of fine print. That gives the global commission lots of excuses to inject itself into U.S. laws and behavior. Article 12, for example, requires that we submit, within two years, a report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child. Since that committee is a creation of Article 44 of the un-ratified treaty on the Rights of the Child, this is another way that Clinton's protocol locks us into the un-ratified treaty.

NEXT