Posted on 06/13/2005 10:08:34 AM PDT by jmc813
This week Congress will vote on a bill to expand the power of the United Nations beyond the dreams of even the most ardent left-wing, one-world globalists. But this time the UN power grabbers aren’t European liberals; they are American neo-conservatives, who plan to use the UN to implement their own brand of world government.
The “United Nations Reform Act of 2005” masquerades as a bill that will cut US dues to the United Nations by 50% if that organization does not complete a list of 39 reforms. On the surface any measure that threatens to cut funding to the United Nations seems very attractive, but do not be fooled: in this case reform “success” will be worse than failure. The problem is in the supposed reforms themselves-- specifically in the policy changes this bill mandates.
The proposed legislation opens the door for the United Nations to routinely become involved in matters that have never been part of its charter. Specifically, the legislation redefines terrorism very broadly for the UN’s official purposes-- and charges it to take action on behalf of both governments and international organizations.
What does this mean? The official adoption of this definition by the United Nations would have the effect of making resistance to any government or any international organization an international crime. It would make any attempt to overthrow a government an international causus belli for UN military action. Until this point a sovereign government retained the legal right to defend against or defeat any rebellion within its own territory. Now any such activity would constitute justification for United Nations action inside that country. This could be whenever any splinter group decides to resist any regime-- regardless of the nature of that regime.
What if this were in place when the Contras were fighting against the Marxist regime in Nicaragua? Or when the Afghan mujahadeen was fighting against the Soviet-installed government in the 1980s? Or during the Warsaw Ghetto uprising? The new message is clear: resistance-- even resistance to the UN itself-- is futile. Why does every incumbent government, no matter how bad, deserve UN military assistance to quell domestic unrest?
This new policy is given teeth by creating a “Peacebuilding Commission,” which will serve as the implementing force for the internationalization of what were formerly internal affairs of sovereign nations. This Commission will bring together UN Security Council members, major donors, major troop contributing countries, appropriate United Nations organizations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund among others. This new commission will create the beginning of a global UN army. It will claim the right to intervene in any conflict anywhere on the globe, bringing the World Bank and the IMF formally into the picture as well. It is a complete new world order, but undertaken with the enthusiastic support of many of those who consider themselves among the most strident UN critics.
Conservatives who have been critical of the UN in the past have enthusiastically embraced this bill and the concept of UN reform. But what is the desired end of “UN reform”? The UN is an organization that was designed to undermine sovereignty and representative government. It is unelected and unaccountable to citizens by its very design. Will UN reform change anything about the fact that its core mission is objectionable? Do honest UN critics really want an expanded UN that functions more “efficiently”?
The real question is whether we should redouble our efforts to save a failed system, or admit its failures-- as this legislation does-- and recognize that the only reasonable option is to cease participation without further costs to the United States in blood, money, and sovereignty. Do not be fooled: it is impossible to be against the United Nations and to support “reform” of the United Nations. The only true reform of the United Nations is for the US to withdraw immediately.
That was the creepy thing about the 2000 presidential election. When things stalled out, they called out James Baker and Warren Christopher, both of whom are big time CFR/Trilateralists to referee the results.
I really think we came that close (holding my fingers an inch apart) to a Constitutional crisis in 2000. When the CFR cabal openly trots out guys of that caliber to make sure things work out the way they wanted.
There appears to be two "schools" among the CFR members. One group favors an EU/Socialist model of governance. That's the Clinton/Carter school of "Internationalism." The folks who have come to be known as "neo-cons" are globalists who favor a model based on the US/Democratic model, although centralized through a UN-style world government. Neither Reagan or Bush "43" were CFR members, but their administrations were full of appointees with CFR ties. All the other presidents going back to Wilson were members of either the CFR or the Trilateral Commission (since the 1970s), or both.
They want to get this UN-reform stuff in place before 2008, because if that election is close, there is a strong chance that those UN troops might be needed to restore order. All you'd need is a candidate who refused to concede and we'd have civil war. (Think Hillary...)
I have a wonderful idea. How about we cut off funding either way, whether the UN adopts the reforms or not?
Next thing ya know they will be advocation silencing critics
and call it 'Campaign Finance Reform'
Maybe they think they can control it; that a powerful U.N. would be a tool in American hands. I think that is far too risky, myself. I'd rather we make an effort to keep the U.N. as weak as possible.
Have you seen this yet?
Sort of the equivalent of electing a conservative to "make government more efficient and effective," or "save social security."
We get what we vote for and deserve, I suppose.
hey ray, hows it going?
did you see this? thought you'd be interested.
Now you will see why this is just wishful thinking on your part. The CFR is the political ruling class of both parties... and hence, of this nation.
Understood.
Not me. I'd rather abolish the first act so I guess I'm two for two.
A lot of the establishment people were trying to stop Reagan. And after he was elected he was almost killed within a couple months by that attempted assasination.
Good buddy. You?
Ya just had to piss me off, dintja? LOL
The bastards need drawn and quartered.
http://www.cfr.org/pub7914/press_release/trinational_call_for_a_north_american_economic_and_security_community_by_2010.php
http://www.cfr.org/pub8104/press_release/task_force_urges_measures_to_strengthen_north_american_competitiveness_expand_trade_ensure_border_security.php
It's all coming together.
Ping to this thread for coincidence value.
I'm mostly a lurker here, so forgive my ignorance, but why are people on FR critical of Ron Paul? He states that we should completely remove ourselves from the UN. How can a conservative argue with that?
There are basement dwellers here, as in most forums, who have an interest in keeping the sheeple sleeping comfortably, like a big dumb Gulliver on the beach, as their masters wind string after string around the sleeping giant.
What he said in 39.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.