New World Order Factions Struggle for Control

WORLD AFFAIRS BRIEF   February 4, 2000  Copyright Joel Skousen.  Quotations with attribution permitted.



                I wrote at the end of 1999 that US citizens have been deeply probed about how much resistance they would offer to a variety of global agendas.  By and large Americans have failed to provide any meaningful resistance.  Already we are beginning to see the results.  The NWO crowd is moving ahead with major proposals in earnest and aren’t even bothering to be subtle about it.  They are on a roll and the tidal waves of change are sweeping in from multiple directions.  Let me summarize what is happening.



                The front cover of the January 17th issue of The New Republic, an old left publication turned politically chic, dramatically proclaims, “America Is Surrendering Its Sovereignty To A World Government.   HOORAY!”  The editors correctly assume that Americans know nothing about the devastating effects that such a loss of sovereignty would have on taxes, personal liberty, court procedures, property rights, religious liberty and defense (both national and personal).  The establishment is learning fast that as long as they shield Americans from any direct effects of UN rule until after the US is irreversibly integrated into global legal structures there will be no resistance.  The inability of Americans to foresee the results of globalization and project the theory into practice is a direct result of a public education system that systematically denies essential information about how liberty is maintained and how majority rule in a democracy must be chained to constitutional limitations by tight legal language. 



                Even though Conservative Party leader William Hague is no trustworthy opponent of globalism, he let loose a barrage this past week against the secret agenda of Tony Blair’s Labor Party.  He charged that Tony Blair, in league with Brussels’ EU leadership, is pushing ahead with plans to create a European superstate, without openly presenting the key sovereignty issues for a vote.   Mr. Hague revealed that a series of European Commission proposals published last week not only would further Britain’s integration into the European Union, but would limit a member state’s right to use its national veto.  Hague loudly denounced Blair saying, “They are pushing for a European Union with its own government, its own army, its own taxes, its own foreign policy, its own criminal justice system, its own constitution, as well as its own currency - in other words, a single European state....The submission is an integrationist wish-list - the blueprint for a single European state."   Hague also correctly pointed out that the EU’s strategy is to eliminate national veto powers gradually by only applying the limitations to carefully chosen “safe” issues, so as to get the people used to the idea.  He said: "The national veto would be abolished in areas of social security, social policy, industrial and transport policy, financial regulation and the spending of the multi-million pound structural and cohesion funds."   Now, if you think this is only of concern for Europe, consider what the globalists have in store for the US at their upcoming New York Summit Conference.



                The United Nations will convene a special millennium global summit on the future of the world in September 2000.  This summit will be the culmination of 10 years of planning and maneuvering, and is intended to initiate the implementation phase of numerous structural UN changes aimed at breaking the UN loose from voluntary participation.  The basic document outlining the new objectives was published by the UN Commission on Global Governance in 1995.  The latest document, called, “The Charter for Global Democracy” was published on UN Day, October 24th, 1999 and signed by influential leaders in 56 nations as well as most of the “private” Non-Government Organizations (NGO).  NGOs are, for the most part, contingencies of leftist lobbies formed to give the appearance of grass roots support, pressuring the UN to continue locking up the world for the sake of environment, human dignity and other euphemisms advocating population and property control.  In reality this document is a charter for the abolition of individual freedom and all national sovereignty.  Here are the principles enunciated:

                Principle #1 calls for the consolidation of all international agencies under the direct authority of the United Nations. This initiative targets a number of the real international power centers which have never been under  direct UN control--the powerful Bank of International Settlements (BIS), World Trade Organization (WTO) Office of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).  The European left, who controls a majority of the votes in the UN General Assembly knows the UN is only a global government on paper unless it can harness these secret organs of power.  I will go into more detail on this EU vs. US battle for power among the NWO elite in the next issue. 

                Principle #2 calls for regulation by the UN of all transnational corporations and financial institutions, requiring an "international code of conduct" concerning the environment and labor standards.  I’m betting these controls will not be limited to labor and environment.  After implementation, there will be no more safe financial havens to park money privately overseas.  Every international financial institution will be regulated and controlled.  Also, say good-bye to private corporate rights.  Any business crossing national borders will be automatically brought under the powers of international law on labor and environment.  All of our “right to work” laws will be overturned within major corporations and the Kyoto treaty will be forced upon US corporations without going through Congress.

                Principle #3 demands an independent source of revenue for the UN, such as taxes on internet transactions, taxes on aircraft and shipping fuels, and licensing the use of the global commons (outer space, the atmosphere, oceans, and any crucial environment space that supports human life--what a catch-all!)  The worst thing about this proposal is that once the nations assent to giving the UN the power to tax (and this power will, like all evil forms of taxation, begin with very small rate) the UN will have power to raise rates without going back to the original member nations for approval.  Like our income tax, its growth will be inevitable.

                Principle #4 eliminates the veto power and permanent member status on the Security Council.  This is the big issue.  It is aimed exclusively at the US, even though it will be sold to Americans on the basis that it will stop the Russians and Chinese from stonewalling on human rights issues, like Chechnya.   Without a veto power, the only recourse for the US to protest any UN decision is total withdrawal from the UN.  That would be preferable except that the deeper America gets into participation with the UN, the less likely this becomes, politically.  In short, removal of the veto will make the US hostage to UN law without ever having to amend the US Constitution.  Our leaders will continually promote the line that we must sacrifice some sovereignty to the UN in order to have world peace.  Trouble is, there is no such thing as partial sovereignty.  Either you have it or you don’t.  Once we start down this road where we “must comply” with UN mandates, our own judges will begin enforcing UN law. 

                Principle #5 authorizes a standing UN army.  The UN wants this in place before the next war so that the structure is there to build a huge army quickly, without relying on US control as in past conflicts.

                Principle #6 requires UN registration of all arms and the reduction of all national armies "as part of a multilateral global security system" under the authority of the United Nations.  Whatever the rhetoric, this means gun control to be imposed upon US citizens and unilateral disarmament nationally.

                Principle #7 requires individual and national compliance with all UN "human rights" treaties and declarations.  You’d have to read all the fine print to know the full extent of this threat.  In short, it’s nothing but a social rights agenda to mandate socialist redistribution policies, worldwide health care, and to ensure that contraceptives and abortions are available on demand worldwide.

                Principle #8 activates the International Criminal Court, making the International Court of Justice compulsory for all nations, and gives individuals the right to petition the courts to remedy social injustice.  The right to petition means right to sue any other person or group, causing them to spend huge amounts of money on lawyers in foreign countries to defend themselves against a stacked legal deck. 

                Principles #9, 10, and 11 are all part of the huge environmentalist agenda.  #9 calls for a new institution to establish economic and environmental security by ensuring "sustainable development."  #10: calls for the establishment of an International Environmental Court.  # 11: calls for a declaration that climate change is an essential global security interest that requires the creation of a "high-level action team" to allocate carbon emission based on equal per-capita rights.  This wordage forces the Kyoto Treaty upon all nations.  As in all Fascist systems, you and I will still own property but they will control it and we will pay for the privilege of implementing their phony science mandates.

                Principle #12 calls for the cancellation of all debt owed by the poorest nations, global poverty reductions, and “equitable sharing of global resources," as allocated by the United Nations.  Won’t they have a heyday redistributing wealth worldwide with this language!

                Summary:  They won’t get all this wish list in 2000, but if they even get one or two key principles enacted into law (#4,5 or 8) they can get the rest by edict and majority rule. 


THE GROWING RIFT BETWEEN US AND EUROPEAN GLOBALIST LEADERS, the British Internet cheerleaders for the UN’s Charter for Global Democracy (discussed in last week’s brief) made some sour comments about the lack of influence the UN has in world affairs.

“In many ways we now have world government.  [However] It is not to be found at the United Nations. Rather, the UN has been sidelined, while the real business of world government is done elsewhere. Global policies are discussed and decided behind closed doors by exclusive groups, such as the G8, OECD, the Bank of International Settlements, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organisation and others. These agencies are reinforced by informal networks of high officials and powerful alliances. Together they have created what can be seen as dominant and exclusive institutions of world government. All too often they are influenced by transnational corporations which pursue their own world strategies.”

                ANALYSIS:  These cogent comments highlight the visible rift developing between leftist organizations and the US globalist leaders (who have misled European socialists and Communists into thinking they share the same goals).  Indeed, the two groups share the same goals about global socialism, but the European left is fast awakening to the realization that NWO leaders have a lock-hold on ultimate power and aren’t about to share any of that power with ideological Marxists and Communists.  We will watch closely the negotiations at the UN Millennial summit on Global Governance in September where we will see how the Europeans (who have a majority of allies in the UN general assembly) will fare at implementing their 12 strategic objectives that we discussed last week.  About half of these objectives are focused on bringing the powerful independent globalist organs (IMF, World Bank, BIS, and WTO) under direct UN control.  In this way, the Europeans can use their majority allies in the General Assembly to wrest power from the US.  That is why the Europeans must eliminate the Security Council’s veto power, so that the General Assembly votes (almost all pro-Communist) will prevail.

                I don’t think the Europeans will succeed, but this is a source of underlying tension between the NWO leaders in the European Union and those in the US.  British leaders participates in both camps: the Tories have been long aligned with the US faction of the NWO and the Labor Party has been allied with the European Marxists.  At the present, Labor PM Tony Blair is trying to pull Britain into the European camp, while the Tories under William Hague are beginning to resist.  Remember that the European socialist leaders are aligned with the Socialist International--a Communist front, directed from Moscow.  That is why Russia’s secret leadership (i.e.:Boris Berezovsky) keeps a physical presence in Paris. 

                Europeans, being ideological Marxists, rather than simply power conspirators like the US faction, are hostile towards private business.  On the other hand, the US faction of the NWO, which currently holds most of the power, is willing to court big business and use those relationships to extend their base of power and financial control.  It is this strategy of harnessing and corrupting the corporate financial world that has given the US faction the upper hand in controlling the world’s money.   In addition, this split in NWO power may also explain why the Russians are targeting only America and Britain for a nuclear first strike and not Europe.  The Russians are, perhaps, much more confident about the level of control and influence they have with European socialist leaders.  They don’t trust the Americans, despite American aid and its willingness to unilaterally disarm.  Both Russia and China view war with the US as inevitable.  What almost everyone else fails to realize, as well, is that China views war with Russia as inevitable too.



World Affairs Brief Home