John Stuart Mill's last paragraph in his essay On Liberty:
"[A] State which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes, will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished; and that the perfection of machinery to which it has sacrificed everything, will in the end avail it nothing, for want of the vital power which, in order that the machine might work more smoothly, it has preferred to banish."The below was recently sent out on the Net and expresses some worthy thoughts and observations regarding the recent UN summit, ultimately proving the validity of what Mill stated above.
FROM UNKNOWN AUTHOR
The attachment is my contribution, as a career journalist (now retired) to the march protesting against the imposition of the One World Order – also known as "Global Governance." Please feel free to use and distribute as you wish. I have not appended my name, because that is not important. The information, however, is VERY important, and readers should focus on that, rather than the writer.
I wrote the article recently, after a few decades of contemplating exactly what this UN organization is all about – and reading the UN"s own report on Global Governance. I am not an American, but I was in New York in 1977, to apply for a job with the United Nations. I walked to the UN building from my hotel, and was struck by the flags of all the countries that are displayed outside the UN building. It was a sub-zero Christmas. I observed the flags, up there in the weak winter sunlight - and then, from the shadows of the New York streets, I saw a hungry, unkempt, disheveled, homeless American do a "dumpster dive" into a trash can right outside the UN building. He was starving, and looking for food.
I was an international newsman, a photo journalist, and a TV news cameraman. As I said, I was in New York to apply for a job with the United Nations, because at the time, it seemed like this would be an ultimate feather in my cap as a reporter and film maker. But, suddenly, I had to ask myself - "what is wrong with this picture?" I began to question, seriously, what this UN system is really all about.
I asked myself, "If America can not take care of its own, if its people must seek their morning meal in a trash can, right outside the UN building, why is America host to this global organization that pretends that it seeks to solve the world's hunger crisis?"
I read the UN charter - and found that it had cunningly paraphrased the first words of the U.S. Constitution as the first of many subtle ways in which it has molded public opinion in order to establish its claim to respectability. I read a lot more, and came to the conclusion, reluctantly, but honestly, that when one studies the UN objectively, it turns out to be nothing but a major con job designed to misuse the loyalty Americans have to their own history, in order to fool them into accepting "Global Governance."
Further, if one were to read the original Declaration of Independence, and simply insert the words "global governance," or "One World Government," for every reference to the tyrannical activity of the King, one would be astounded at the similarities between then – and what faces the citizens of the United States right now.
Here's the article.
"Judas And The Sheep ..."
(Or …does "Global Governance" really mean "One World Order?")
by Author Unknown
I have applied 40 years' experience as an international journalist to analyzing the UN report on "Global Governance" – and come to the conclusion that when it is instituted, it will change the face of the world, and the United States in particular, in ways never foreseen by the Founding Fathers.
My background in the dominant media had me convinced for many years that the UN was a completely benign and altruistic organization, established for the best of all reasons – to promote health, freedom, peace, and political and economic stability.
Like Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather, I thought permanent peace required some form of global body of law, and perhaps even a global government.
But I have changed my mind.
I eventually had to ask myself, was there really an agenda aimed at One World Order hidden within the report that was to be discussed at the United Nations Millennium Forum in New York in May 2000? Have the fears of so-called conspiracy theorists finally been realized? And will those who claim we are on the slippery slope to a single global government, and the loss of all freedoms, be vindicated in their beliefs?
I cannot find a mainstream publication willing to publish these conclusions (and that in itself supports the theory that the dominant media is biased in favor of this UN agenda) so I am offering what I have written for free use on the Internet.
I have analyzed hundreds, perhaps thousands of reports and speeches over the years, but it was not till I visited the United States – and fell in love with the principles enshrined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights – that I fully understood how unique in world history the US really is.
And now it is in real danger of losing every bit of its hard-won sovereignty, with its people nothing more than worker ants to be used and discarded for the benefit of a "king" whose sole interest is power and control.
The United States has its faults - it has created implacable enemies around the globe, and may some day pay the price for that – but it is also in serious danger of imploding, disappearing as a sovereign nation, because today's leaders are so clearly in favor of the "One World Order" that has been espoused for the past half century.
So I analyzed this report, which is available for all to see on the Internet, and came to the conclusion that any report put out by the UN can be interpreted two ways. One perception – the comforting one – foresees peace and plenty in a world lacking in want. The second – the uncomfortable one, but the one that is most likely - is a world of total control, whether it is referred to as "One World Order" by some, or as "Global Governance" by the UN itself. The "king" has simply changed his clothes.
Unfortunately, what this means is that both individual and national evolution are facing extinction, while any revolution - of the kind which established the United States and set it free from past tyranny – is doomed to failure.
Individual evolution requires freedom of choice, personal liberty, and the right to pursue happiness - all of which are the birthright of Americans, and all of which are denied under the concept of Global Governance.
Revolution is what has been precipitated when those freedoms have been removed, or given away – but, under Global Governance, all revolutionaries will be "removed" as soon as they become a problem.
Neither evolution, nor revolution, will be possible if the world embraces global governance – yet that is precisely what the world is being asked to do.
In fact, the United States, indeed the whole world, seems poised to embrace the very thing which so many have fought so hard to break free from – and which a few, a very few, are determined to impose.
Society at this turn of the millennium is, one could argue, actually going through a state of evolution, for the better. After a century of unbelievably horrific wars and skirmishes, we have finally – so we are led to believe – reached a point where we are solving such problems by negotiating and implementing political and trade alliances and treaties, ostensibly designed to invoke a better world.
But the one leading the charge toward this "better life for all" is not the United States. It is the United Nations, which has created an aura for itself over a period of half a century as the body to which all nations should look for resolutions to the many perceived problems facing the world.
The United Nations and its so-called Security Council was established at a meeting in San Francisco in 1945, as the Second World War was winding down. It was established to replace the League of Nations – which in turn had been set up after the First World War with the publicly espoused intent of creating a forum in which disputes could be settled by words, not war.
The benefit of 20/20 hindsight shows very clearly that both bodies have been abject failures as "peace keepers." The League of Nations did nothing to stop WWII. The United Nations did nothing to prevent the slaughter of millions in Vietnam, Indo China, Cambodia, Tibet, Africa, Ireland and elsewhere.
But what they apparently did do, was divert public attention from any serious questioning of certain hidden agendas - the main one being the eventual and total control of the world by a very few, very intelligent and crafty groups of people.
And this is where the national ego of the United States and its people has been used to con the greatest nation on earth into believing it is the peace keeper of the world (or the world policeman) – and that it is a natural extension of that role to embrace and support every so-called "peace keeping" activity of the United Nations.
Ironically, the United Nations is headquartered in New York on land alongside the East River where industry, and slaughterhouses, once bloomed. That land was donated by John D Rockefeller Jr. And the American ego, being what it is, seems to imagine that if the UN is headquartered in its most prestigious city – The Big Apple – then it simply must have the world's best interests at heart.
The fact is that the United States has simply provided most of the muscle, the money, and the manpower to help those who worked behind the scenes to establish the UN – and who are working their agenda to this day – to achieve their goals. Americans have died in vain, unaware that they (or their children, their brothers, and their sisters) have spilled their blood in a series of wars which have done nothing but bring "global governance" closer, and closer, step by stealthy step.
There was a good reason to spill blood, centuries ago, in the effort to throw off the yoke of British royal tyranny. But nevertheless, that was a terrible price to pay to fulfil a great yearning for real freedom. But to the early settlers, subjected to years of injustice and despotic British rule, there was no alternative. And so the United States was born.
The Preamble to the US Constitution says: "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish the Constitution for the United States of America.."
Now, in what feels like a perverted misuse of those high ideals, the United Nations is using similar language to mold public opinion toward the concept of a future world, free of bloodshed, full of peace, justice and tranquility, liberty for some, and a "ready reaction force" to control the rest.
Selling itself for decades as the watchdog and provider for "We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, (the first words of its own Charter – and the paraphrase of the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution), the UN has worked diligently to expand its influence into almost every single sector of global society.
Almost no-one pauses to reflect on the fact that both the League of Nations, and the United Nations, were abysmal failures at their task. Instead, such failures are excused, indeed welcomed as reasons for even more controls, more restrictions on individual and national freedoms, more taxes, more treaties that usurp the laws of sovereign nations, and more young soldiers pressed into service, not to defend their homes and families, but to die in some foreign land for the sake of some corporation's economic interest.
On the other hand, if their real task was to eventually take control of the world, then the League of Nations and the UN have been an almost unqualified success.
Portraying itself as the well-intentioned creation of concerned leaders and nations, the UN has ceaselessly involved itself in many pressing issues, from wars to coups to peace keeping functions in far-flung places round the globe. It has constantly touted itself as the well-reasoned provider and creator of discussion forums on all manner of social issues, from the environment to women's and children's rights, to disarmament and health.
And despite the concerns voiced by innumerable critics, the UN has insisted that its intentions are purely honorable, and it has made many friends among those who mold public opinion and make future policy.
And now, at the beginning of the 21st Century, it has positioned itself to boldly make its case for "global governance," to which all nations should, in time, pay homage.
Through careful manipulation of public opinion (which, to put it bluntly, means mind control), aided by successive governments and politicians, the UN has itself evolved. When it was established in 1945, there were those who feared its potential to become a globe-encircling octopus with unlimited and unfettered powers. But as the dramas of the Cold War played out, and despite shoe-thumping headline-grabbing antics of the likes of Kruschev, the new generations of humanity, born and grown under constant publicity about the UN as a "peace keeper" now believe without thought or question that the UN is mankind's only real hope for international economic and social stability.
During the 20th Century, powerful bodies such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization were progressively introduced, and in turn became major influences in international economics and trade.
On the battle front, what started out as small UN peace keeping forces eventually became real standing armies, coalitions, and UN/NATO derivatives, such as those which are deployed in the hot spots of Europe. In most cases, there is evidence that some economic imperative has co-existed with the appearance of civil or military unrest. But it is the function of "peace keeping" which has been focused on by those selling the idea that UN soldiers can bring peace to a troubled world. The battles going on behind the scenes for control of raw materials, natural resources, and the future productive capacity of a nation's people, never make the news.
But despite the "trust us, we're here to help you" rhetoric and the claims that the UN is fulfilling its function, critics still exist, and they charge that the UN is determined to take over the world, by stealth, using all possible means – mostly involving subterfuge – to achieve its goals.
Having consciously converted from supporter to critic, I would say the octopus has evolved, and is now transmuting. It is becoming a giant. And it is using ink to both hide and promote its intent. The report on global governance is the ink.
Critics also cite the fact that in the name of peace, conflicts like Desert Storm were embarked upon by "Coalition Forces" – so the "economic interests" of countries such as the United States could be defended. They say that it is no longer the role of the UN or coalition forces to simply intervene and restore peace or depose dictators. Instead, they say the UN is determined to impose its own agenda for world government, including global control of commerce, on those who cannot or will not otherwise be controlled.
Further, some insist that the UN is nothing but a front for the background players whose objective from day one has always been to establish a global government. In the 1990s, they cited President George Bush's frequent references to One World Order, and New World Order, as evidence that this agenda was reaching its climax.
That agenda is said to have its roots in plans which were first formulated behind the scenes long before the Second World War. Even Hitler is believed to have played a part in this secret scheme, for he is quoted as using the phrase "One World Order" during his brief but terrible tenure as the would-be Fuhrer of the Third Reich with its plans for global control that cost the lives of millions. Hitler – reputedly nothing but a paper-hanger who came to power on the popular vote – is said to have actually been financed by the mega-corporations of the time; corporations owned and controlled by the world's richest dynasties whose actual intent was to install a puppet (Hitler) in Germany, so they could then regulate the labor force to their own advantage.
Oddly enough, that same scenario now seems to have taken on global implications, except that the "dictators" will be those who get away with imposing "global governance," and the work force will be….a global one.
Those family and corporate dynasties exist to this day. They are older, and wiser, smarter, and stealthier. They have donated much to the politicians of the world, as if they understand very clearly that politicians may come and go – but dynasties and corporations, carefully managed, can go on for hundreds of years.
So who controls who?
Modern corporations continue to exert their influence around the globe, regardless of political conditions. And the UN, in its own words, sees them as valuable, even indispensable, allies in its global governance scenario.
Since the formation of the UN, the idea of "One World Order" has been touted regularly by UN secretaries general and others – but in the past few years, the term seems to have virtually disappeared off the radar screen. Instead of "One World Order," we now have "Global Governance," as the public buzz words. It's as if the diplomats of the UN have taken a cue from the Stealth fighter. On the face of it, they are to all intents and purposes invisible, yet they are piloting the UN toward its target under a cloak of electronic deception – ready to appear out of the blue and take their objective completely by surprise.
Astute UN report writers have discovered a new twist to their craft of semantics. Witness the fact that the buzz words about One World Order seem to have dropped out of sight in recent years. They have disappeared from public utterance. And it seems the dominant (corporate owned) media is convinced that this means there never was such a plan in the first place.
But was there? Indeed, is there? Well, it depends how you look at the evidence, and how you read the UN's own documents, for when you do, if you do so objectively, you can most certainly come to the conclusion that this actually is their real but cloaked intent.
In fact, the UN's plans can actually be clearly discerned in the most recent report by the UN Commission On Global Governance, titled "The Millennium Year And The Reform Process."
Like every other massive report produced to overwhelm the public and distract the media, this one has been crafted by politicians who seem incredibly adept at the art of spin doctoring. As always, they point out problems, and then offer their version of the solution. The solution, of course, is obviously in their best interests – though as always they claim they are dedicated to "the public interest," and that is their only pure-as-the-driven-snow motivation.
As for the public, there is no other way to say it, except with a hackneyed cliché. With few exceptions, the public really is like a flock of sheep, easily driven in whatever direction the farmer and his dogs might select. Politicians know that.
Thus, like dogs rounding up sheep, they will bark when necessary, or move quietly forward, then retreat a little, or slide left and right to outflank the flock – but always, the flock is being herded in a particular direction. Progress may appear to stall for a while, and the sheep will settle down, unaware that the pause in their progress was simply to allow the shepherd (the one who is often out of sight, but who controls the dogs) to open another gate to herd the sheep through. And, if any of the sheep show enough wit to question their situation, or to suggest to others in the flock that their destination just might eventually be the slaughterhouse, those sheep are quickly bitten (often right in the nose) by well-trained dogs. Fear instantly floods through the flock. They turn their back on the silly individuals who question authority, cluster together, and move on as directed.
Politicians of every persuasion become masters at this technique – and those who work for the United Nations, are no exception. Let us say they have an agenda, they have a world full of sheep, and they have a destination – not necessarily a slaughterhouse as such, but a shearing shed at least. By analogy, that is the simplest way to perceive a world in which each person (sheep) is to be controlled by a central global government which requires a flock to provide wool (money) and meat (labor) – over and over and over again.
Crude metaphors aside, the art of analyzing a political document actually lies in perceiving its intent – which may never actually be openly stated, no matter how many words are used. A document may in fact appear to express the loftiest ideals, yet hide the lowest possible intent. In this manner, politicians can keep their detractors on the back foot, debating semantics and arguing phraseology, while being able to honestly deny that there has ever been any written reference to any hidden agenda . But that's exactly how it remains hidden.
The best lies are always couched in about 98 per cent truth. And the best questions are always about what has not been written or said. We must ask both why? and why not?
Take, for example, the use of the phrase "One World Order." Why was it used by so many influential people, especially during Desert Storm? Was it to test and gauge public opinion. And why does it seem to have since disappeared? Once again, because public opinion (the opinion that is being molded to accept this very thing) made it obvious that the time was not yet right to take the final step. Critics became too vocal, the public became restless, and it became necessary to find another soft euphemism. The public likes feel-good euphemisms. And so we have "Global Governance." The words have changed, and the sheep have settled down.
The general public seems unaware that behind the scenes, another gate (or two or three) on the road to the shearing shed (or slaughterhouse) has been opened – and one of them seems to be the responsibility of the UN Commission On Global Governance.
In their own words, "if the new century is to be better for humanity than the passing century has been, much will depend on the United Nations - our principal instrument for cooperative effort on behalf of the world's people.
"Whether it is to ensure peace and security, to combat poverty and hunger, ignorance and ill-health, to safeguard basic human rights, or to protect the habitat, we have to look to the United Nations to reinforce and unite our separate efforts."
So we are presented with an image of an organization which is utterly benign, and which has as its sole intent the betterment of planetary civilization. It is reassuring us that, given the daunting problems facing humanity, we need a world leader.
But is this true? What lurks in the shadows behind these comforting idealistic words? Another agenda? Apparently the answer is yes. However, the hidden agenda, like the cyanide capsule in a candy, must ever be masked by words which are outwardly attractive. (Using the sheep analogy once again, we should be aware that while dogs are used to force a flock in a given direction, there are also times when sheep must be led. For this purpose, a goat is often used in the slaughterhouse to lead sheep up the ramp to their doom. Given the apparent crisis they are in, and the fact that the goat appears to know how to solve the problem, despite its slightly different genetics, they follow willingly, for they do not have the wit to formulate any alternative for themselves. The goat is what the sheep want it to be – a leader in a time of crisis. Such goats have led millions to their deaths. They are known as Judas goats).
And then we read, as if to imply that the public really does have control over the UN, that "the United Nations is (however) what the world's nations want it to be. "
In reality, stated bluntly and unequivocally, it is the task of these UN reports, to make the world want what the UN desires to be.
For one thing, the UN desires a standing army.
"To give one example, recent developments, including notably the tragedy in East Timor, have reinforced the case we made for giving the United Nations some effective form of standing rapid reaction capacity, available to the Security Council for immediate and timely deployment, so that the Council's decisions may be implemented speedily and effectively in critical situations."
Having established that it wants to impose its will on recalcitrant peoples by force, the report goes on to say "we wish to focus on two areas: civil society and the world economy."
It is this civil society which the UN says will help it on its way to Global Governance by those who control the standing army ( we could say that is one pincer) and the economies of the world, through an "Economic Security Council" (the second pincer).
Will that mean government controlled by elected representatives and the public at large, or a planet controlled ultimately by the richest people in the world? This report intimates that, as always, the rich will continue to control the rest. But has it ever been different? Have the rich ever suffered, seriously, during any depression or any war or any coup? Did they lose their shirts, their homes, their jobs, their families, their lives during the Great Depression, or during the 1998 "crisis" in world money markets? Or have these events, which have apparently been so disastrous for so many, actually been a benefit to the rich? This report says categorically that they certainly have.
Appearing to express genuine concern about the state of the world, the report says : "At one level, the number of people having to live on incomes of a dollar a day or less is reckoned to have risen to 1.4 billion. At the other extreme, the world's six million millionaires are estimated to have become 12% richer in 1998, the year of financial turmoil."
What is the answer to this inequity? Can the dollar-a-day people be helped in some way? The UN suggests the answer is merely more controls over the 1.4 billion, because "we remain convinced that there is a gap in the structures of world governance that needs to be filled by a body similar to the Economic Security Council we (have) proposed." Oddly enough, there is no suggestion that the rich should teach the poor how to make and manage money.
Reviewing relations between the UN and "civil society," the report says "the Millennium Forum, to be convened by a large group of NGOs (Non Government Organizations) in late May 2000, should make relations between civil society and the United Nations its first order of business."
To promote its long term aims, it says "the practice of including parliamentarians in national delegations to UN meetings should be encouraged. More parliamentarians should be invited to study UN field operations." Why? Is it because they become willing ambassadors for the UN and other world bodies, returning to their home countries to espouse the benefits of giving up their sovereignty, their mineral rights, or even vast tracts of land as "world heritage parks?" The answer can only be yes, since that is exactly what has been occurring for several decades.
Such parliamentarians will also, no doubt, be charged with selling "the Tobin tax proposal" to the public. This is a suggested tax designed to "help" the UN do its work. A tax which, inevitably, must increase prices, and reduce living standards even further, even though the report says its real purpose is simply to "raise modest sums to finance global public goods and to reduce the ‘churning' of "foreign exchange markets."
Next, presaging the demise of the International Monetary Fund in favor of its now-preferred Economic Security Council, the UN report says there should be "a comprehensive assessment of the IMF's mandate, including its roles in the surveillance of major economies and in acting as a lender of last resort."
The chess game goes on. The world is being divided into political and trade zones. The sheep are being fenced more tightly still – and those which still run free (in reality, independent farmers and those who sustain themselves through agriculture) are not forgotten. "The new round of multilateral trade negotiations should give priority to trade liberalization in those areas where barriers are still serious, such as agriculture."
Historically, rural dwellers and primary producers are the least controllable among humanity's millions. Simply because what they produce is freely grown by Nature herself (rather than the product of an urban industrialized environment) farmers do have the ability to sustain themselves indefinitely from their own labors, provided they are not in debt, or outflanked and undercut by agrinationals and trade barriers. But what must also be realized is that trade in agricultural products is not the function of producers. It is strictly the province of multinational agribusiness conglomerates, coincidentally owned by the rich, who coincidentally benefit most from reductions in trade barriers.
Why then is there a constant concern about agricultural trade? Could it be that the intent behind trade barriers and treaties, is to dis-empower the farmer, in favor of the six million millionaires – and the few multi-billionaires who were the advisers to the founding of the United Nations? Over the years, tens of thousands of farmers have lost their land, despite many so-called "trade liberalization" treaties. Sucked into taking bank loans or government subsidies, they have suddenly found the value of their crops dropping below production costs. Inevitably, bankruptcy has been the result. Who now owns that land? Multi-nationals – owned by some of the six million millionaires – a few of whom own both the banks, and the multinationals. From that position, they are able to offer farmers loans on the one hand (against the value of next season's crop), and on the other, import the same type of crop from overseas, thus driving down the price for the indebted farmer's produce, and forcing him out of business.
That pattern has been obvious in the US over the last 100 years. In 1900, according to the US Census Bureau, 60 per cent of US citizens were rural dwellers. By the year 2000, 75 per cent of them lived in cities – and most of the land is owned by multinationals, which are owned by the multi-millionaires – one of whom donated the land on which the UN building now stands in New York. (Just a series of coincidences, of course).
The simple fact that the world is controlled by commercial, not political, interests, is revealed in the following: "In region after region, private enterprise has come to replace the state as the prime engine of growth and prosperity…for the UN, these non-governmental forces could represent the wave of the future, if the complex ties among governments, civil society and the world body are handled adroitly. ("Adroitly?" Jugglers are adroit. So too are sideshow hucksters with their shell games; two of the three shells are empty, and they are moved rapidly before your eyes to confuse your mind and perceptions. Some reports are written "adroitly." And this is one of them).
It says: "It is in the long-term interests of national governments and international organizations to encourage the unhindered development of an active, independent and dynamic civil society sector and to build a close working relationship with it …
"It is time to take a fresh look at how to extend and deepen this process…
"At the UN, as in most capitols, officials have come to recognize that civil society has an integral, and sometimes indispensable, part to play in the conduct of international relations…
"Even in security-related fields, once thought to be the primary or exclusive province of governments, civil society groups have assisted in conflict resolution, early warning, and the monitoring of arms transfers and of compliance with arms control agreements.
"As major service providers, they have been full or even leading partners in carrying out programs in fields as diverse as humanitarian assistance, scientific co-operation, health, election monitoring, refugee relief, education, post-conflict nation-building, codification of international law, and the monitoring of human rights, environmental and labor standards."
Oddly, or perhaps conveniently, the report fails to mention that despite concerns expressed by some areas of "civil society" about human rights abuses, there are commercial interests which are very happy indeed to take the lead in using cheap labor, sometimes even slave labor, to produce their goods, for export back to the countries from which they have removed their production facilities under the auspices of UN and WTO sanctioned trade agreements. Under international trade conditions espoused by the UN, those who lost their jobs, their homes, and their livelihood when those companies moved abroad, must now buy goods made by workers who earn only dollars a day.
There can simply be no doubt at all that "global governance" will benefit the multinationals, whose influence in world politics is indisputable. ITT (a major US telephone system provider) gave at least $1m toward the overthrow of a South American leader (Chile's Allende) who intended to nationalize the ITT-owned telephone service in his country. And in America alone, major corporations donate funds to both political parties. Huge sums. In fact, the parties receive donations from only 4% of eligible contributors, most of whom are well-heeled corporations – which means 96% of Americans have no clout whatever in the political election process – or in the subsequent political decisions which so often favor those who give the most.
Although it purports to have genuine concerns about the world environment, this UN report also ignores the plight of dispossessed peoples in Africa, whose lands are controlled by oil companies – and says absolutely nothing about the depredations of logging firms which have destroyed countless acres of rainforest, or mining companies which pay no heed to the environment in their quest for profit. Yet these are the organizations the UN wants to partner with.
In fact, this report likes the idea of taxpayer money being given to companies to subsidize their operations.
Having hinted at its intention to change its own mandate, the report now does what political reports do so well. It makes sure that, in the future, it can have it both ways. To do so, it pretends to promote concern about the very thing it wants to achieve – in this case, working hand-in-glove with commercial interests. It does so by saying "the participation of for-profit firms in broader issues …should be welcomed and encouraged. Likewise, there should be no political litmus test for inclusion in the ranks of civil society, which should reflect all of the political diversity of national and international society."
If that doesn't mean jumping into bed with whoever has the money, what does?
Now we come to the revelation that "the Secretary-General has paid the greatest attention to repairing ties with the private sector. … In seeking to involve the private sector more fully in the development, humanitarian relief and peace-building work of the UN in the field, the Secretariat and member states should recognize that firms have much more to offer than just capital and investment. On a range of functional, financial and managerial questions, private companies have a great deal of expertise and experience to offer."
What contingencies must yet be covered if the UN does indeed wish to have the world fully embrace the concept of a world governance body? Should contingency plans be made to ensure that opinion makers, such as the media, politicians, and academics, are for the most part publicly in favor of such a model? Of course – and they are not left out of this report. Flattery, as they say, will get you everywhere. Hence, "if the UN's existing information base and global reach could be combined with the analytical capabilities present in the world's universities, research centers and think tanks, then one could imagine the UN evolving into a global marketplace for ideas and information, a center for the collection and incubation of ideas without borders." (But don't forget to mollify those whose support you are also succoring). "Whether governments would welcome or permit such a development, of course, remains to be seen…yet program by program, a natural courtship between the UN and elements of the independent research and academic community seems to be unfolding, with individual scholars and research centers now involved in the work of the organization across the board."
Now, move in on the politicians. Admit that "the developing of ties with parliamentarians, as noted earlier, raises some sensitive issues for the UN (because) their actions and attitudes can have a defining effect on what the UN can and cannot accomplish …" but then pull no punches. Let them know they are likely to become redundant under global government, by saying that "while national governments remain, and will remain for the foreseeable future, the central actors in global governance, they are no longer the kind of dominant players that they were at the UN's founding in 1945. Though some member states would prefer to turn the clock back, the only realistic question at this point is how, not whether, the dynamism of civil society will be taken into account in the UN and other inter-governmental bodies."
Does that say, plainly enough, that these people intend to take over the world?
Critics have said that, like a virus that has a long gestation, the UN global governance plan has been moving insidiously within society's entrails for decades, and its symptoms can best be seen in the manipulation of the health of the world economy.
People are fixated on survival, and for most, this means money. The report addresses that, too, instilling fear of future economic collapse by reference to the 1998 stock market shake-up, and the apparent inability of the IMF to help various nations out of their debt crises – despite the fact that the IMF was set up for the very purpose of assisting (so they said) countries which needed help in the global economic environment.
If one wanted people to welcome global government and an Economic Security Council, one would start by pointing out problems for which a solution must be found. One would also trade on fear. "A long -forecast, major correction in the US stock market still has the potential to precipitate a serious global downturn… Moreover, significant numbers of people are still mired in poverty generated by recession in emerging markets… Commodity prices – even allowing for some recovery in oil prices - have slumped to an historic low, with severe consequences for many commodity exporting countries."
Frightening stuff? Yes. But it would be more frightening still, although enlightening at the same time, if we were to wonder whether these so-called "crises" were in fact deliberately engineered to create problems for which the UN could appear to have the answers. If that were so, it should be no surprise to hear the Commission on Global Governance say that "triggered in part by the emerging world's financial crisis last year (1998), there has been a revival of interest in global economic governance. The Commission's report envisaged, at the apex of a reformed system, an Economic Security Council…"
Once again, hide your true intent: " The Commission argues for stronger global economic governance not as an end in itself but because closer international economic integration - or globalization - through the opening up of markets in goods and services and private capital flows has generated a demand for public goods, financial stability; the rule of law to govern trade and investment flows, standard setting; and environmental protection." In other words, use "public demand" (which has been created by a series of engineered crises) as the reason why such a solution is required.
Since the inception of the United Nations, there have been many so-called "crises" in the world. Each one has served the same purpose – they have added to the "public demand" for stability. Perhaps it can not be proven beyond a shadow of doubt that such crises were manufactured for an ulterior purpose, but the crises themselves nevertheless did occur. They included "two oil ‘shocks', the bank debt crisis of the early 1980s and, in the mid-1980s,…the challenge posed by such global environmental threats as global warming. But there has been a common thread: the need for structures of global governance which could properly address issues of sustainable growth, development and poverty."
Poverty is not a worry to the wealthy, for "there is a category of super-rich individuals who have been able to benefit enormously from the existence of global markets, exploiting proprietary knowledge and ‘star' appeal, who can largely evade national tax jurisdictions, and who can take advantage of globally integrated capital markets to maximize returns on their financial assets." (This paragraph no doubt has a psychological effect on the masses, who traditionally envy the wealthy, and perceive in this statement a hint that the UN intends to rope the wealthy in. They do indeed want to – as partners).
"The World Wealth Report of Merrill Lynch and Gemini estimates that the world's six million millionaires are now worth $21.5 trillion, their wealth having grown strongly - by 12% - throughout last year's (1998's) financial crisis." (Statements like that are a big red flag to the UN's critics, who claim that if the rich can enjoy a 12% increase in wealth during a financial crisis, there are really some very good reasons for them to actually create economic problems, because if you are already rich, you can get much richer).
Reading deep between the lines, we can also perceive that the super rich may even be able to gain control of entire nations, and all their human and mineral resources, provided they control the money-lending process (e.g. the IMF and the World Bank).
But how would they do that? Did they do it by setting up the IMF and a debt restructuring program that was intended to fail? Consider the fact that, as the first report of the Commission on Global Governance points out, in response to these crises, "international action to relieve nations defined as Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPCs) has also fallen far short of what is necessary to give their people a reasonable chance to put their difficulties behind them. The HIPC debt relief plan launched in 1996 has helped just three countries, from a list of 41, in three years. Even after the improvements announced after the 1998 G7 summit in Cologne, this initiative remains very modest in relation to the size of the problem." The three that were "helped" were Uganda, Bolivia, and Guyana, with Mozambique "close to agreement."
But the latest report now says "of the three former success stories, two have since relapsed into unsustainable debt." (Odd, don't you think, that the world's financial whizz-boys could not deliver the solutions they promised? Stranger still, according to some authors, that those countries which "collapsed" had put up their natural resources as collateral against their loans).
However, there is an explanation – so we are told – and it is this: the IMF is fundamentally incapable of doing its job. So we need something to replace it.
"In reality, in a major crisis, the IMF was not able to perform a lender of last resort function and in any case its method of operation made it unsuitable for the task. As was demonstrated in Russia, it lacks the resources to stem panic: its carefully negotiated conditional loans disbursed in tranches are inappropriate for this task which requires large-scale immediate lending."
So we have another problem for which a new solution is required.
"Prevention is invariably better, and cheaper, than cure. (This type of cliché is standard procedure for those who are advocating change. Ironically, it also happens to work, because very similar statements were made prior to establishing the UN, the World Bank, the IMF, the WTO and numerous other UN-backed or affiliated organizations and programs).
"There is a club of central bankers, and other financial regulators, who work through committees of the Bank of International Settlements…
"It has been argued, for example, that the IMF and the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) should be brought together to form a single ‘super regulator' of financial markets."
And then, of course, there is always another cure-all that has been imposed countless times (with no sign of a cure, one might add). Tax.
"One issue for the Commission is the so-called Tobin Tax - a global tax on financial transactions designed to ‘throw sand in the machine'.
That proposal has not met with instant approval, but these UN people do not give up. They clearly want money to finance their objectives, and to that end, they want a tax of some sort. But "the current state of debate on the Tobin Tax is highly unsatisfactory. The tax is widely endorsed in rhetoric but then damned with faint praise. It should either be taken forward, or buried, after a detailed enquiry by an international group of experts who should rigorously examine its technical feasibility. It would perhaps be more plausible as a mechanism for raising modest sums for global public goods than, as is often portrayed, as a cure-all for financial market instability."
Claiming that it has "declined to join in the fashionable attacks on the IMF" the Commission then does so, anyway – because it wants to establish a global bank of last resort (by some other name): "Recent events have, however, exposed the Fund to yet more criticism. It publicly endorsed the macroeconomic policies of Asian countries (notably of South Korea and Thailand) and then, months later, set new and stringent austerity objectives for the same countries, as conditions for crisis loans. It largely failed to anticipate the problems arising from poorly supervised, liberalized financial sectors in Asia but is now charged with overseeing the necessary reforms.
"Critics allege that it has managed to generate the problem inherent in a lender of last resort system – ‘moral hazard,' encouraging lending especially to Russia - without being able to deliver when required."
Emerging from this perusal of the UN plan for world control, we find yet further evidence that the tentacles are to take a grip on every facet of society. Aside from having on its books a plan to prevent personal ownership of weapons (a clause hidden somewhere in the report on international disarmament) the UN also wants to see all commercial competition under total centralized control. A first step in that direction has been the establishment of the World Trade Organization.
"The Commission noted in its previous report that a ‘central issue confronting governments is how to provide a framework of rules and order for global competition in the widest sense'.
"Of far greater importance is the acceptance that the rule of law should apply in trade disputes, through dispute panels. In the five years of its existence, the WTO has had over 150 cases brought to it, four times as many as were dealt with in the 47 years of the GATT. So far it has not been necessary to invoke compensation and sanctions despite the fact that some rulings have enraged vested interests and pressure groups in leading countries, such as that against a US ban on shrimps from Thailand and another on clothing from Costa Rica. But the dispute over the EU banana quota regime has raised the question of how panel rulings can be enforced if simply ignored by a major trading entity."
Is this another example of setting up a "world body" simply to have it appear to need modification, so it can be replaced by a newer version which will play a more decisive role in implementing and consolidating the real plan - complete global governance?
Remember, sheep must be moved along in gentle stages, lest they truly perceive where they are being driven. If the WTO can be portrayed as a dog without enough teeth (now that people-sheep have got used to its presence), then the world is likely to agree with little argument that something better is needed. Thus, the report goes on to say "as global integration proceeds, individual national authorities are no longer able fully to control anti-competitive behavior by footloose companies. The WTO should adopt a strong set of competition rules and we suggest that a Global Competition Office be set up linked to the WTO."
Now, move the shells a little faster. Dazzle the observer. Enlist the support of the little guy once again, by appearing to pick on the multi-nationals.
"Recent developments have made the issue more pressing. There have been a number of cross-border mergers and alliances between giant companies which raise the question of how such entities are to be policed…."
It is at this point in the report, in an aside which is simply slipped between sentences, that we discover a plan to also take control of the Internet. Controlling the free flow of information is an absolute necessity if one wishes to control a society of any size – be that a village, or a global society. "While the Internet and, now, e-commerce enjoy explosive growth, it is not yet clear what the most important questions are for policy and governance, let alone their solutions. It is not clear who runs, or ought to run, the Internet; one issue, for example, is that of who should be the custodian of the Internet address system. Governance is required which is genuinely international, which recognizes the public goods involved - in address registration and other protocols - and which represents the ‘information poor' as well as the ‘information rich' who currently use the system. There is potentially a major role both for the International Telecommunications Union and the WTO in this area."
Can we really imagine a world in which we must register our names and addresses with the Global Government simply to hook up to the Internet? And what would happen if we did? Would we then be subject to even more new laws and regulations, and have all our correspondence under electronic surveillance by some new global police force to whom sovereignty and privacy mean nothing?
The simple truth is that there is absolutely no "public demand" for any world body to control the Internet. That desire has only been expressed by politicians and their allies who know full well that government is about mind control, which means people control, which requires information control.
What else must be addressed in order to convince a world that it requires complete global government?
"One of the tests of global governance is whether it can rise to the challenge of genuinely global environmental problems: management of the global commons and cross-border pollution." Yes, we apparently need a global government to solve this one too. Which just might see countries trading what you could call "pollution points" so industry can continue to pollute, up to the highest acceptable level, for the economic good of all.
Two decades ago, the European Economic Community was first seen by UN critics as the prototype of what was to come. They feared the eventual emergence of global government, and the disappearance of borders, self-government, national sovereignty, political accountability, and even their own accustomed currency. All those things have happened in Europe in just a few short years. Critics hate it, but this UN report sees it in a different light: "The European Monetary Union is shaping up to be a remarkable achievement by any standard, in the face of much skepticism and formidable technical difficulties."
Finally, after 20 or 30 pages of bafflespeak, most of which is clearly structured to evince a reaction that welcomes the final recommendations, we come to the bottom line, the recommendations that could reshape our world very rapidly in the years ahead.
The Commission on Global Governance recommends that the world's leaders "support … the establishment of an Economic Security Council," urging that "a fresh initiative be made to constitute stronger and more representative structures of global economic governance."
The Commission:"does not think it possible, even if it were desirable, to stop or reverse the globalization of financial markets but would like to see a detailed, technical study of the feasibility of the Tobin tax proposal …"
The Commission: "welcomes the way in which the WTO has emerged over the last few years as a body whose dispute settlement procedures increasingly command respect and strengthen international law."
The Commission: "would welcome a new round of multilateral negotiations to liberalize trade and long-term investment flows - and remove discrimination - provided that priority is given to trade liberalization in those areas where barriers are still serious, such as agriculture; provided there is full and active participation by developing and transitional economies including countries such as China which are not currently members; and provided there is acknowledgment of a development dimension to the rules and disciplines themselves."
The Commission: "welcomes the progress in strengthening multilateral governance in the environmental field, notably the agreement of the Kyoto Protocol on emission targets for greenhouse gases, and the agreement in principle to develop emission permit trading".
Further: "the instability experienced in the world economy over the last few years and the unbalanced nature of global growth reinforces the case for a mechanism or institution which can highlight systemic risks and potential crises in the way that specialist institutions and piecemeal initiatives cannot."
The Commission remains convinced that the concept of an Economic Security Council - however it is designed or constructed - must be further pursued.
And when it is, and when it is instituted, what will we have? What freedoms have we seen under threat in this report so far – though not mentioned in the recommendations, but obviously intended as the blueprint for global governance.
For starters, if a "ready reaction force" is established, there will never be an opportunity for another unique Republic, such as the United States, to become established through any War of Independence.
Based as it was to some degree on the precepts of the first republic the world ever saw – Solon's Republic in ancient Greece – the Founding Fathers of the United States took one of history's boldest steps. Not only did many die in pursuit of freedom and liberty, but for the first time in history, a nation was established with the intention of embracing all nationalities within its borders. Emigrants were welcomed from many nations, diverse religious backgrounds, and racial groupings.
In practice, it has been far from a perfect experiment, and yet, because of that revolution, millions of people who were living in oppressed dictatorships or intolerant societies, have been able to seek and make better lives for themselves.
Politically, the US has strayed far from that republican ideal, which was intended to enable all citizens to have a say in the process of government. In Solon's time, as Archon of Greece, he established local, regional, and national forums of government, under which no single individual could become an incumbent, for he knew well the corruption and manipulation of the masses that inevitably resulted from the centralization of power (both economic and political) in the hands of bankers and the international traders of the time.
The US Constitution and Bill of Rights were intended to ensure that these lessons from history would be enshrined in a new form of government, "of the people, for the people, by the people." Power was to be vested in the people – not in a centralized government. But, in truth, that is exactly what has finally happened. The Federal Government, aided and abetted by today's multinationals and international banking fraternities, has progressively taken unto itself exactly the powers which – according to some of the Founding Fathers – it was never intended to have.
For this reason, there now exist within the US groupings of seriously disaffected US citizens. Whether we label them patriots, or militia, or Constitutionalists, their objections to central government are much the same. They perceive their federal politicians as their forefathers once perceived the King of England – as tyrants. Their common criticism is that the Federal Government has lost sight of the spirit of the pure republic, in favor of the power and control it can wield under the guise of democracy.
And now, they fear those same politicians are embracing the thought and act of giving away America's hard won independence to unelected officials in the United Nations.
Little wonder then that some of these groups would like to see another revolution.
But any such plans have little or no chance of success. Especially if the UN concept of global governance comes to fruition, because under its self-created mandate, spuriously claimed to be derived from "public demand," no-one, anywhere, will be free to take such measures against tyranny. Should they try, they will find they have no freedom to disagree with or try to overthrow their rulers, because they will be annihilated by a standing army or ready reaction force controlled by the World Government.
Though it might promise to use such force only in order to preserve democracy, or economic interests, once it is created, the "ready reaction force" will be controlled and unleashed by forces and people over whom the average citizen will have no control at all.
For example, if any one of the 50 united states chose to secede from the Union, it could find itself in the same position as the rebels of Chechnya – except it would not simply be battling the Federal Government; it would also be up against the world's "properly instituted" ready reaction force.
Alternatively, if the militia groups are able to retain their constitutional right to bear arms, and manage to evade the combined push by their own central government and the United Nations to disarm the world's citizenry, they could find themselves staring down the barrels of guns wielded by soldiers from Europe, conscripted to this same UN ready reaction force, whose role under world government is to quash any attempt at revolution.
That aside, there is yet another fundamental of US and world freedom under very serious threat. If this World Government imposes controls on the Internet, there will be no more freedom of speech – even in the United States, where freedom was enshrined in the American way of life because of the courage of one man.
When the first US settlers were beginning to unite against the tyranny of England, in the early 1700s, one John Peter Zenger founded and published "The New York Weekly Journal," the only New York newspaper exposing corrupt practices of the British colonial government at a time when such criticism was considered to be sedition.
John Peter Zenger was charged with seditious libel and thrown in jail.
When the jurors considered the charge, they concluded that the British sedition law was contrary to their sense of liberty and justice, and that restricting freedom of speech would be a danger to all their freedoms.
Thus, when they voted not guilty, they established two legal precedents. As jurors, not as legislators, they nullified the sedition statute; and they said that, in general, where there is no falsehood there can be no libel. Those precedents would serve their fellow Americans from that day forward.
In 1789 when Congress began considering amendments to the United States Constitution, memory of John Peter Zenger's trial prompted them to structure the First Amendment so it would protect freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of worship, and "of the press."
The First Amendment is the first of the series of ten amendments which the United States calls the Bill of Rights.
Today, the Zenger News Service – established in a sense as a dedication to the principles held so dear by John Peter Zenger – has as its editor-in-chief, Mr. James Ewart. Ewart was in the US Air Force, stationed in Germany, when he found himself on a bus tour in Berlin, staring down the barrel of a Russian soldier's submachine gun. ("It was a paratrooper's submachine gun, with a lightweight folding stock. I'll never forget it."). The Cold War had escalated. Russia was about to close off East Berlin and construct the Berlin Wall. Ewart considers himself lucky to have made it back to his base, and that experience prompted him to begin decades of research into "what makes the world go round." This culminated in the recent publication of his book titled "Money -- Ye shall have honest weights and measures." It is an indictment of what he calls "history's biggest crime, because it exposes the way in which the manipulation of money and credit has been used to advance an agenda."
Those doing the manipulating and advancing are of course very wealthy and very influential.
The intent behind any form of manipulation is to control the way people think and react, so the manipulators can assure themselves of a predictable outcome. In other words, stripped of all niceties, manipulation is mind control for a preconceived purpose. And mind control – in the sense that people's minds must first be conditioned to accepting the UN's proposition on global governance - is exactly what reports such as this are all about.
Fortunately, thanks to people such as John Peter Zenger, free speech and the right to air sincerely held and opposing opinions still exists in the US.
But for how long?
Think what we may of today's dominant media and their obvious affinity with the United Nations' pursuit of global governance (Walter Cronkite is an open advocate of a world ruled by such a body) it is freedom of the press which has kept people informed and aware of not only the best in Government, but the worst as well.
But a free press, and the free flow of information, is not in the best interests of any group of tyrants. Which brings us back to the fact that the Commission on Global Governance appears to have its sights set on some form of control, perhaps eventually total control, over today's freedoms of expression – in particular, the Internet.
In their own words, the Commission believes there should be centralized control of this global flow of information. It foresees a time when Internet users will have their addresses filed in a central register. Should we then expect to be told that in order to "fight crime," all Internet communications will be subject to monitoring at any time by some new global law enforcement agency? That remains to be seen – but the precedent is already well established, as witness current concerns in the European Union over Internet monitoring by the secret agencies which control Echelon, a computer monitoring project capable of intercepting all global telecommunications and filing data according to key words and associated addresses.
In the United States, the FBI has come under fire for installing a "Carnivore" program which can read millions of emails, searching for "the meat" the FBI wants. Although the FBI has been known to exceed its authority, it still must ask for a court order to monitor suspects. It is subject to the law of the land.
But, in a world with a global government, whose law will be paramount? Even the US Constitution says "treaties" are to be honored in full, and that Congress has no power to argue against or change them. Therefore, if a Global Government is established by treaty, the United States will never be able to argue against the surveillance of all its citizens. Now will any other country.
As yet another specter of "big brother" watching all of us, that may be bad enough. But there is much more to this future plan of global dominance. Sovereign states which "must face the fact that they cannot turn the clock back," will inevitably find themselves almost totally controlled by multi-nationals, which are to be given a major say in determining world trade law – which will in turn supercede sovereign or national law.
Countries which have been economically eviscerated by the IMF, are to be encouraged to go deeper into debt by working with a "bank of last resort."
academics – and more members of the dominant media no doubt - are to be enlisted
as world governance-friendly spokespersons.
Pollution will be traded off between nations, so long as it is in "the economic interest."
And what about the three levels of society in this brave new world? Are the dollar-a-day people to have their poverty assuaged? Nope, no mention of that! But they will get jobs. Maybe.
Meanwhile, the rich will get richer, regardless of the economic state of the world.
And as for those in the middle, well they, like the median group in a flock of sheep, are, surprisingly, the most valuable. It is from this group of sheep that a farmer gets the bulk of his wool. So people who struggle all their lives in the middle income bracket will on the one hand see interest rates go up (on loans made to them by the wealthy) and on the other, find themselves once again having to pay more taxes (ostensibly to run a world government and help the poor). Thus, the middle class, via interest rates and taxes, is ever prevented from accumulating personal wealth and independence. It is from the sweat of their brow, the pain in their backs, and the plastic money in their hip pockets, that the rich and poor alike are supported.
They are the sharecroppers of the 21st Century.
The world, to put it bluntly, is moving toward global government on the installment plan. And once it is in place, with the willing acceptance of humanity (albeit engineered by reports such as this) people will have given away their power to make choices.
But above and beyond all the foregoing, there is something far more serious to contemplate. Something not mentioned in any report, and never considered by most of us.
It is a philosophical matter, in some respects – and yet it demands deep contemplation, because it affects all of us – the poor, the middle class, the rich, and those in the world government of the future as well. Each and every one of us is blessed with participation in the civilization of our day. We live in a world that has evolved over eons, in a society that has evolved over centuries, and in a time when the world government agenda has been obvious for only a few short decades.
We are the product of all these evolutions because of the choices we have made – or the choices we have allowed others to make on our behalf.
Which brings up the question – what will suffer most under world government? And the answer is short, and horrifying to contemplate.
Evolution on all levels, personal, national, ethnic, racial, political and spiritual.
All are perceivably, clearly, literally, in danger.
For when humanity can no longer think, live, and move in freedom, when the world is a giant commercial factory and its people simply the necessary units that must grease the cogs of the machine, when religion and education are dictated by a world state, when freedom is proscribed by the threat of force, when there are no choices left to be made, when free will has been eliminated in all areas of our lives, and, in particular, when the spirit of man finds no further mystery in life, the evolution of the mind and soul will stop.
There is no evolutionary purpose to a human species that has allowed itself to become a herd of sheep to be oppressed and financially cannibalized by its own kind. When technology, commercialism, globalism, materialism and freedom of thought, speech, political affiliation and religion are completely dictated by others, there is nothing left for the mind to achieve, ponder, contemplate or create.
There is no viable future for such a flock.
Finally, it must be said, if one reads this report in depth, that we are indeed far down the road toward global control.
But at least we have left behind the rhetoric about "One World Order."
Instead, "we the people" are allowing ourselves to be led toward total "Global Governance" - by a Judas goat.
(Commission on Global Governance Web Site)
ZNS.com (Zenger News Service website)
US Census Bureau
Members of The Commission On Global Governance
There are 28 members of the Commission on Global Governance – one of them a man who was present at the birth of the UN.
This is the United Kingdom's Brian Urquhart.
Urquhart, who is currently a Scholar in Residence at the Ford Foundation's International Affairs Program, was, according to the c.v. attached to the Commission's list of members, a "member of the Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues (and was) involved in the formation of the United Nations in 1945, (emphasis added) and served as Under Secretary General for Special Political Affairs from 1972 to 1986." His "main fields of interest and operation at the UN were conflict resolution and peacekeeping."
Urquhart co-authored several publications which set the tone for the UN's activities and aspirations over the past 50 years. These include "A World in Need of Leadership: Tomorrow's United Nations" (with Erskine Childers, 1990); "Towards a More Effective United Nations" (with Erskine Childers, 1991); "Ralph Bunche: An American Life" (1993); and "Renewing the United Nations System" (with Erskine Childers, 1994).
However, Urquhart, despite his almost life-long dedication to the UN, and his role in establishing its agendas, is actually mentioned second to last among the 28 members of this commission – whose names are listed alphabetically.
Two are from the United States, one other from the UK, and the remainder represent Sweden, Guyana, Indonesia, Kuwait, Costa Rica, Spain, Germany, South Africa, Mexico, Zimbabwe, France, the Czech Republic, Uruguay, Republic of Korea, Kenya, Japan, Uganda, India, Brazil, Netherlands, China, Senegal, Canada, and Russia.
The US is represented by Barber Conable, "President of the World Bank from 1986 to 1991. Currently Chairman of the Committee on US/China Relations, and a member of the Senior Advisory Committee of the Global Environment Facility. Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1965 to 1985, where he served on the Ways and Means Committee for eighteen years, the last eight as its ranking minority member, as well as on the Joint Economic Committee, the House Budget and the House Ethics Committee. Has served on the boards of multinational corporations, (emphasis added) and on the Board of the New York Stock Exchange."
Also from the US is
Adele Simmons, "President of The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
in Chicago. Member of the Boards of several organizations and corporations
and an elected member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the
Council on Foreign Relations (emphasis added). In 1993, appointed by the
Secretary General of the UN to the High Level Advisory Board on Sustainable
Development. From 1977 to 1989, President of Hampshire College in Massachusetts,
where she developed new programs in population and health and in peace and
international security. From 1978 to 1980, served on President Carter's Commission
on World Hunger and from 1991 to 1992, on President Bush's Commission on
Other members of the Commission on Global Governance:
Co-Chairmen: Ingvar Carlsson, Sweden. Prime Minister of Sweden 1986-91 In April 1991, hosted the Stockholm Initiative that led to the creation of the Commission on Global Governance.
Shridath Ramphal, Guyana. Secretary-General of the Commonwealth from 1975 to 1990. Currently Chairman of the International Steering Committee of the international Leadership in Environment and Development Program. Author of "Our Country, The Planet, "written for the Earth Summit.
Members: Ali Alatas, Indonesia. Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia since 1988. Indonesia's Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York (1982-88) and in Geneva (1976-78).
Abdlatif AlHamad, Kuwait. Director General and Chairman of the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development in Kuwait. Former Minister of Finance and Minister of Planning of Kuwait. Chairman of the UN Committee on Development Planning.
Oscar Arias, Costa Rica. President of Costa Rica from 1986 to 1990. In 1987, drafted a regional accord, known as the Arias Peace Plan, to end the ongoing wars in Central America. This initiative was signed by all the Central American Presidents on 7 August 1987, and culminated in the award of that year's Nobel Peace Prize to Dr. Arias.
Anna Balletbo i Puig, Spain. Member of the Spanish Parliament since 1979. Member of the Executive Committee of the Socialist Party in Catalonia. Formerly President of Spain's United Nations Association. An activist on women's issues since 1975.
Kurt Biedenkopf, Germany. Minister-President of Saxony since 1990. Prior to entering politics, served as Professor, Dean, and President of the Ruhr University in Bochum.
Allan Boesak, South Africa. Former Minister for Economic Affairs for the Western Cape Region. A leading figure in his country's struggle against apartheid. Previously, President of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches and a Patron of the United Democratic Front.
Manuel Camacho Solis, Mexico. Former Minister of Foreign Affairs and former Mayor of Mexico City. As Peace Commissioner in Chiapas, played a key role in establishing the cease-fire in 1994 and face-to-face negotiations with the EZLN. Recently published 'Change Without Breakdown', a blueprint for democratic reforms in Mexico.
Bernard Chidzero, Zimbabwe. Former Senior Minister of Finance. Has served in different capacities with the United Nations for twenty years, including Chairman of the Development Committee of the World Bank and the IMF (1987-90), and a member of the World Commission on Environment and Development.
Jacques Delors, France. President of the European Commission from 1985 to January 1995. Member of the General Council of the Banque de France (1973-79), and Member of the European Parliament and President of its Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (1979-81). Previously, a Professor at the University Paris Dauphine.
Jiri Dienstbier, Czech Republic. Chairman of the Free Democrats party in the Czech Republic and Chairman of the Czech Council on Foreign Relations. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Czechoslovakia from 1989 to 1992. A signatory of and spokesman for Charter 77, and a key member of the group led by Václav Havel initiating political change in his country. As a result of his opposition activities, he was sentenced to three years in prison in 1979. In June, 1998, Mr. Dienstbier was appointed Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights for the former Yugoslavia.
Enrique Iglesias, Uruguay. President of the InterAmerican Development Bank since 1988. Minister of External Relations of Uruguay (1985-88). Executive Secretary of the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (1972-85). President of the Central Bank of Uruguay (1966-68). Chairman of the Conference that launched the Uruguay Round of Trade Negotiations in 1986.
Frank Judd, United Kingdom. Member of the House of Lords, where he has been the Labor Opposition's principal spokesman on education and is now the principal spokesman on development cooperation. A specialist and consultant in international affairs working particularly on the UN, Third World issues, conflict resolution, and arms control. For thirteen years, a Member of Parliament, serving consecutively as Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Defense, Minister for Overseas Development, and Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, where he was deputy to the Secretary of State.
Hongkoo Lee, Republic of Korea Prime Minister. Served as the Republic of Korea's Ambassador to the United Kingdom from 1991 to 1993, and as Minister for Unification between North and South Korea from 1988 to 1990. In 1985, founded the Seoul Forum for International Affairs and served as its Chairman until 1988. Professor of Political Science at Seoul National University from 1968 to 1988, and Director of the Institute of Social Sciences (1978-82).
Wangari Maathai, Kenya. Founder and coordinator of the Green Belt Movement in Kenya. An environmental conservationist and activist on women's issues and human rights. Formerly the Chairman of the National Council of Women of Kenya, and spokesman for nongovernmental organizations at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. Previously, Associate Professor of Anatomy at the University of Nairobi.
Sadako Ogata, Japan. Currently United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (since 1991) and previously Professor and Dean of the Faculty of Foreign Studies at Sophia University in Tokyo and Director of its International Relations Institute (1980-91). Japan's Representative on the UN Commission on Human Rights in 1982-85, and a member of the Independent Commission on International Humanitarian Issues. From 1978 to 1979, Japan's envoy to the United Nations as well as Chairman of the Executive Board of UNICEF.
Olara Otunnu, Uganda. Since September 1998, Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for Children in Armed Conflict. Formerly, President of the International Peace Academy in New York. As Uganda's Foreign Minister from 1985 to 1986, facilitated the peace talks culminating in the Nairobi Peace Agreement. During tenure as Uganda's Permanent Representative to the UN (1980-85), served as President of the Security Council (1981), Vice President of the General Assembly (1982-83), and Chairman of the UN Commission on Human Rights. Has taught at The American University and at Albany Law School, and was a visiting fellow at the Institut Français des Relations Internationales in Paris.
I.G. Patel, India. Chairman of the Aga Khan Rural Support Program in India. Has held key economic positions in India and internationally: Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, Chief Economic Adviser to the Indian Government, and Permanent Secretary of the Indian Finance Ministry. Previously, Director of the London School of Economics and Political Science. Has served as the Executive Director for India of the International Monetary Fund and as Deputy Administrator of the UN Development Program.
Celina Vargas do Amaral Peixoto, Brazil. Director of the Getulio Vargas Foundation in Brazil. Director General of the Brazilian National Archives from 1980 to 1990 and Director of the Center of Research and Documentation on Brazilian History from 1973 to 1990. Member of the InterAmerican Dialogue and has been a member of several national commissions on cultural, historical, and technological issues.
Jan Pronk, Netherlands. Minister for Development Cooperation of the Netherlands, a position he also held from 1973 to 1978. Vice Chairman of the Labor Party (1987-89) and a Member of Parliament (1971-73; 1978-80; 1986-89). Served as Deputy Secretary General of UNCTAD from 1980 to 1986. Previously, a Professor at the Institute of Social Studies in the Hague and at the University of Amsterdam. Member of the Independent Commission on International Development Issues.
Qian Jiadong, China. Deputy Director General of the China Center for International Studies in Beijing. Previously, Ambassador and Permanent Representative in Geneva to the United Nations, Ambassador for Disarmament Affairs, and a representative to the Conference on Disarmament. Member of the South Commission.
Marie-Angélique Savané, Senegal. A sociologist and currently Director of the Africa Division of the UN Population Fund in New York.. Formerly Director of the UNFPA country support team in Dakar (1992-October 1994), Special Adviser to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (1990-92), team leader at the UN Research Institute for Social Development (1979-88),and Editor in Chief of Famille et Dévéloppement (1974-78). Founder and former President of the Association of African Women for Research and Development. Member of the Boards of several international organizations and institutions, of the South Commission, and currently of the UNESCO Commission on Education for the 21st Century.
Maurice Strong, Canada. Special Adviser to the UN Secretary-General on Reform.. Formerly, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Ontario Hydro, and Chairman of the Earth Council. Has received the Order of Canada and is a member of the Queen's Privy Council of Canada. Secretary General of the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio, and of the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment. Member of the World Commission on Environment and Development.
Yuli Vorontsov, Russia.
Ambassador to the United States, following a five year term as Ambassador
to the United Nations, and an Adviser to President Boris Yeltsin on Foreign
Affairs. Served as the USSR Ambassador to Afghanistan (1988-89), France (1983-86),
and India (1977-83). Between foreign assignments, appointed First Deputy Foreign
Minister in 1986.