Welcome to Global Governance

“Global governance is here… to stay, and,
driven by economic and
environmental globalization, global governance will inevitably expand.” Gustave Speth (former member of Clinton’s Transition team and Executive
Director of UN Development Program) See video:

Global Governance

“For such a system of ‘governance’ to
work there must be a procedure for making laws and rules, an
independent revenue stream, and a mechanism for enforcement.
The rule-making procedure is well established. The
International Criminal Court provides the basis for enforcement.
But the absence, so far, of an independent revenue stream has prevented
the United Nations from becoming the world government so many have
envisioned for so long. The current economic crisis is the excuse
needed…..” [from the article below]

“Very few people realize there is a massive
effort to create global governance – a euphemism for world government
– that would dramatically affect every man, woman and child on earth.
As one of the leading experts on this issue, Henry Lamb offers a unique
insight on the rise of global governance, and its potentially very serious
consequences to mankind.”  — Dr. Michael S. Coffman, President, 
Environmental Perspectives, Inc.

---

For more than a century, the idea of a world
government has persisted. From
Cecil Rhodes’ vision
of a global British
Empire, to Woodrow Wilson’s vision of a League of Nations, to Franklin Roosevelt’s
creation of the United Nations, this dream of a world government has advanced.
In Berlin, Barack Obama announced that he is a “citizen of the world.” He
and his administration are about to pay homage to that global citizenship.

The people who created the League of Nations for Woodrow Wilson were behind-the-scenes
advisors. In the United States, Wilson’s advisors were known as Edward Mandell
House’s “Inquiry.” In England, the government was advised by Alfred Milner’s
group called the “Chatham House Gang,” created by
Cecil Rhodes in 1891. These
two groups drafted the Treaty of Versailles which ended the First World
War — and created
the League of Nations.

During the final days of treaty negotiations these two groups met at the
Majestic Hotel in Paris and decided to formalize their organizations. The
European group became the Royal
Institute of International Affairs, and House’s group became the
Council on Foreign Relations. These two groups have been the sustaining
power behind the idea of world government throughout the 20th century.

Franklin Roosevelt served in Wilson’s administration and knew well Mandell’s
House’s Inquiry, and the Council
on Foreign Relations. Roosevelt’s administration was filled with members
of the CFR. In fact, Roosevelt’s “New Deal,” was a product of the CFR.

Roosevelt’s son-in-law wrote:

“For a long time I felt that FDR had
developed many thoughts and ideas that were his own to benefit this
country, the USA. But he didn’t. Most of his thoughts, his political
ammunition,’ as it were, was carefully manufactured for him in advance
by the CFR-One World Money Group.” (Curtis Dall, FDR: My exploited
Father-in-law, 1967)

The majority of Roosevelt’s committee that
drafted the United Nations Charter were members of the Council on Foreign
Relations. Every administration since Roosevelt’s has been dominated by
members of the CFR. During Bill Clinton’s administration, Washington
Post writer, Richard Harwood reported that the Council on Foreign Relations
is “…the closest thing we have to a ruling Establishment in the United
States,” and went on to identify dozens of CFR members in the White House.
(Washington Post, Oct. 30, 1993, p. A-21)

CFR members dominated both of the Bush administrations. Richard Haass
[Foreign Policy Advisor to Obama] served
in both. Until June, 2003 he was Director of Planning at the State Department.
He resigned to become the President of the Council on Foreign Relations
in July, 2003.

Haass continues to push the idea of world government. In an article for
the Taipei Times, Haass said: “…states must be prepared to cede
some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function.”
(Taipei Times, February 21, 2006)

Here is the crux of the matter: national sovereignty and global governance
are mutually exclusive. Both cannot exist at the same time. A nation is
either sovereign, or it is not.

The League of Nations failed because the United States was unwilling to
cede its sovereignty to an international system. The United Nations has
not failed because nations, including the United States, continue to cede
sovereignty, as Haass says, to “world bodies.”

The Council on Foreign Relations, and much of official Europe, are convinced
that the only way the world can survive is through some form of global governance.
They contend that:

“Governance is not government — it is
the framework of rules, institutions, and practices that set limits
on the behavior of individuals, organizations and companies.” (U.N.
Human Development Report, 1999, page 34.)

Any authority that can “…limit…the behavior
of individuals, organizations and companies” — is a government.

For such a system of “governance” to work there must be a procedure for
making laws and rules, an independent revenue stream, and a mechanism for
enforcement. The rule-making procedure is well established. The International
Criminal Court provides the basis for enforcement. But the absence,
so far, of an independent revenue stream has prevented the United
Nations from becoming the world government so many have envisioned for so long.

The current economic crisis is the excuse needed to create a global mechanism
to control the global economy and siphon off an independent revenue stream
for the world government.

The United Nations first adopted a “New International
Economic Order” in 1974 (A/RES/S-6/3201). It called for a global socialist economic
system under the auspices of the United Nations. Fortunately, the United States
ignored the idea and it faded away, but it did not die.

In 1995, The U.N.-funded Commission on Global
Governance released its final report called, “Our
Global Neighborhood.” Among the many recommendations made to effect global
governance was a call to create a new Economic Security Council. Its jurisdiction
would include:

“…long-term threats to security in its widest
sense, such as shared ecological crises, economic instability, rising unemployment
… mass poverty … and the promotion of sustainable development.”

The U.S. representative on the Commission on
Global Governance was Adele Simmons, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Before he left office, President Bush called
a meeting of the
G20
to set the agenda for an April [2009] meeting in London. They hope to create
a global system to finally control the global economy. Whatever the structure
that comes out of the meeting, it will likely be empowered to control the global
economy and to connect economic actions with ecological and social justice issues
as well – just as prescribed by the Commission on Global Governance.

The creation of the World Trade Organization
went a long way toward giving a “world body” power to regulate trade. The United
States ceded significant sovereignty when it agreed to conform its rules and
laws to the dictates of this U.N. agency.

The
World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the Bank of International
Settlements are not yet run by the consensus of boards arbitrarily appointed
by the U.N. And so far, the U.N. has not been able to find a way to siphon off
a revenue stream from international currency exchange. But this could change
beginning with the April 2 meeting in London.

Already, European leaders are making noises about
tighter international control over the global economy. Among the ideas advanced
in the past are things such as U.N. licensing and even tighter regulation of
international trade; U.N. representation in the boardrooms of international
corporations; and international taxation for the privilege of doing business
globally.

Whoever controls the flow of money controls the
activity of those who have money, as well as those who want it. For example,
whatever international economic structure may arise can insist that a nation
adopt U.N.-prescribed global warming goals as a condition for participating
in economic flows. This new international economic structure could dictate tax
rates, interest rates and credit terms.

This proposed international economic structure
could sap the last vestige of sovereignty from the United States. Aside from
Ron Paul and Glenn Beck on the Fox News Channel, there is very little concern
being expressed by the media or by politicians.

Global governance is at the world’s doorstep.
Gustav Speth, who served on Bill Clinton’s transition team before being appointed
to head the U.N. Development program told a 1997 global conference:

“Global governance is here, here to stay,
and, driven by economic and environmental globalization, global governance
will inevitably expand.”

Strobe Talbott, Bill Clinton’s deputy secretary
of state, said in Time magazine:

“…within the next hundred years…nationhood
as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global
authority.”

Both Speth and Talbott are members of the
Council
on Foreign Relations. Timothy Geithner, secretary of the treasury, and Lawrence
Summers, the president’s chief economic adviser, will represent the United States
at the G20 meeting in April. Both are members of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Hillary Clinton, secretary of state, publicly

endorsed world government when she praised Walter Cronkite for his work
that earned him the World Federalist Association’s “Global Governance” award.

Throughout the Clinton years, and the Bush years,
members of the Council on Foreign Relations have pushed to advance global governance.
Opposition in the House and Senate, and sometimes, an obstinate President Bush,
blocked U.S. participation in the Kyoto Protocol, the International Criminal
Court, the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the

Convention on the Rights of the Child and the

imposition of a U.N. tax on international currency exchange.

Today, opposition to global governance has diminished
in Congress and has vanished from the White House. With eyes wide open, the
United States is welcoming global governance. This administration, with approval
of the majority of Congress, will cede our sovereignty to an international system
that is beyond accountability and devoid of morality. The U.N. is eager to fund
its nefarious adventures with money placed under its care by those who bought
the promise of hope and blindly voted for change.

Once the U.N. has an independent revenue stream
to fund its “peacekeeping” forces, which can enforce treaties and the decrees
of the International Criminal Court, there will be no force on earth with the
power to overthrow it. When the United States realizes the true cost global
governance, it will be much too late. The U.N. will control the flow of both
money and energy available to the U.S.

Obama and the current congressional majority
will be long gone, leaving the next generation to curse their parent’s stupidity
– and only wonder what freedom was.

---

Previous articles
by Henry Lamb:

 
| Global Governance: Why?
How? When?

Home –
Articles –
Victory