Ktulu
09-24-2003, 10:00 AM
Arrogance on the East River
Phil Brennan
Wednesday, Sept. 24, 2003
While everybody and his kid brother who pays attention to what goes on at U.N. headquarters on New York's East River were focusing on President Bush's speech before the General Assembly, little attention was being paid to the remarks made earlier in the day by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
And those in the media who did pay attention to Annan's speech concentrated on his harsh but veiled criticism of the U.S. war in Iraq – a war, incidentally, that was waged partly because the U.N. refused to back up its own long series of resolutions condemning the outlaw regime of Saddam Hussein.
The U.S., in other words, did what the U.N. said it wanted done but didn't have the guts to do for fear of offending the French, among other international weaklings.
I, however, did pay attention to Annan's speech, and it both angered and alarmed me. Angered me because of his supercilious criticism of the U.S., and alarmed me because he once again laid out his desire for a world governed by the U.N. without regard to the sovereignty of the United States of America.
Annan told the delegates: "Three years ago, when you came here for the Millennium Summit, we had a shared vision of global solidarity and collective security, expressed in the Millennium Declaration.
"But recent events have called that consensus in question. All of us know there are new threats that must be faced – or, perhaps, old threats in new and dangerous combinations: new forms of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
"But, while some consider these threats as self-evidently the main challenge to world peace and security, others feel more immediately menaced by small arms employed in civil conflict, or by so-called 'soft threats' such as the persistence of extreme poverty, the disparity of income between and within societies, the spread of infectious diseases, or climate change and environmental degradation.
"In truth, we do not have to choose. The United Nations must confront all these threats and challenges – new and old, 'hard' and 'soft.' It must be fully engaged in the struggle for development and poverty eradication, starting with the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals; in the struggle to protect our common environment; and in the struggle for human rights, democracy and good governance."
This so-called Millennium Declaration is another one of those U.N. dreams of global governance that is almost a word-for-word twin of the Earth Charter the U.N. acolytes carry around in the Ark of Hope, their replacement of the Ark of the Covenant that contained the Ten Commandments, also now displaced by their sacred Earth Charter.
On Sept. 5, 2000, the U.N. convened its 55th session, designated as the "Millennium Assembly," that sponsored a "Millennium Summit," which they billed as "the largest single gathering of Heads of State and/or Government ever held in the world."
The purpose of those meetings was to reformulate the U.N.'s mission for the next century, and to reform its organization and functions.
The list of those attending ran to more than 300 pages, from the Afghan Institute of Learning to Zimbabwe's Humana People to People. Their report ("We the Peoples Millennium Forum Declaration and Agenda for Action: Strengthening the United Nations for the Twenty-First Century") set forth the major areas of world society where improvement is needed and called on the U.N. itself, national governments and Non-government organizations (NGOs) to take part in correcting them. The role of the U.N. is their main focus.
In September of 2000 Cathy Adams, president of the Texas Eagle Forum, sat through the U.N. sessions where the declaration was created. Here's what she said of the document, which she added should, "like the U.N. itself ... be thrown into the East River."
"The Declaration calls for 'managed' development by the UN rather than free enterprise and free markets. It embraces the International Criminal Court that would subject YOU to its purview as it obliterates your right to a trial by jury. It calls for a UN standing army that was advocated by President Clinton in his speech to the world body on Wednesday. It calls for UN control of the manufacture, sale and distribution of all firearms, and licensing by the UN. The Declaration calls for the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol that is the instrument for global wealth redistribution. It and most of the speeches by developing country heads of state call for elimination of the veto and permanent member status of the five permanent members of the Security Council. And to pay for all their mischief, they want global taxation to replace UN dues.
"The UN sees great value in the Millennium Declaration because it gives them a MANDATE to 'manage the worldwide economic and social development and threats to international peace and security' even if it must be incrementally accomplished. And ratification by member states will NOT be necessary; instead, they will implement as much of the Declaration as possible, 'administratively,' through processes and procedures."
Those are Annan's goals. They are not those of a nation such as the United States determined to safeguard its sovereignty and the constitutional liberties of its people.
This should come as no surprise to anybody who has studied Mr. Annan and his fellow globalists. Annan is on record as favoring the consolidation of all international agencies under the U.N.
"Formal institutional arrangements may often lack the scope, speed and informational capacity to keep up with the rapidly changing global agenda," he has said. "Mobilizing the skills and other resources of diverse global actors, therefore, may increasingly involve forming loose and temporary global policy networks that cut across national, institutional and disciplinary lines. The United Nations is well situated to nurture such informal 'coalitions for change' across various areas of responsibility." (Secretary-General Kofi Annan�s report to the Millennium Summit under the section titled "Globalization and Governance," page 14)
Annan calls for U.N. regulation of all transnational corporations and financial institutions.
"Global companies occupy a critical place in this new constellation. They, more than anyone, have created the single economic space in which we live; their decisions have implications for the economic prospects of people and even nations around the world. Their rights to operate globally have been greatly expanded by international agreements and national policies, but those rights must be accompanied by greater responsibilities – by the concept and practice of global corporation citizenship. The marks of good citizenship may vary depending upon circumstances, but they will exhibit one common feature: the willingness by firms, whenever possible and appropriate, to pursue 'good practice' as defined by the broader community [the UN, of course], rather than taking advantage of the weaker regulatory systems or unequal bargaining positions of host countries." (Annan�s report to the Millennium Summit under the section titled "Globalization and Governance," pages 13-14
Annan wants to end the veto power and the permanent-member status of the Security Council (where we could expect the U.S. to soon be ejected). In his speech Annan repeated his call for reform of the Security Council. He has said: "The United Nations must also adapt itself to the changing times. One critical area to which I have already referred is reform of the Security Council." (Report to the Millennium Summit under the section titled "Renewing the United Nations," page 69)
He has also called for a standing U.N. army (report to the Millennium Summit under the section titled "Freedom from Fear," page 49) and U.N. registration of all arms and the reduction of all national armies (U.N. gun control). (Report to the Millennium Summit under the section titled "for consideration by the Summit," page 79)
He wants individual and national compliance with all U.N. "human rights" treaties (report to the Millennium Summit under the section titled "For Consideration by the Summit," page 79), he seeks to make the International Criminal Court mandatory for all nations (report to the Millennium Summit under section titled "Renewing the United Nations," page 69), and he wants to set up an International Environmental Court (report to the Millennium Summit under the section titled "Sustaining our Future," page 56).
Most revealing is his continued insistence on implementing the widely discredited Kyoto Protocol. "Implementing the 1997 Kyoto Protocol would mark a significant advance by binding the industrialized countries to verifiable emission limitation and reduction targets averaging 5 per cent below 1990 levels, to be achieved over the period 2008-2012." (Report to the Millennium Summit under the section titled "Sustaining our Future," page 59)
He wants a declaration that climate change is an essential global security interest that requires the creation of a "high-level action team" to allocate carbon emissions based on equal per-capita rights.
That should be enough to tell us where this international bureaucrat stands on the question of national sovereignty. We can't say we haven't been warned of where the U.N., if it get its way, is headed.
This is a Marxist organization determined to impose a socialist world order on this and all other nations. Just a quick look at the global warming hoax the U.N. is promoting should be enough to convince us of this fact. Its principal proponents are people such as Mikhail Gorbachev, an unrelenting Marxist who has never given up the idea of a world governed by the socialist principles of the Soviet Union.
At the end of the 2000 Millennium Summit Cathy Adams wrote: "A few had also expected the Earth Charter to be discussed during the Millennium Summit, and in a way it was. Let me explain. Once you understand that every UN document, whether it is the Earth Charter or the Millennium Declaration, has the same Marxist theme, the label makes no difference.
"The Marxist theme is why the UN itself is dysfunctional and beyond reform. That is why any person or organization that claims real victories within the UN system is to be pitied; Marxism is unfixable. (I hope my friends will forgive me for my boldness in that statement, for it is undeniably true.)
"The theme of every UN document is Marxist to its very core. Even though the Communists failed to make Marxism work in their 70-year experiment, there are new, power-hungry leaders willingly being prodded like cattle going to the slaughter by the likes of UN-repentant Communist Mikhail Gorbachev and the leader of UN reform, Maurice Strong, during this week's activities in New York City."
Isn't it about time we got out of the U.N. and sent it packing from our shores?
* * * * * *
Phil Brennan is a veteran journalist who writes for NewsMax.com. He is editor & publisher of Wednesday on the Web (http://www.pvbr.com) and was Washington columnist for National Review magazine in the 1960s. He also served as a staff aide for the House Republican Policy Committee and helped handle the Washington public relations operation for the Alaska Statehood Committee which won statehood for Alaska. He is also a trustee of the Lincoln Heritage Institute and a member of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers.
He can be reached at phil@newsmax.com
http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/9/23/183413.shtml
Phil Brennan
Wednesday, Sept. 24, 2003
While everybody and his kid brother who pays attention to what goes on at U.N. headquarters on New York's East River were focusing on President Bush's speech before the General Assembly, little attention was being paid to the remarks made earlier in the day by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
And those in the media who did pay attention to Annan's speech concentrated on his harsh but veiled criticism of the U.S. war in Iraq – a war, incidentally, that was waged partly because the U.N. refused to back up its own long series of resolutions condemning the outlaw regime of Saddam Hussein.
The U.S., in other words, did what the U.N. said it wanted done but didn't have the guts to do for fear of offending the French, among other international weaklings.
I, however, did pay attention to Annan's speech, and it both angered and alarmed me. Angered me because of his supercilious criticism of the U.S., and alarmed me because he once again laid out his desire for a world governed by the U.N. without regard to the sovereignty of the United States of America.
Annan told the delegates: "Three years ago, when you came here for the Millennium Summit, we had a shared vision of global solidarity and collective security, expressed in the Millennium Declaration.
"But recent events have called that consensus in question. All of us know there are new threats that must be faced – or, perhaps, old threats in new and dangerous combinations: new forms of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
"But, while some consider these threats as self-evidently the main challenge to world peace and security, others feel more immediately menaced by small arms employed in civil conflict, or by so-called 'soft threats' such as the persistence of extreme poverty, the disparity of income between and within societies, the spread of infectious diseases, or climate change and environmental degradation.
"In truth, we do not have to choose. The United Nations must confront all these threats and challenges – new and old, 'hard' and 'soft.' It must be fully engaged in the struggle for development and poverty eradication, starting with the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals; in the struggle to protect our common environment; and in the struggle for human rights, democracy and good governance."
This so-called Millennium Declaration is another one of those U.N. dreams of global governance that is almost a word-for-word twin of the Earth Charter the U.N. acolytes carry around in the Ark of Hope, their replacement of the Ark of the Covenant that contained the Ten Commandments, also now displaced by their sacred Earth Charter.
On Sept. 5, 2000, the U.N. convened its 55th session, designated as the "Millennium Assembly," that sponsored a "Millennium Summit," which they billed as "the largest single gathering of Heads of State and/or Government ever held in the world."
The purpose of those meetings was to reformulate the U.N.'s mission for the next century, and to reform its organization and functions.
The list of those attending ran to more than 300 pages, from the Afghan Institute of Learning to Zimbabwe's Humana People to People. Their report ("We the Peoples Millennium Forum Declaration and Agenda for Action: Strengthening the United Nations for the Twenty-First Century") set forth the major areas of world society where improvement is needed and called on the U.N. itself, national governments and Non-government organizations (NGOs) to take part in correcting them. The role of the U.N. is their main focus.
In September of 2000 Cathy Adams, president of the Texas Eagle Forum, sat through the U.N. sessions where the declaration was created. Here's what she said of the document, which she added should, "like the U.N. itself ... be thrown into the East River."
"The Declaration calls for 'managed' development by the UN rather than free enterprise and free markets. It embraces the International Criminal Court that would subject YOU to its purview as it obliterates your right to a trial by jury. It calls for a UN standing army that was advocated by President Clinton in his speech to the world body on Wednesday. It calls for UN control of the manufacture, sale and distribution of all firearms, and licensing by the UN. The Declaration calls for the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol that is the instrument for global wealth redistribution. It and most of the speeches by developing country heads of state call for elimination of the veto and permanent member status of the five permanent members of the Security Council. And to pay for all their mischief, they want global taxation to replace UN dues.
"The UN sees great value in the Millennium Declaration because it gives them a MANDATE to 'manage the worldwide economic and social development and threats to international peace and security' even if it must be incrementally accomplished. And ratification by member states will NOT be necessary; instead, they will implement as much of the Declaration as possible, 'administratively,' through processes and procedures."
Those are Annan's goals. They are not those of a nation such as the United States determined to safeguard its sovereignty and the constitutional liberties of its people.
This should come as no surprise to anybody who has studied Mr. Annan and his fellow globalists. Annan is on record as favoring the consolidation of all international agencies under the U.N.
"Formal institutional arrangements may often lack the scope, speed and informational capacity to keep up with the rapidly changing global agenda," he has said. "Mobilizing the skills and other resources of diverse global actors, therefore, may increasingly involve forming loose and temporary global policy networks that cut across national, institutional and disciplinary lines. The United Nations is well situated to nurture such informal 'coalitions for change' across various areas of responsibility." (Secretary-General Kofi Annan�s report to the Millennium Summit under the section titled "Globalization and Governance," page 14)
Annan calls for U.N. regulation of all transnational corporations and financial institutions.
"Global companies occupy a critical place in this new constellation. They, more than anyone, have created the single economic space in which we live; their decisions have implications for the economic prospects of people and even nations around the world. Their rights to operate globally have been greatly expanded by international agreements and national policies, but those rights must be accompanied by greater responsibilities – by the concept and practice of global corporation citizenship. The marks of good citizenship may vary depending upon circumstances, but they will exhibit one common feature: the willingness by firms, whenever possible and appropriate, to pursue 'good practice' as defined by the broader community [the UN, of course], rather than taking advantage of the weaker regulatory systems or unequal bargaining positions of host countries." (Annan�s report to the Millennium Summit under the section titled "Globalization and Governance," pages 13-14
Annan wants to end the veto power and the permanent-member status of the Security Council (where we could expect the U.S. to soon be ejected). In his speech Annan repeated his call for reform of the Security Council. He has said: "The United Nations must also adapt itself to the changing times. One critical area to which I have already referred is reform of the Security Council." (Report to the Millennium Summit under the section titled "Renewing the United Nations," page 69)
He has also called for a standing U.N. army (report to the Millennium Summit under the section titled "Freedom from Fear," page 49) and U.N. registration of all arms and the reduction of all national armies (U.N. gun control). (Report to the Millennium Summit under the section titled "for consideration by the Summit," page 79)
He wants individual and national compliance with all U.N. "human rights" treaties (report to the Millennium Summit under the section titled "For Consideration by the Summit," page 79), he seeks to make the International Criminal Court mandatory for all nations (report to the Millennium Summit under section titled "Renewing the United Nations," page 69), and he wants to set up an International Environmental Court (report to the Millennium Summit under the section titled "Sustaining our Future," page 56).
Most revealing is his continued insistence on implementing the widely discredited Kyoto Protocol. "Implementing the 1997 Kyoto Protocol would mark a significant advance by binding the industrialized countries to verifiable emission limitation and reduction targets averaging 5 per cent below 1990 levels, to be achieved over the period 2008-2012." (Report to the Millennium Summit under the section titled "Sustaining our Future," page 59)
He wants a declaration that climate change is an essential global security interest that requires the creation of a "high-level action team" to allocate carbon emissions based on equal per-capita rights.
That should be enough to tell us where this international bureaucrat stands on the question of national sovereignty. We can't say we haven't been warned of where the U.N., if it get its way, is headed.
This is a Marxist organization determined to impose a socialist world order on this and all other nations. Just a quick look at the global warming hoax the U.N. is promoting should be enough to convince us of this fact. Its principal proponents are people such as Mikhail Gorbachev, an unrelenting Marxist who has never given up the idea of a world governed by the socialist principles of the Soviet Union.
At the end of the 2000 Millennium Summit Cathy Adams wrote: "A few had also expected the Earth Charter to be discussed during the Millennium Summit, and in a way it was. Let me explain. Once you understand that every UN document, whether it is the Earth Charter or the Millennium Declaration, has the same Marxist theme, the label makes no difference.
"The Marxist theme is why the UN itself is dysfunctional and beyond reform. That is why any person or organization that claims real victories within the UN system is to be pitied; Marxism is unfixable. (I hope my friends will forgive me for my boldness in that statement, for it is undeniably true.)
"The theme of every UN document is Marxist to its very core. Even though the Communists failed to make Marxism work in their 70-year experiment, there are new, power-hungry leaders willingly being prodded like cattle going to the slaughter by the likes of UN-repentant Communist Mikhail Gorbachev and the leader of UN reform, Maurice Strong, during this week's activities in New York City."
Isn't it about time we got out of the U.N. and sent it packing from our shores?
* * * * * *
Phil Brennan is a veteran journalist who writes for NewsMax.com. He is editor & publisher of Wednesday on the Web (http://www.pvbr.com) and was Washington columnist for National Review magazine in the 1960s. He also served as a staff aide for the House Republican Policy Committee and helped handle the Washington public relations operation for the Alaska Statehood Committee which won statehood for Alaska. He is also a trustee of the Lincoln Heritage Institute and a member of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers.
He can be reached at phil@newsmax.com
http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/9/23/183413.shtml