UN Makes its Move
Vol: 47 Issue: 26 Friday, August 26, 2005
Undaunted by a litany of failures, scandals that would make Bill Clinton blush, its utter ineffectiveness at containing global problems like Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the Sudanese genocide or even a definition for the word ‘terror’, the UN has decided this is the perfect time to make a grab at the reins of global power.
While the Democrats in the Senate fought to block John Bolton from the US Ambassador’s seat, the globalists on Turtle Bay were preparing a special summit to ambush the United States in September.
An ambush that could have been at least partially blunted in advance, had Bolton already been on the job.
The UN has prepared a forty-page paper it hopes to get Bush’s signature on, under the working title, “Draft Outcome Document of the High-level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly of September 2005.”
The document envisions a series of ‘reforms’ that won’t reform the UN, but will instead reform the world to accept the idea of a UN global government. Not just a debating society, but a real government, with real governmental authority.
The document begins from the flawed premise that the UN has a critical role to play in global affairs, and that it is up to the task. The UN hopes that, by presenting the document for Bush’s signature during a global special summit, he will be forced to sign on in order to rebut the global view of the US as a unilateralist loose cannon.
The Draft Outcome Document of the High-level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly of September 2005 is a wish list that offers nothing in the terms of actual reform within the United Nations.
From the perspective of the draft, it is a case of “I’m ok, but you’re a pathetic mess.”
The draft would commit the United States to “meeting all commitments and obligations under the Kyoto Protocol.” The Kyoto Protocol is so flawed that, by 2001, not a single other nation in the world had ratified it.
The United States Senate rejected ratification 97-3. But when George Bush announced the United States would never ratify Kyoto, other nations started signing on.
On February 16, 2005, enough nations had ratified the Kyoto Protocols to put it into force without US ratification.
The UN hopes to shame the United States into signing on to the Kyoto Protocols, which aim to clean up the environment by suppressing energy use in the developed world and granting exemptions to ‘underdeveloped’ nations like China and Russia. This means that, even with Kyoto, global emissions of greenhouse gases will continue to increase.
So the Kyoto Protocol will do virtually nothing to halt any possible global temperature increase the temperature that would have been reached in 2100 will be reached in 2106.
Yet independent analyses of the annual cost to the world of complying with Kyoto put it at between $150 billion and $350 billion a year — most of which will be borne by the United States.
In addition, signatories to the special summit ‘reform’ document would agree to “maintain a moratorium on nuclear test explosions pending the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and call upon all States to sign and ratify” that treaty.
(The Senate has already rejected such a treaty, declaring it inconsistent with America’s national security interests.)
UN ‘reforms’ call for the “authorization, without delay, of negotiations on . . . effective measures for the prevention of an arms race in outer space.” That is so obviously contrary to US national security interests as to require no further comment.
The UN ‘reforms’ would also call for the establishment of a permanent United Nations military force, drawn from the military forces of member states.
Those forces would be under United Nations command and control and their first allegiance would be to the United Nations, not their home countries.
And finally, the UN’s special summit ‘reform’ document would give it the authority to levy ‘globotaxes’ on international commerce in addition to the taxes it already collects in the form of member state ‘contributions’.
The UN (which has been caught stealing billions from Iraq under the cloak of the UN’s Oil for Food program) wants the US to authorize it to develop, “innovative and additional sources of financing for development on a public, private, domestic or external basis;” and things like, “solidarity contributions on plane tickets to finance development projects;” and “other solidarity contributions that would be nationally applied and internationally coordinated.”
“Solidarity” is such a nice, warm, friendly-sounding word!
The UN gets more than a quarter of its budget from the US Treasury, which gives the Congress a pretty powerful sword to use when it really needs it.
Congress has authority to cut US contributions to the UN, and has used that authority in the past. The authority to levy ‘globotaxes’ would blunt that sword considerably.
Enter John Bolton. According to an angry Reuters press release disguised as a news article, UN diplomats are upset the United States is trying to “return to square one and launch line-by-line negotiations on the document.”
No wonder the Far Left was trying to keep him off the job! Return to Square One with the UN? Go over the UN’s wish list line-by-line?
(I thought negotiations among diplomats was the UN’s raison d’etre?)
And why would Bolton not trust the UN? Just because it is hopelessly corrupt, incompetent, biased and totally opposed to all things American? Is that a good reason?
Not to the Marxist philosophy embraced by the American Left. The reason they opposed John Bolton is, in a nutshell, because he is ‘too blunt and undiplomatic’ and ‘too supportive of the Bush administration’. (That is like a bar owner complaining that his bouncers are too big and mean-looking.)
It is not likely that the UN’s ‘wish list’ will bear the president’s signature as written, but the UN’s global power grab has considerable support outside the United States.
Much of the world sees a need for a global system of government to keep the United States in check and to ensure they get what they believe is a fair share of the global pie.
The UN’s 2005 ‘Report on the World Social Situation’ concluded that much of the world is trapped in what the report called an “inequality predicament” that is claims is the root cause of terrorism and war.
“It is dangerous for both national and international peace and security to allow economic and political inequality to deepen. Such inequalities, especially struggles over political power, land and other assets can create social disintegration and exclusion and lead to conflict and violence. Manifestations of such violence discussed in the Report include war, the use of child soldiers, and domestic and sexual violence.”
It is classic Marxism; the rich are evil exploiters of the poor. The best way to rectify the situation is to redistribute the wealth until there aren’t any more poor people. It doesn’t work, it never has, and it never will, but that is what makes Marxism so appealing.
If somebody COULD make it work, the world would be SUCH a wonderful place. No crime, no poverty, no private ownership . . . the world would be one big happy family.
This is the generation in which the concept of a global government has found a home. It’s been talked about ever since the collapse of the old Roman Empire.
Various conquerors, from Charlemagne to Napoleon to Hitler, all pictured themselves at the reins of global power and attempted to bring it about by force.
This generation has come the closest in history to realizing the globalist dreams of the conquerors, but the developing global empires are coming together under the banner of peace, rather than war. The European Union, the dreamchild of Charlemagne and Napoleon, could never have been united by war, as most recently proved by Hitler’s Third Reich sixty years ago.
But following the Nazi madness, six European countries met under the banner of peace and, in 1948, entered into the Benelux Treaty that eventually grew to become the single European entity that eluded military efforts for centuries.
The United Nations, created for the express purpose of uniting the world against war, has grown into the global government-in-waiting that it is today. All in the name of peace and prosperity.
Consider this for a second. All of the efforts to create a global government by force in the last two thousand years have failed — and not for the lack of trying, as history makes abundantly clear.
But in just one generation, the world has not only seen the need for global government, it has embraced the concept as the only sure method of maintaining global peace.
Twenty five centuries ago, before the rise of the Medo-Persian Empire, before Alexander the Great’s Greek Empire, before the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, the prophet Daniel predicted the rise of the antichrist in the last days, saying;
“And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and BY PEACE shall destroy many.”
The Apostle John recorded his vision of ‘the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse’ — the first four of the Seven Seal Judgments of Revelation Six. John pictures the first horseman — or first Seal Judgment — this way.
“And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see. And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.” (Revelation 6:1-2)
The rider on the white horse is the antichrist. Note that he carries a bow — but no arrows. Note that a crown is ‘given’ him — he doesn’t seize it by force. Note also that, without weapons, he ‘went forth conquering’.
The first seal judgment is a false peace advanced by a global leader who conquers without weapons. The second seal, the rider on the red horse, comes to “to take peace from the earth.”
Weapons are introduced to maintain order, but the new world order itself comes together by peaceful means.
All this in a single generation. This generation was born in the aftermath of the last effort at global conquest by force.
From that beginning, we’ve progressed to the point where most of the world is prepared to surrender to a global government without a shot being fired — all in the name of peace.
Yet throughout the UN’s existence, one is hard-pressed to find an example of the UN actually having prevented a single war. There is no reason to believe that it will do any better in the future than it has in the past.
But the idea of global government in the pursuit of peace is an idea whose time has come. Finally. For the first time in all recorded human history. In this generation.
“Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till ALL be fulfilled.” (Luke 21:32)