fyi visit my web site at http://www.voicenet.com/~wbacon My ICQ# is 79071904 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 19:21:00 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: SNET: The UN Wants World Government -> SNETNEWS Mailing List On Sept. 12, 2000 the Virginia Taxpayers Association issued a news release declaring that "in ordering Virginia to celebrate United Nations Day, Gov. Jim Gilmore is pushing us into world government." At the time the release was prepared in advance for U. S. mail distribution, the VTA had in its possession a working draft of a declaration to be taken up by the United Nations Millennium Assembly and Summit Sept. 6 to 8 in New York City. The final Millennium Declaration had not been printed in any newspaper and was not yet available to the association. The approved Millennium Declaration did add a few paragraphs to the original working draft considered by the VTA and also the words "sovereign equality" but not the word "sovereignty". The overall content of the Declaration was not substantially changed. Following are two thoughtful analyses of the final Millennium Declaration by independent experts showing that VTA's news release appraisal -- that those in control of the UN do indeed want world government -- is correct. The analyses were published by the Sept. 15, 2000 issue of eco-logic magazine, a leading independent journal informing the public of UN-related activities. Kenneth White, President Virginia Taxpayers Association 9/16/00 ================================================================ Friday, September 15, 2000 indicates audio link (M) indicates member section Millennium Declaration legitimizes U.N. Global Governance Agenda >From LifeSite The United Nations Millennium Summit, the largest gathering of world leaders in history, concluded Friday and the final version of the Summit Declaration has been released. The Declaration, a statement agreed to by a vote of the vast majority of world leaders is regarded by the United Nations as having "sketched out clear directions for adapting the Organization to its role in the new century." "It lies in your power, and therefore is your responsibility, to reach the goals that you have defined", declared U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. "Only you can determine whether the United Nations rises to the challenge. For my part, I hereby re-dedicate myself, as from today, to carrying out your mandate." For Annan to declare that the document is a production of the world leaders themselves is a farce, since it was U.N. bureaucrats who drafted the statement which remained essentially unchanged. U.N. expert Henry Lamb, of Sovereignty International and ECO told LifeSite that although some suggest that the conference did nothing significant, "the declaration has given the U.N. a mandate from the highest political authority on earth, to go forward with its vision of global governance as laid out in the declaration." Lamb noted that "prior to this meeting that agenda was illicit on the part of the U.N. but now is approved." The global governance agenda leads to the loss of sovereignty of individual nations. The weakening of sovereignty is reflected in the document. Despite pressure by various nations to include respect for sovereignty, the document does not include the term, but rather mentions the ambiguous newspeak phrase "We rededicate ourselves to support all efforts to uphold the sovereign equality of all States." The management of all living species according to "sustainable development" terms is retained in the document, but the language is tempered by the term "prudence". "Prudence must be shown in the management of all living species and natural resources, in accordance with the precepts of sustainable development," it says. The majority vote in favour of the document is surprising since many of the leaders appeared to contradict their nations' official policies on important items in the document. The most glaring example of this is in the case of U.S. President Bill Clinton. While the U.S. Congress is dead set against U.N. treaties such as the International Criminal Court, Kyoto and CEDAW, the U.S. is now officially a party to this declaration which says: "We resolve: To ensure the implementation, by States Parties, of treaties in areas such as arms control and disarmament, and of international humanitarian law and human rights law, and call upon all States to consider signing and ratifying the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. To make every effort to ensure the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol, preferably by the tenth anniversary of the U.N.ited Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 2002, and to embark on the required reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases. To combat all forms of violence against women and to implement the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women." One alarming proposal brought forward by the representative from Libya, among others, was to increase the power of the General Assembly to supersede the power of even the Security Council. Such a radical proposal is reflected in the declaration as it states its resolve, "To reaffirm the central position of the General Assembly as the chief deliberative, policy-making and representative organ of the United Nations, and to enable it to play that role effectively." Anna Halpine, a pro-life lobbyist at the United Nations and executive director of the World Youth Alliance, told LifeSite that "it is increasingly clear that the United Nations is moving to become a Parliament of Nations with increasing legislative powers." Ms. Halpine, recently a senior assistant to a European cabinet minister, noted that the U.N. would follow the path of the EU which has "wrested more power from EU states with each successive summit and treaty." Would such grandiose designs on removing power even from the Security Council even be countenanced? The declaration calls for states "To intensify our efforts to achieve a comprehensive reform of the Security Council in all its aspects." An analysis of the Summit and its proposals by John R. Bolton, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs under Bush, notes that with the Summit "Kofi Annan was staging nothing less than a quiet coup d'etat against the authority of the five permanent members of the Security Council." He also says that "perhaps even more surprising, the United States and Britain were full supporters of the coup, while Russia, France and China did not appear to take it seriously." The approved draft of the declaration concludes "the United Nations is the indispensable common house of the entire human family, through which we will seek to realize our universal aspirations for peace, cooperation and development. We, therefore, pledge our unstinting support for these common objectives, and our determination to achieve them." Many UN bureaucrats and their "civil society" allies have for years been labouring on their private elitist agenda for the U.N. This agenda has as its goal to radically transform the role and authority of the UN to replace what is seen as an international disorder of far too independent-minded, over-populated and socially unprogressive sovereign nations. There is, therefore, a strong possibility that in voting for the summit document many of the national leaders did not realize how the document would be interpreted and implemented by others against their own nation's interests. See the full declaration at: http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/a55L2.ht m Copyright (C) 2000 Freedom.org, All rights reserved Comments, questions or requests for more information about LifeSite may be directed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Campaign Membership preview | Become a member? | Table of Contents ====================================================================== September 11, 2000 Kofi Annan's quiet coup d'�tat John R. Bolton National Post Last week's Millennium Summit in New York was certainly a magnificent photo opportunity for politicians and their image-makers. Many observers welcomed the spectacle in misty-eyed fashion as heralding (yet another) major improvement in United Nations effectiveness; others have criticized the gathering as little more than a hypocritical display of pious intentions, unsupported by any sustainable, concrete accomplishments. Beneath these varying but fundamentally superficial analyses, however, something else was at work in New York, largely undebated during the summit speeches, and inadequately reported by the major media. In fact, in the critically important area of peacekeeping, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan was staging nothing less than a quiet coup d'�tat against the authority of the five permanent members of the Security Council. Perhaps even more surprising, the United States and Britain were full supporters of the coup, while Russia, France and China did not appear to take it seriously. Both the Security Council and the summit endorsed recommendations on peacekeeping from a group of Annan-appointed "experts" that could radically expand the frequency, purpose and scope of UN peacekeeping operations, increase the power of the UN Secretariat vis-�-vis the council, and substantially increase the UN's peacekeeping personnel and resources. Although the expert group's report is couched in intensely bureaucratic prose, its ambitious and far-reaching implications are not hard to discern. Traditionally, United Nations peacekeeping has been successful where three basic conditions were met: consent of the local parties to a dispute; impartiality of UN forces deployed in the conflict zone; and use of military force by UN personnel only in self defence. In the past several years, advocates of a greater UN role have urged that some or all of these criteria be weakened or jettisoned entirely, replaced by more "robust" rules of engagement, thus permitting and even requiring far greater reliance on the actual use of force by the UN than in previous missions. The agenda of these UN theorists (once hidden, but now fully out of the closet) is to expand the overall importance of the United Nations, and also to insert it into conflicts that do not constitute true threats to "international peace and security," the only legitimate basis in the UN Charter for the Security Council to authorize a UN role. (Indeed, in the past decade, the most explosive growth in peacekeeping has been precisely in intrastate conflicts.) By so doing, UN supporters hope to transfer greater resources from member governments to the UN, thus justifying, piggy-back fashion, even larger UN roles in the future in a self-perpetuating cycle. But expanding the concept of "peacekeeping" into "peace building" is far from the logical or inevitable evolutionary path depicted by its supporters. They complain, for example, that relying on the "consent" of the local parties is too limited because those parties can "manipulate" consent. In fact, however, such cases reflect circumstances where one or all the parties to a conflict have not in fact truly given consent. They are not problems of peacekeeping, military operations or doctrine, but of fundamental political failure to reach actual agreement on ending a conflict. As such, they are circumstances where the United Nations should not deploy a peacekeeping force at all, not one where more "robust" rules of engagement will make a perceptible difference. Equally troubling is the rejection of the traditional concept of "impartiality," and substituting for it the gauzy idea that "impartiality" means "adherence to the principles of the Charter" and to UN mandates rooted in those principles. The UN experts argue that the UN is "morally compelled" to use force where the local parties are not "moral equals." Calling this approach "peacekeeping" is intellectually dishonest. The UN has had success in restoring international peace and security between parties of varying morality, and that is why it has been a useful instrument of international policy. If the Secretary-General truly contemplates that the UN will be picking white hats and black hats, he should say so explicitly, rather than relying instead on distorting the "impartiality" principle. Finally, the Secretary-General and the Millennium Summit appear to be rejecting what the experts call the "symbolic and non-threatening" force structures of traditional peacekeeping in favor of "bigger forces, better equipped and more costly" that will "pose a credible deterrent effect" with "robust rules of engagement." What this really means, however, is that the UN now wants to wage small wars (small, "moral" wars, of course). One cannot talk about the use of force, even for "moral" purposes without being prepared for retaliation, either against the UN or against other parties to the conflict. This involves combat, and it most assuredly will involve casualties. This is war, not peacekeeping. In short, the Secretary-General's new approach to peacekeeping is so intellectually muddled and so badly flawed operationally that it virtually guarantees trouble if anyone actually believes the summit's final declaration is anything more than flowery rhetoric. The United States Congress has already begun to look very carefully at the implications of the summit's activities. Even if the new doctrines of "peacekeeping" were hardly debated at all in New York, the real debate in Washington is just starting. John R. Bolton is senior vice president of the American Enterprise Institute. During the Bush administration, he served as the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -> To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___________________________________________________________ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
