Page 1

A PRODUCTION OF REMA MARKETING AND WWW.GLOBALREPORT2010.COM ©2012,2013, All rights reserved


TRANSITIONS UPDATE: THE UNITED NATIONS

This report is the property of Rema Marketing and is considered to be strictly for reading only. With receipt of this report, the recipient acknowledges and agrees that written permissions must be secured from the publisher to use or reproduce any part of this report, except for brief quotations in critical reviews or articles. A publication of Rema Marketing. ©2012,2013, All rights reserved.

A PRODUCTION OF REMA MARKETING AND WWW.GLOBALREPORT2010.COM ©2012,2013, All rights reserved

2


TRANSITIONS UPDATE: THE UNITED NATIONS

TRANSITIONS: THE UNITED NATIONS World government is the notion of a single common political authority for all of humanity. Its modern conception is rooted in European history, particularly in the philosophy of ancient Greece, in the political formation of the Roman Empire, and in the subsequent struggle between secular authority, represented by the Holy Roman Emperor, and ecclesiastical authority, represented by the Pope. From a secular perspective, there is no functioning global international military, executive, legislature, judiciary, or constitution, with jurisdiction over the entire planet and the United Nations claims that its authority is limited to a mostly advisory role, and its stated purpose is to foster cooperation between existing national governments, rather than authority over them. However this Transitions report will highlight recent developments within United Nations that assert the idea that they are progressing the development of a socialists and totalitarian one world government.

1

THE SEARCH FOR A ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT

4

2

THE UNITED NATIONS: FOUNDATION OF WORLD GOVERNMENT

10

3

THE UNITED NATIONS AND GLOBAL TAXATION

19

4

THE UNITED NATIONS AND GLOBAL WARMING

22

5

THE UNITED NATIONS AND INTERNET GOVERNANCE

27

6

THE UNITED NATIONS AND PARENTING

34

7

THE UNITED NATIONS, FREE SPEECH AND ISLAM

37

8

THE CLOSING SUMMARY

40

A PRODUCTION OF REMA MARKETING AND WWW.GLOBALREPORT2010.COM Š2012,2013, All rights reserved

3


TRANSITIONS UPDATE: THE UNITED NATIONS

1. THE SEARCH FOR A ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT The search for a one world government has long been a quest for mankind as the only way to cure the worlds ills of famine, disease and war. Politicians, economists, authors, actors and journalists have all shared their views over many decades that a one world government is the only salvation for mankind. During the 20th century, many statesmen, such as Woodrow Wilson and Winston Churchill, used the term "new world order" to refer to a new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power after World War I and World War II. They all saw these periods as opportunities to implement idealistic proposals for global governance in the sense of new collective efforts to address worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to solve, while always respecting the right of nations to self-determination. These proposals led to the creation of international organizations, such as the United Nations and NATO, and international regimes, such as the Bretton Woods system and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which were calculated both to maintain a balance of power in favor of the United States as well as regularize cooperation between nations, in order to achieve a peaceful phase of capitalism. Progressives welcomed these new international organizations and regimes in the aftermath of the two World Wars, but argued they suffered from a democratic deficit and therefore were inadequate to not only prevent another global war but also foster global justice. The United Nations was designed in 1945 by U.S. bankers and State Department planners, and was always intended to remain a free association of sovereign nation-states, not a transition to democratic world government. Thus, activists around the globe formed a world federalist movement hoping in vain to create a "real" new world order. British writer and futurist H. G. Wells would go further than progressives in the 1940s by appropriating and redefining the term "new world order" as a synonym for the establishment of a technocratic world state and planned economy. Despite the popularity of his ideas in some state socialist circles, Wells failed to exert a deeper and more lasting influence because he was unable to concentrate his energies on a direct appeal to intelligentsias who would, ultimately, have to coordinate a Wellsian new world order. Following the start of the 21st century, specifically during the late-2000s financial crisis, many politicians and pundits, such as Gordon Brown and Henry Kissinger, used the term "new world order" in their advocacy for a comprehensive reform of the global financial system and their calls for a "New Bretton Woods", which takes into account emerging markets such as China and India. American film directors Luke Meyer and Andrew Neel released New World Order in 2009, a critically acclaimed documentary film which explores the world of conspiracy theorists, such as American radio host Alex Jones, who are committed to exposing and vigorously an emerging New World Order. The growing dissemination and popularity of exposing the new world order has created an alliance between populist new world order watch dog shows, such as Alex Jones, and hip hop music’s left-wing populist rappers, such as KRS-One, Professor Griff of Public Enemy, and Immortal Technique. A PRODUCTION OF REMA MARKETING AND WWW.GLOBALREPORT2010.COM Š2012,2013, All rights reserved

4


TRANSITIONS UPDATE: THE UNITED NATIONS

In this section we take a look at some of the quotes from the past which have served to contribute to the momentum for a significant change in world politics to allow for a global centralisation of power and law making.

We have the opportunity to forge... a New World Order, a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. - George H.W. Bush We must establish a rule of law, a world rule of law. We have to realize that the world needs policemen who serve the interests of all mankind. - Ramsey Clark Resolve that to insure world peace and disarmament among nations, we United Methodist of the Rocky Mountain Conference urge the President and the Congress of the United States, in concert with all other willing nations, to call a World Constitutional Convention to reform the United Nations into a federal, representative world government. - United Methodist Church, 1983, Rocky Mountain Conference Details are not crucial; the important point is to find a plan for peace that would be both effective and generally acceptable. If a sufficient effort is made, the effective wisdom of mankind can find the right combination.

-

Professor Louis Sohn, Co-author, World Peace Through World Law It will be just as easy for nations to get along in a republic of the world as it is for us to get along in the republic of the United States. - Harry S. Truman Who can limit the extent to which the federative principal may operate effectively? - Thomas Jefferson If we want peace, we must reform, restructure and strengthen the United Nations. - Dr. John Logue, 1985, Director, Common Heritage Institute Any scientist can testify that a dead ocean means a dead planet ... No national law, no national precautions can save the planet. The ocean, more than any other part of our planet ... is a classic example of the absolute need for international, global action. - Thor Heyerdahl There is no salvation for civilization, or even the human race, other than the creation of a world government. Albert Einstein, Scientist A PRODUCTION OF REMA MARKETING AND WWW.GLOBALREPORT2010.COM Š2012,2013, All rights reserved

5


TRANSITIONS UPDATE: THE UNITED NATIONS

It is obvious that no difficulty in the way of a world government can match the danger of a world without it. -Carl Van Doren We are convinced that a comprehensive system of security is at the same time a system of universal law and order ensuring the primacy of international law in politics. - Mikhail Gorbachev, Soviet General Secretary, Article in Pravda, September 17, 1987 The only security for Americans today, or for any people, is in the creation of a system of world order that enables nations to retain sovereignty over their own cultures and institutions, but that creates a workable authority for regulating the behavior of nations in their relationships with one another. - Normal Cousins, President, World Federalist Association I want to see a fundamental objective of the foreign policy of the United States to be that of supporting and strengthening the United Nations and to seek its development into a federation of all the nations. - Hubert Humphrey We need first and foremost a world democracy, a government of this planet for the people and by the people. But the problem is so colossal and unprecedented that few political thinkers even dare to consider it. They feel more at ease discussing the number and strength of missiles. Since government and institutions are so slow and reluctant to do it, we must build the world community through individual commitment and action. - Robert Muller, Former U.N. Assistant Secy.-Gen., Chancellor, University for Peace If the rule of law is to govern the community of states and protect it against violations of the international public order, it can only be satisfactorily established by the promulgation of an international penal code and by the permanent functioning of an international criminal jurisdiction. - Richard Alfaro, 1950, Former President of Panama Institutions are what nations make of them. If the rule of law is to replace anarchy, international law involves surrender of a certain amount of sovereignty. - Vernon A. Waiters, U.N. Representative for U.S.A. There must be, not a balance of power, but a community of power; not organized rivalries, but an organized common peace. - President Woodrow Wilson The Federal Republic of Germany has declared in its Constitution its willingness to transfer sovereign rights to supranational organizations and it has placed international law above national law. This expresses the realization that the sovereignty of the individual and of nations can be secured only in larger communities. - Willy Brandt, Chancellor of West Germany Unless some effective supranational government can be set up and brought quickly into action, the prospects of peace and human progress are dark and doubtful. - Winston Churchill We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors of the human family can participate. Thus we look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transitional federal government. - Human Manifesto II A PRODUCTION OF REMA MARKETING AND WWW.GLOBALREPORT2010.COM Š2012,2013, All rights reserved

6


TRANSITIONS UPDATE: THE UNITED NATIONS

The world no longer has a choice between force and law. If civilization is to survive, it must choose the rule of law. - Dwight D. Eisenhower This planet is in bad political shape and is administered appallingly. An outer-space inspection team would undoubtedly give us an F (failure) or a triple D (dumb, deficient and dangerous) in planetary management. Our world is afflicted by a good dozen conflicts almost permanently. Its skies, lands and oceans are infested with atomic weapons which cost humanity $850 Billion a year, while so many poor people are still dying of hunger on this planet. And yet, I have seen the UN become universal and prevent many conflicts. I have seen the dangerous decolonization page turned quickly and with infinitely less bloodshed than in Europe and the Americas in preceding centuries. I have seen a flowering expansion of international cooperation in 32 UN specialized agencies and world programs. - Robert Muller, Former U.N. Assistant Secy.-Gen. I am convinced that the Great Framer of the World will so develop it that it becomes one nation, so that armies and navies are no longer necessary. I believe at some future day the nations of the earth will agree upon some sort of congress which will take cognizance of international questions of difficulty and whose decisions will be as binding as the decisions of our Supreme Court are upon us. - President Ulysses S. Grant The United States ... is the heir of a western civilization which has long been preoccupied with the art and science of government. If the United States does not take the initiative, no one will. - Albert Einstein If we will not devise some greater and more equitable system, Armageddon will be at our door. - Gen. Douglas MacArthur Sovereignty is the worse obstacle to the organization of peace ... The federal principle is the only way forward. Lord Lothian, British Parliamentarian You don't have to spend all your time discussing what weapons you are going to be allowed to use to massacre millions of innocent people. An entirely new piece of political machinery is needed. I want a federal world authority for peace with justice throughout the world. - Lord Beveridge Today the universal common good poses problems of world-wide dimensions which cannot be adequately tackled or solved except by the effort of public authorities endowed with a wideness of powers, structure and means of the same proportion; that is ... on a world-wide basis. - Pope John XXIII, "Pacem in Terris" It was felt by the Statesmen who framed the Constitution, and by the people who adopted it that it was necessary that many of the rights of sovereignty which the States then possessed should be ceded to the General Government. - Chief Justice Taney, U.S. Supreme Court It is high time for humanity to accept and work out the full consequence of the total global and interdependent nature of our planetary home and of our species. Our survival and further progress will depend largely on the advent of global visions and of global education in all countries of the world. - Robert Muller, U.N. Assistant Sec.Gen. The exercise by some nation-states of their unlimited right to lie, assassinate, terrorize and wage war, and to justify these actions in the name of "national security" causes man to despair for the future of our planet. But there is a A PRODUCTION OF REMA MARKETING AND WWW.GLOBALREPORT2010.COM Š2012,2013, All rights reserved 7


TRANSITIONS UPDATE: THE UNITED NATIONS

solution to this problem of international anarchy: A common security system for all nations under enforceable world law. - Myron W. Kronisch, Campaign for U.N. Reform The only basis for a peace system is a pooling of sovereignty for supranational purposes, that is the creation of a common nationhood, above but entirely separate from the diverse local nationhoods. -Philip Henry Kerr, Marquis of Lothian; Surge Memorial Lecture, 1935 Why are we raising so insistently the question of a universal system of international peace and security? Because we cannot reconcile ourselves to the situation in which the world finds itself on the threshold of the third millennium -threatened with destruction, in a state of constant tension, an atmosphere of suspicion and discord, expending the enormous resources, labor and talent of millions of people in order to increase mutual mistrust and fear. People can talk as much as they like about the need for halting the arms race and eliminating militarism, and about cooperation, but nothing will change unless we start to act. - Mikhail Gorbachev -Soviet General Secretary Mankind's desire for peace can be realized only by the creation of a world government. With all my heart I believe that the world's present system of sovereign nations can only lead to barbarism, war, and inhumanity. - Albert Einstein, Scientist All mankind would be grateful for all time to the statesman who could bring about a new structure of international society. -Theodore Roosevelt, Former U.S. President Science has made unrestricted national sovereignty incompatible with human survival. The only possibilities are now world government or death. – Bertrand Russell, Philosopher Unless some effective supranational government can be set up and brought quickly into action, the prospects of peace and human progress are dark and doubtful. - Winston Churchill, British Prime Minister I truly believe that historians of the future will look back upon this decade as the key turning point when the world conceived of itself for the first time as a truly global civilization. - Albert Gore, Vice President Our goals are those of the U.N.'s founders, who sought to replace a world at war with one where the rule of law would prevail, where human rights were honored, where development would blossom, where conflict would give way to freedom from violence. - President Ronald Reagan A federation of all humanity, together with a sufficient means of social justice to ensure health, education, and a rough equality of opportunity, would mean such a release and increase of human energy as to open a new phase in human history. - H.G. Wells, noted historian I have long believed the only way peace can be achieved is through World Government. - Jawaharal Nehru, Former Prime Minister of India The international community should support a system of laws to regularize international relations and maintain the peace in the same manner that law governs national order. - Pope John Paul II

A PRODUCTION OF REMA MARKETING AND WWW.GLOBALREPORT2010.COM Š2012,2013, All rights reserved

8


TRANSITIONS UPDATE: THE UNITED NATIONS

The goal of the World Federalists is peace through unity of government. We must support their vision of oneness in diversity, for it is the salvation of mankind. - Jean Stapleton, Actress My vision of a better world would be one under the control of a strong United Nations, one that truly has the support of all countries in the world. Only an effective world government could provide sufficient law and have the power to control the unboundaried destructive forces of pollution and war. I will continue to be a leader in the World Federalist Association. - Lloyd Bridges, Actor For nearly five decades the World Federalists have worked to promote a strengthened UN and more effective institutions of global governance. I offer my personal endorsement. Now a great opportunity has opened for the realization of the dreams of the UN's founders. - Walter Cronkite World Government is not only possible, it is inevitable; and when it comes, it will appeal to patriotism in its truest, in its only sense, the patriotism of men who love their national heritages so deeply that they wish to preserve them in safety for the common good. - Peter Ustinov, Renowned Actor Once again the United Nations is poised to be an instrument for positive change in a disorderly world. We must do more than talk about a new world order, we must seize the opportunities before us. - President William Jefferson Clinton We have a choice. Humanity either can learn to manage the risks of living together under a law system or can prepare to die together under the war system. - Myron W. Kronisch, Campaign for U.N. Reform I do feel that some minimum of global government to abolish war and to cope with pollution, is absolutely necessary. - Arnold Toynbee, Historian World government is not an "ultimate goal" but an immediate necessity. In fact, it has been overdue since 1914. The convulsions of the past decades are the clear symptoms of a dead and decaying political system. - Emery Reves, The Anatomy of Peace World federation is an idea that will not die. More and more people are coming to realize that peace must be more than an interlude if we are to survive; that peace is a product of law and order; that law is essential if the force of arms is not to rule the world. - William O. Douglas, Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice

A PRODUCTION OF REMA MARKETING AND WWW.GLOBALREPORT2010.COM Š2012,2013, All rights reserved

9


TRANSITIONS UPDATE: THE UNITED NATIONS

2. UNITED NATIONS: FOUNDATION OF WORLD GOVERNMENT The United Nations was established on 24 October 1945 by 51 countries committed to preserving peace through international cooperation and collective security.

Today, nearly every nation in the world belongs to the UN: membership totals 193 countries. When States become Members of the United Nations, they agree to accept the obligations of the UN Charter, an international treaty that sets out basic principles of international relations. According to the Charter, the UN has four purposes: • to maintain international peace and security; • to develop friendly relations among nations; • to cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human rights; • and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations. According to the UN charter The United Nations is not a world government and it does not make laws. It does, however, provide the means to help resolve international conflicts and formulate policies on matters affecting all of us. At the UN, all the Member States — large and small, rich and poor, with differing political views and social systems — have a voice and a vote in this process. The United Nations has six main organs. Five of them — the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council and the Secretariat — are based at UN Headquarters in New York. The sixth, the International Court of Justice, is located at The Hague in the Netherlands. However it does not matter how much the United Nations denies the accusations about an underlining agenda to centralize world power within its legal structure, the truth is that there are very prominent signs that it is driving this agenda in cooperation with a number of major think tank institutions and prominent secret societies and through a number of what seem to be ethical initiatives.

A PRODUCTION OF REMA MARKETING AND WWW.GLOBALREPORT2010.COM ©2012,2013, All rights reserved

10


TRANSITIONS UPDATE: THE UNITED NATIONS

On October 14, 2009, Lord Christopher Monckton, former science advisor to

British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, delivered a scathing refutation of the concept of human-caused global warming at Bethel University in St. Paul, Minnesota. During his presentation, Lord Monckton focused on the UN climate treaty that was being proposed for the United Nations Climate

Change Conference in Copenhagen that December. He warned: I read that treaty. And what it says is this: that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries.... And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement. Not just any government, mind you. “They are about to impose a communist world government on the world,” warned Monckton.

At the UN’s Rio 20 Earth Summit on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in June 2012, the world government advocates were pushing even grander schemes.

Lord Monckton, who heads the policy unit of the U.K. Independence Party and is chief policy advisor to the Washington, D.C.-based Science and Public Policy Institute, told The New American’s Alex Newman, “They were still effectively talking about a mechanization for setting up a global government so that they could shut down the West, shut down democracy, and bring freedom to an end worldwide.”

Is that merely the ranting of a madman? That’s what the usual suspects at the Huffington Post, MSNBC, and other organs of the liberal-left corporate media would have us believe. He is a “climate-change denier,” a “moonbat,” a “conspiracy wacko.” That is the same response that has greeted anyone and everyone who has dared not merely to criticize the United Nations’ faults and abuses, but to point out the danger of a UN that is evolving into an actual world government — with real teeth and enforcement powers. However, very influential Americans, as well as foreign leaders, in politics, media, and academe, have been advocating — blatantly and openly, as well as indirectly — for transforming the United Nations system into a full-blown world government. What’s more, they have begun actual implementation. It is no longer hypothetical that the UN and its affiliated institutions will usurp legislative, executive, and judicial powers, including taxing, policing, and military powers. It has already begun; it is already happening. And A PRODUCTION OF REMA MARKETING AND WWW.GLOBALREPORT2010.COM ©2012,2013, All rights reserved

11


TRANSITIONS UPDATE: THE UNITED NATIONS

it is happening with the acquiescence, approval, encouragement, and funding of globalists in our own government, both Republicans and Democrats. Walter Cronkite, the late CBS anchorman and broadcast icon often referred to as “the most trusted man in America,” stated in 1999: “It seems to many of us that if we are to avoid the eventual catastrophic world conflict we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government with a legislature, executive and judiciary, and police to enforce its international laws and keep the peace. To do that, of course, we Americans will have to yield up some of our sovereignty. It would take a lot of courage, a lot of faith in the new order.... We cannot defer this responsibility to posterity. Democracy, civilization itself, is at stake. Within the next few years we must change the basic structure of our global community from the present anarchic system of war … to a new system governed by a democratic U.N. federation.”

Cronkite made that statement in a 1999 speech to the World Federalist Association, one of the oldest and foremost organizations promoting world government. Strobe Talbott may not be as well known as “Uncle Walter” Cronkite, but he wields considerable influence among political elites. A former “Soviet expert” and correspondent for Time magazine (Soviet KGB defector Sergei Tretyakov claimed Talbott was actually “an extremely valuable intelligence source” for Russian intelligence) and deputy secretary of state for President Clinton, Talbott now serves as president of the very influential think tank, the Brookings Institution, in Washington, D.C. In a highly acclaimed essay he penned for Time in 1992, entitled “The Birth of the Global Nation,” Talbott declared: “In 1795 [philosopher Immanuel] Kant advocated a “peaceful league of democracies.” But it has taken the events in our own wondrous and terrible century to clinch the case for world government. Federalism has already proved the most successful of all political experiments, and organizations like the World Federalist Association have for decades advocated it as the basis for global government.”

Gideon Rachman, an enthusiastic one-worlder and a leading economic opinionator for the very influential Financial Times, authored a Times op-ed on December 8, 2008 entitled, “And Now for a World Government,” in which he approvingly observed: “So, it seems, everything is in place. For the first time since homo sapiens began to doodle on cave walls, there is an argument, an opportunity and a means to make serious steps towards a world government.”

Rachman was excited that the global financial crisis was presenting a rich opportunity so that “for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible.”

Rachman described the desideratum that he and fellow internationalists are working so hard to bring about: “A “world government” would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries,

A PRODUCTION OF REMA MARKETING AND WWW.GLOBALREPORT2010.COM ©2012,2013, All rights reserved

12


TRANSITIONS UPDATE: THE UNITED NATIONS

which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.”

Similarly blatant calls for empowering the United Nations could be cited ad infinitum. But the fact is that the empowerment is already well under way.

Much of the superstructure and infrastructure for the physical edifice of a world government already have been built. The United Nations’ official organizational chart and the world map (below) give an ominous inkling of the global leviathan that is already in place. But only an inkling; it actually vastly understates the magnitude of the organizational sprawl of the UN worldwide, since it merely shows the locations of the headquarters offices of the main UN agencies and only a few of the many regional offices or field operations of these agencies. Take, for instance, the UN’s World Health Organization (WHO). In addition to its mammoth Geneva headquarters, it also has six huge regional offices: Africa HQ (Brazzaville, Congo); the Americas HQ (Washington, D.C.); Europe HQ (Copenhagen, Denmark); Eastern Mediterranean HQ (Cairo, Egypt); Southeast Asia HQ (Delhi, India); Western Pacific HQ (Manila, Philippines). Likewise, the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization is located in a huge gleaming palace of glass and marble a short walk from the Colosseum in Rome. But it also has regional offices in Ghana, Chile, Thailand, Egypt, and Hungary, as well as subregional offices in Samoa, Barbados, Tunisia, Turkey, Ethiopia, Gabon, and Panama; and liaison offices in Geneva; Washington, D.C.; New York; Brussels; A PRODUCTION OF REMA MARKETING AND WWW.GLOBALREPORT2010.COM ©2012,2013, All rights reserved

13


TRANSITIONS UPDATE: THE UNITED NATIONS

and Yokohama. The story is similar at UNESCO, which, besides boasting a palatial edifice in Paris, called the World Heritage Center, has field offices, cluster offices, national offices, regional bureaus, and liaison offices in more than 50 countries throughout the world. This same pattern is repeated for many other UN agencies. Besides putting in place a vast civil service of administrators and bureaucrats to run the planned world government, the ever-expanding UN system has created a huge global constituency of local and national politicians, corporations, and NGOs that benefits from the UN’s presence and can be counted on to lobby for its continued expansion. Gideon Rachman’s statement above referring approvingly to the European Union (EU) as a model for the UN is particularly apropos. For decades, critics of the Common Market (as the EU was called before 1993) warned that the organization was being built piece by piece, agency by agency, into a supranational government, only to be derided as paranoid wackos by EU proponents. Now, of course, all pretenses are being dropped because the EU is de facto a supranational government that completely overrides the national and local governments of its member states. The UN’s rapidly growing organizational footprint is most jarringly visible throughout the Third World, where offices of UN agencies, the IMF, and World Bank dominate the political and economic landscape, and UN trucks, UN tent cities, blue-helmeted UN peacekeepers, and UN civilian staff are ubiquitous. The gradual development of the UN from an international organization into a world government was planned from the world body’s beginning in 1945. One of the UN architects at the UN founding conference in San Francisco was John Foster Dulles, who served as U.S. secretary of state from 1953 to 1959. In his 1950 book, War or Peace, Dulles, a committed one-worlder and a founder of the oneworld Council on Foreign Relations, wrote of the then-five-year-old UN: “The United Nations represents not a final stage in the development of world order, but only a primitive stage. Therefore its primary task is to create the conditions which will make possible a more highly developed organization.”

Later in the same book, Dulles stated: “I have never seen any proposal made for collective security with ‘teeth’ in it, or for ‘world government’ or for ‘world federation,’ which could not be carried out either by the United Nations or under the United Nations Charter.”

The push to empower the UN with global legislative, executive, and judicial powers has already yielded huge dividends, and UN bodies are now exercising those powers to various degrees — and constantly pushing to usurp more control. Here is a brief survey. The Global Army: On its Web page entitled “Honoring 60 Years of United Nations Peacekeeping (19482008)” the UN makes this ominous boast: “A massive enterprise — The UN is the largest multilateral contributor to post-conflict stabilization worldwide. Only the United States deploys more military personnel to the field than the United Nations. There are almost 110,000 serving on 20 peace operations led by the UN Departments of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) and Field Support (DFS) on four continents A PRODUCTION OF REMA MARKETING AND WWW.GLOBALREPORT2010.COM ©2012,2013, All rights reserved

14


TRANSITIONS UPDATE: THE UNITED NATIONS

directly impacting the lives of hundreds of millions of people. This represents a seven-fold increase in UN peacekeepers since 1999.”

The United States picks up 27 percent of the direct tab for UN peacekeeping operations, but that is only a fraction of the American contribution. Through the Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI) and the African Contingency Operations Training and Assistance (ACOTA) program, both operated jointly by the

U.S. Departments of State and Defense, the U.S. military has trained (and continues to train) tens of thousands of UN “peacekeepers,” many of whom have been charged with carrying out genocide and atrocities, including widespread rape and sodomizing of women and children, as well as sexploitation of impoverished children in Haiti, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Congo, Somalia, and Kosovo. An even larger chunk of UN war-making disguised as “peacekeeping” is carried out under the auspices of NATO — again, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayers and U.S. armed forces. The Global Prosecutor, Judge, and Jury: The UN’s International Criminal Court (ICC) officially opened its doors at The Hague 10 years ago, in July 2002. The UN boasts that “the ICC has become a fully functional institution, with 16 cases having been brought before the Court, 6 of which are at the trial stage. ICC judges have issued 22 arrest warrants and 6 arrests have been made.”

Although most of those targeted thus far are generally recognized as bad men, the ICC’s prosecutions are establishing dangerous precedents that could be used against innocent political targets, including American citizens. The ICC’s governing Rome Statute violates the most basic principles of due process, separation of powers, and national sovereignty. It incorporates within the ICC itself the roles of prosecutor, judge, and jury.

A PRODUCTION OF REMA MARKETING AND WWW.GLOBALREPORT2010.COM ©2012,2013, All rights reserved

15


TRANSITIONS UPDATE: THE UNITED NATIONS

Notre Dame University Law Professor Charles Rice called the ICC “a monstrosity.” Ambassador David Scheffer, the pro-ICC negotiator for President Bill Clinton, admitted, “it is not credible to argue … that no American will ever come before it. We are not saying Americans are off bounds.”

The danger is not that Americans (U.S. military personnel, law-enforcement officers, elected officials, or private citizens) will be taken before the ICC against the wishes of the U.S. government, but that our own government officials will acquiesce in the process, arguing that we must uphold “the rule of law” and the will of the “international community.” The Global Fed: The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank (WB) have wrought economic havoc worldwide for decades, burdening nations (especially the less-developed countries) with impossible debt and onerous economic policies. Over the last several years, a growing chorus of globalists has called for transforming and “supersizing” the IMF into the equivalent of a global Federal Reserve, with a global currency — SDRs, Special Drawing Rights — to displace the dollar. In 2010, the UN issued its World Economic and Social Survey, which said: “A new global reserve system could be created, one that no longer relies on the United States dollar as the single major reserve currency.”

According to the UN report, a new reserve system “should permit the emission of international liquidity — such as SDRs — to create a more stable global financial system.” A global currency would allow whoever controls the currency (in this case the IMF) to control the world economy and to enjoy unlimited financial power. And it could “bail out” or subsidize any company it wishes, to the detriment of other companies. Like a global Federal Reserve, it could confiscate wealth by simply inflating the currency. The Global Trade Cop: The World Trade Organization (WTO), which entered into force in 1995, has joined NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) in judging and overturning U.S. laws and court decisions. The WTO has already proven the charges by its critics and opponents, that it is an enormous threat to America’s national sovereignty, as well as an engine of global central economic planning. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) in 2005 stated,

“Make no mistake about it, WTO ministers tell Congress to change American laws, and Congress complies.

In fact,

congressional leaders obediently scrambled to make sure the corporate tax bill passed before a WTO deadline. Thousands and thousands of bills languish in committees, yet a bill ordered by the WTO was pushed to the front of the line.”

A PRODUCTION OF REMA MARKETING AND WWW.GLOBALREPORT2010.COM ©2012,2013, All rights reserved

16


TRANSITIONS UPDATE: THE UNITED NATIONS

The Global Enviro-Cop: Through a multitude of environmental agreements, programs, and agencies — Agenda 21, the Biodiversity Treaty, UN Convention on Climate Change, the United Nations Environment Program, the Global Environment Facility, etc. — the UN and its one-world advocates are spinning a web of control over all human activity.

As in the case of other global taxes and regulations, the UN depends on national governments to be complicit in adopting “international norms and commitments” that will lock individual nations into the UN’s regulatory grip. The Global Gun Grabber: Through its Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) and its Program of Action (PoA) on Small Arms, the United Nations has been pushing feverishly for over a decade and a half to undermine the right of individuals to possess firearms, as guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment. The UN attack is aimed not only at infringing the right of private gun ownership, but also increasing restrictions on ammunition, gunpowder, and other essential components. In August 2012, the UN began its latest round of efforts to attack this fundamental right, asserting the claimed right of the state to have an unchallengeable monopoly of force. It is not surprising that the United States is virtually the sole holdout, as most UN member states are either dictatorships that do not allow individuals to possess firearms, or socialist countries traveling the same direction on the road to tyranny. The Global Internet Controller: Since at least 2003, when the United Nations hosted its first World Summit on the Information Society, the UN has been leading an effort to take over the Internet. The countries in the forefront of this effort are Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Sudan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan — dictatorships where Internet censorship and cyber spying on citizens are standard operating procedures. The UN grabs for power cited above are far from a complete list. The UN’s Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) aims to give the UN authority over the planet’s oceans, coastal waters, fisheries, seabed oil and mineral wealth, and maritime traffic. The UN’s World Health Organization and Food & Agriculture Organization are in charge of the Codex Alimentarius, the UN effort to regulate and take control over raw food, processed food, and semi-processed food, including vitamin and mineral supplements, herbs, and other nutritional products. UNESCO has insinuated itself into American schools and families through “partnerships” with our federal and state Education Departments that include curriculum design and invasive, psychologically manipulative “emotional wellness” evaluations. The UN Population Fund

A PRODUCTION OF REMA MARKETING AND WWW.GLOBALREPORT2010.COM ©2012,2013, All rights reserved

17


TRANSITIONS UPDATE: THE UNITED NATIONS

(UNFPA) not only supports forced abortion in China, but works assiduously with Planned Parenthood to overturn national abortion laws and make abortion legal and commonplace worldwide

A PRODUCTION OF REMA MARKETING AND WWW.GLOBALREPORT2010.COM Š2012,2013, All rights reserved

18


TRANSITIONS UPDATE: THE UNITED NATIONS

3. THE UNITED NATIONS AND GLOBAL TAXATION World government advocates have long lamented that the UN must depend on dues and contributions from its member states. Their dream of a UN that will have an independent revenue stream from global taxes is dangerously close at hand. The controversy and opposition caused by the European Union’s imposition of a “carbon tax” on all air travel has given the UN leverage to propose its own global carbon tax on all air passengers, through the UN’s International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

However, many other global tax proposals are in the works, with a global financial transaction tax (FTT) being, perhaps, the one closest to realization and receiving major backing from many leaders of the G20 nations and the NGO lobby. Various FTT proposals, such as the Tobin Tax, could net the UN hundreds of billions of dollars annually. The usual rationale given for an FTT is that the proceeds would be used to end global poverty, but the UN’s record indicates the massive sums taken would end up in the bank accounts of the UN’s corrupt officials. The U.N. bureaucrats are not deterred by the fact that Americans should be protected by our U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 7, which specifies that “all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.” The greedy globalist U.N. bureaucrats have been conniving for about 20 years to bypass Congress and tax individual Americans, and now they think they have devised a formula to do this. Their vehicle for this travesty is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The U.N. convention delegates dream they can transform the economic structure of the world by a new global treaty using global-warming fears (even though the globe has not warmed for the past 16 years). UNFCCC’s executive secretary, Christiana Figueres, will call a “significant number of meetings and workshops” next year to prepare the new document. The plan is for U.N. Secretary General Ban Kimoon in 2014 to “convene leaders to mobilize the political will to ensure that the 2015 deadline is met” to start this global tax.

A PRODUCTION OF REMA MARKETING AND WWW.GLOBALREPORT2010.COM ©2012,2013, All rights reserved

19


TRANSITIONS UPDATE: THE UNITED NATIONS

This new U.N. document will cap greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, and replace our use of fossil fuels with renewable energy sources such as solar and wind. Government will be expected to subsidize green energy because plenty of evidence proves that alternate energy sources are far more expensive and cannot compete in the marketplace. Obama gave a half-billion U.S. tax dollars to the solar-panel company Solyndra, which promptly went bankrupt and now is arguing about who will pay the $600-per-hour lawyers who worked on the deal. After Obama gave $133 million of a $249 million grant to a firm named A123 to make batteries for electric cars, that company went bankrupt, too, and now is auctioned to a Chinese company, Wanxiang Group. The UN lawmakers are salivating at the thought of creating a new $100-billion-a-year fund by imposing a first-ever global tax on the right to cause carbon dioxide emissions. This fund is to be headquartered in South Korea and sweetened by a gigantic flow of taxes on international monetary transactions, international shipping and airline travel. Agenda 21, the Declaration on Environment and Development and the Statement of Principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests was signed by 178 governments including President George H.W. Bush in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992 as an official policy during a signing ceremony at the Earth Summit. In signing, each nation pledge to adopt the goals of Agenda 21. In 1995, President Bill Clinton, in compliance with Agenda 21, signed Executive Order #12858 to create the President's Council on Sustainable Development in order to "harmonize" US environmental policy with UN directives as outlined in Agenda 21. The EO directed all agencies of the Federal Government to work with state and local community governments in a joint effort "reinvent" government using the guidelines outlined in Agenda 21. As a result, with the assistance of groups like ICLEI, Sustainable Development is now emerging as government policy in every town, county and state in the nation

Agenda 21′s goal is to “save the planet” and “sustain” life on Earth regardless of its adverse effect on human life and our standard of living. It is based on the very un-American notion that private property is “a social injustice since not everyone can build wealth from it.” The Agenda 21 paradigm is built on the following principles.

A PRODUCTION OF REMA MARKETING AND WWW.GLOBALREPORT2010.COM ©2012,2013, All rights reserved

20


TRANSITIONS UPDATE: THE UNITED NATIONS

Sustainable Development: The term Sustainable Development was first introduced to the world in the pages a 1987 report (Our Common Future) produced by the United Nations World Commission on Environmental and Development, authored by Gro Harlem Brundtland, VP of the World Socialist Party. The term was first offered as official UN policy in 1992, in a document called UN Sustainable Development Agenda 21, issued at the UN's Earth Summit, today referred to simply as Agenda 21. According to its authors, the objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity. Sustainablists insist that every societal decision be based on environmental impact, focusing on three components; global land use, global education, and global population control and reduction. Social Equity (Social Justice): Social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people "to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment." Redistribution of wealth. Private property is a social injustice since not everyone can build wealth from it. National sovereignty is a social injustice. Universal health care is a social justice. All part of Agenda 21 policy. Economic Prosperity: Public Private Partnerships (PPP). Special dealings between government and certain, chosen corporations which get tax breaks, grants and the government's power of Eminent Domain to implement sustainable policy. Government-sanctioned monopolies. Local Sustainable Development policies: Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, STAR Sustainable Communities, Green jobs, Green Building Codes, "Going Green," Alternative Energy, Local Visioning, facilitators, regional planning, historic preservation, conservation easements, development rights, sustainable farming, comprehensive planning, growth management, consensus. Note this following statement regarding Agenda 21 from a former advisor to former

US President

Clinton. "Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy- fixated groups and individuals in our society‌ This segment of our society who fear 'one-world government' and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined 'the conspiracy' by undertaking LA21. So we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth." J. Gary Lawrence, advisor to President Clinton's Council on Sustainable Development.

A PRODUCTION OF REMA MARKETING AND WWW.GLOBALREPORT2010.COM Š2012,2013, All rights reserved

21


TRANSITIONS UPDATE: THE UNITED NATIONS

4. THE UNITED NATIONS AND GLOBAL WARMING In 2012 Lord Christopher Monckton had an opportunity to educate representatives of governments and dictatorships at the United Nations climate change summit in Doha, Qatar, about the fact that there has been no global warming for the last 16 years. However, after pretending to be a delegate from the regime ruling Burma to get at the microphone, the prominent climate realist was escorted from the UN Conference of the Parties (COP18) by the organization’s security.

The former advisor to ex-British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, however, was not deterred in his efforts to expose climate hysteria and global power grabs based on bogus UN theories. In fact, he plans to keep at it as long as the tax-funded warming alarmism continues to be used as a justification to build a planetary carbon regime, which critics say would come at the expense of liberty, prosperity, and national sovereignty while doing nothing to stop non-existent “global warming.” As self-styled government climate dignitaries were assembled in a plenary session on December 6, Lord Monckton, who regularly slams global warming alarmists and has become a staple at the seemingly never-ending series of UN climate summits, took a seat reserved for Burmese officials. After being recognized to speak by the conference president, he took the microphone and began his brief educational seminar as confused delegates started displaying contorted faces and quietly mumbling to each other. "In the 16 years now that we have been coming to these events, there has been no global warming at all,"

said Lord Monckton, referring to the most recent U.K. Met Office data showing that there has actually been no observable increase in planetary temperatures for more than a decade and a half. Like a wide array of climate scientists and experts, Lord Monckton has been trumpeting that key point for days. Simply stated, no warming means the UN’s “climate models” were wildly inaccurate at best and should therefore be discarded. Many critics, in fact, argue that the computer-generated “predictions” were actually deliberately misleading, designed to produce hysterical forecasts more for public fear-mongering purposes than scientific accuracy. Even if the Earth had been warming, however, Lord Monckton told the delegates that other approaches would be better suited to the task of dealing with it than an international UN-run climate regime. A PRODUCTION OF REMA MARKETING AND WWW.GLOBALREPORT2010.COM ©2012,2013, All rights reserved

22


TRANSITIONS UPDATE: THE UNITED NATIONS

"Secondly, even if we were to take action to try and prevent global warming, the cost of that would be many times greater than the cost of taking adaptative measures later,” Lord Monckton, sitting in the Burmese regime’s spot, continued as

other UN delegates began to realize what was going on. “So our recommendation, therefore, is that we should initiate very quickly a review of the science to make sure that we are all on the right track."

Unsurprisingly, the international “climate” negotiators were unimpressed with the facts, knowing full well that if the truth were to become more widely known, the entire multi-billion dollar global warming industry could collapse. UN security promptly arrived to escort Lord Monckton out of the Doha summit — permanently, it emerged later — as COP18 President Abdullah bin Hamad Al-Attiyah of Qatar apologized to delegates for the brief, if unwelcome and unauthorized, educational talk on the lack of global warming. "Sorry, the last speaker is not a party, he's an NGO,"

the COP18 boss said, sounding bewildered. "It was confusing for me because it was written Myanmar (Burma) for me, but when I looked at his face he's not from Myanmar, so I was correct, so anyway, thank you very much.”

Delegates representing almost 200 national governments and dictatorships responded with awkward chuckles. According to the UN, the British viscount was booted for allegedly “violating the UN code of conduct” and for “impersonating a party,” the term used to describe government delegations to the climate summits. The international organization later told reporters, multiple news outlets reported, that Lord Monckton had been permanently banned from international “climate” summits because of the stunt. While the brief speech, which lasted about a minute, garnered news headlines and celebrations by climate realists worldwide, it also prompted fury from tax-funded global warming alarmists and international bureaucrats hoping to profit at the COP18, some of whom reportedly booed after being reminded that there had been no global warming for 16 of the 18 years that the climate summits have been going on. Certain pro-climate alarmism publications, especially in the UK, were clearly displeased with Lord Monckton’s efforts as well. Lord Monckton, though, explained that it was important to make summit participants aware of the fact that the public is waking up to the bogus alarmism and the emperor has no clothes. The science must be reviewed, he said. Plus, some of the official delegations might not have even been aware of the nowwell-known data showing that there has actually been no global warming — the supposed “problem” the UN is purportedly trying to “solve” — almost since UN global warming conferences began. “One just couldn’t resist,” the climate realist explained in a written piece about the incident that he emailed to The New American. “There they all were, earnestly outbidding each other to demand that the West should keep them in pampered luxury for the rest of their indolent lives, and all on the pretext of preventing global warming that has now become embarrassingly notorious for its long absence.” A PRODUCTION OF REMA MARKETING AND WWW.GLOBALREPORT2010.COM ©2012,2013, All rights reserved

23


TRANSITIONS UPDATE: THE UNITED NATIONS

Somebody had to say it. “No one was allowed to give the alternative — and scientifically correct — viewpoint,”

Lord Monckton’s statement continued. “The U.N.’s wall of silence was rigidly in place. The microphone was just in front of me. All I had to do was press the button. I pressed it.... As I delivered the last of my three points, there were keening shrieks of rage from the delegates. They had not heard any of this before. They could not believe it. Outrage! Silence him! Free speech? No! This is the U.N.! Gerrimoff! Eeeeeeeeeagh!”

While dictatorships seeking ever greater sums of Western taxpayer cash and delegates from wealthier governments hoping for increased control over humanity were hostile, apparently, some at the summit had trouble containing their smiles. Even the security guards charged with stripping Lord Monckton of his UN credentials appeared amused, he said. “One of the hundreds of beefy, truncheon-toting U.N. police at the conference approached me as I left the hall and I was soon surrounded by him and a colleague. They took my conference pass, peered at it and murmured into cellphones,” Lord

Monckton recalled about the aftermath of the incident. “Trouble was, they were having great difficulty keeping a straight face. Put yourself in their sensible shoes. They have to stand around listening to the tedious, flatulent mendacities of pompous, overpaid, under-educated diplomats day after week after year. Suddenly, at last, someone says ‘Boo!’ and tells the truth. Frankly, they loved it.”

Lord Monckton was at the COP18 with a pro-market, U.S.-based environmental group known as Committee For a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), which has become one of the most important organizations pointing out the flaws in UN theories while exposing the absurdity of the global body’s proposed “solutions” to “global warming” at the UN summits. As the conference was coming to an end, CFACT hosted a press conference featuring multiple heavyweights calling for a suspension of UN “climate” treaty negotiations.

The UN, however, undeterred by the spectacular implosion of the alleged “science” underpinning its power grabs, ignored those calls. “Doha successfully concluded the previous round of climate negotiations, paving the way to a comprehensive, legally binding agreement by 2015,” explained a statement issued a spokesperson for UN chief Ban Ki Moon, who recently came under fire for ignoring science in his effort to blame Hurricane Sandy on global warming. A PRODUCTION OF REMA MARKETING AND WWW.GLOBALREPORT2010.COM ©2012,2013, All rights reserved

24


TRANSITIONS UPDATE: THE UNITED NATIONS

UN “global warming” chief Christiana Figueres, the so-called “executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change” (UNFCCC), made even more audacious, and perhaps honest, statements. “What is occurring here, not just in Doha, but in the whole climate change process is the complete transformation of the economic structure of the world,” she explained. As The New American has documented extensively, the Western establishment, the UN, and many of its member governments have long been hoping to use climate hysteria to transform the economic structure of the world while centralizing power at the international level. However, with the global warming alarmism becoming increasingly irrelevant and discredited, that task has become much more difficult. Kicking Lord Monckton out of the summit, of course, will do little to reverse the trend. An editorial in the Wall Street Journal signed by 16 prominent scientists takes issue with calls for drastic action against global warming. “Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.” They point to Nobel Prize winning physicist Ivar Giaever, who resigned from the American Physical Society last September due to the organization’s position that the evidence for global warming is “incontrovertible” and the threat requires “mitigating actions” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” The 16 scientists include Richard Lindzen, professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT, William Happer, professor physics at Princeton, Burt Rutan, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut; Michael Kelly, former U.S. Senator, now professor of Technology at the University of Cambridge; and Jan Breslow, head of Laboratories of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism at Rockefeller University. “In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the “pollutant” carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinion of Dr. Giaever. The “most inconvenient” fact cited by the scientists is the lack of global warming over the past 10 years.” If you want to know why, in spite of evidence that disproves global warming, that some agencies cling to the lies – follow the money.

It has become an excuse for governments to raise taxes, to subsidies

businesses that know how to play the game, a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet, a chance for Socialist leaning politicians to institute redistribution policies and a huge lure for the United Nations to demand compliance on international laws and policies leading to a one world government under the control of the United Nations. “Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message. . .There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to decarbonize the world’s economy. . .it makes no sense to back expensive

programs that divert

resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claim.” With so many scientists finally fighting back against the global warming scam, the United Nations has decided to change its tactics - push the same old agenda under another name. Their recently released A PRODUCTION OF REMA MARKETING AND WWW.GLOBALREPORT2010.COM ©2012,2013, All rights reserved 25


TRANSITIONS UPDATE: THE UNITED NATIONS

Socialist Wish list entitled “Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing” is another attempt to convince the world that they can only exist when we all join hands and sing Kum Bah Yah under the guidance of our socialist mother – the U.N.

“Achieving sustainability requires us to transform the global economy” by shifting the scam away from global warming to green growth and strengthening institutional governance.

They also push global

abortions to control an “unsustainable population“, global tax for education; cap and trade legislation, the phase out of fossil fuels; recommendations for strengthening institutional governance; and policies to reduce social exclusion and closing the widening gap of social inequality. The only way to fight back is to elect responsible, constitutionally literate politicians that won’t bow and scrape to the U.N. socialist agenda.

A PRODUCTION OF REMA MARKETING AND WWW.GLOBALREPORT2010.COM ©2012,2013, All rights reserved

26


TRANSITIONS UPDATE: THE UNITED NATIONS

5. THE UNITED NATIONS AND INTERNET GOVERNANCE The future of the web is being decided by UN politicians and authoritarian governments — at least according to Google and some other opponents of the International Telecommunication Union’s plan to reform its 25-yearold guidelines. Leaked documents have shown that ITU members are interested in adding more internet regulations to the ITU’s mostly telecommunications-focused rules, something critics worry will let countries justify repressive filtering of the internet or upset the current balance of power by pushing more regulation. Supporters, meanwhile, hope it will help internationalize the internet, counterbalancing the more USbased Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which currently manages domains and controls the internet’s backbone. Starting December 3rd, these concerns will come to a head, as ITU members meet in Dubai to discuss proposals and hammer out a treaty. The debate over the new regulations has been going on for years, and it will likely continue well beyond this meeting. As the meeting gets underway, we’re likely to see a lot of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt — some of which may be justified. Before talks begin in earnest, here’s what’s on the table, who’s involved, and why it matters. At its most basic level, the International Telecommunication Union is a UN agency that predates both the UN and the telephone. Founded as the International Telegraph Union in 1865, it currently reports a membership of 193 countries and around 700 companies and research institutions, who develop treaties that set technical standards and goals for developing communications networks worldwide.

If the early days of the internet had gone differently, the ITU might help manage our domain name system today. If things had gone differently in the internet’s early days, the ITU might be one of the agencies behind our domain name system today. In 1996, it served on the International Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC), an early attempt to manage the domain system. But the IAHC drew criticism that echoes the current debate: one complaint said that "little effort has been made to inform consumers, governments or the internet industry about the proceedings, or their potential impact on the internet." The US, meanwhile, suggested that a private non-profit group would be preferable to an international A PRODUCTION OF REMA MARKETING AND WWW.GLOBALREPORT2010.COM ©2012,2013, All rights reserved

27


TRANSITIONS UPDATE: THE UNITED NATIONS

committee. The IAHC’s plan fizzled, and the US Department of Commerce granted control of the domain name system to ICANN in 1998. Recently, the ITU has primarily worked on issues like broadband penetration and technical standardssetting — both obvious activities for a telecom regulatory agency. But there has also been persistent speculation that it’s interested in something more. In 2006, newly elected ITU Secretary General Hamadoun Touré insisted that "I wouldn’t want to see the ITU trying to take over internet governance," but he said that it still had a "mandate" to protect it and foster growth. Among other things, "security in cyberspace can only be brokered worldwide by ITU." To that end, it’s headed things like anti-spam efforts and released resolutions for protecting children online. As the ITU prepares to update its decades-old telecom guidelines, it sits in the middle of several heated debates. As an international agency, it’s a counterpoint to ICANN, which derives its authority from the US government and is sometimes seen as representing American interests too heavily. As an intergovernmental body, it raises the hackles of the often strongly libertarian tech industry, which worries about top-down regulation by politicians. And as part of the UN, it’s a target for Americans who harbor a long-running distrust of international policy-making. The center of the debate was centralised in WCIT (pronounced "wicket"), the 2012 World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai. From December 3rd to the 14th, the ITU would spend time updating its 1988 International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs), which outline how national and international networks should operate at a broad level. Like other UN regulations, these won’t be legally binding unless countries sign on, and countries can sign with reservations, so the idea is to create a fairly broad consensus. So far, though, one of the biggest problems is that we’re not entirely sure what’s being debated. The details of the ITU meeting in December and the discussion that’s taken place so far are closed, although some public notices have been posted on the agency’s site. Public discussion has instead been focused around documents posted by WCITLeaks, a dedicated ITU leaks site run by a pair of researchers at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center. After a trove of information had already been published, the ITU introduced a "public viewing period" and posted a draft online, but the country proposals themselves are still available only through WCITLeaks. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the ITU or the UN is trying to keep the dealings secret, but it does point to a disconnect between how its system usually works and what’s expected of internet policy makers. Carleton University media professor Dwayne Winseck is generally supportive of the ITU, which he has covered prolifically over the past months. But he agrees that it "definitely has to do more" to open itself to the public, calling its membership fees in particular "outrageous" — even universities must pay around $4,000 annually for ITU membership, almost three times what a multinational corporation would pay to ICANN. And in a recent resolution, the European Parliament said that it "regrets the lack of transparency and inclusiveness surrounding the negotiations for WCIT-12, given that the outcomes of this meeting could substantially affect the public interest." A PRODUCTION OF REMA MARKETING AND WWW.GLOBALREPORT2010.COM ©2012,2013, All rights reserved

28


TRANSITIONS UPDATE: THE UNITED NATIONS

As we’ll see, there are a lot of problematic ideas on the table, but having to read about WCIT through a leaks site has done a lot to sour the debate. If the ITU isn’t willing to even publish proposals, the thinking goes, why should anyone trust it to listen to the needs of businesses or citizens? Beyond questions of transparency, the core of the debate over WCIT is a proposed shift from treating the ITU as a primarily telecom-oriented agency to one that specifically deals with the internet. Leaked drafts include several mentions of the internet as a branch of telecommunications and add detail to regulatory directives that were developed for a pre-internet world. Instead of describing an international telecommunications network as a "the offering of a telecommunication capability between telecommunication offices or stations," for example, it’s now proposed as the provision of "roaming, international public telegram service, telex," or "traffic termination services (including Internet traffic termination)." Some proposals task the ITU with preventing abuse of numbering resources, long the province of ICANN, and Russia hopes to add a section promising that "member states shall have equal rights to manage the internet," including managing the domain name system and "development of basic internet infrastructure." The ambiguity here is that because of its broad language, it’s already possible to read the existing 1988 ITRs as covering the internet. Telecommunications, for example, are defined in the 1988 document as "any transmission, emission or reception of signs, signals, writing, images and sounds or intelligence of any nature by wire, radio, optical or other electromagnetic systems." And depending on who you ask, the fine line between telecom and internet policy means the ITU has already been involved in internet governance for years. Despite this, companies don’t like the idea of following another set of rules, and public interest groups worry that the ITU won’t be responsive. The agency is seen as too government-focused, giving a voice to repressive regimes while ignoring other stakeholders. Internet advocacy organization Public Knowledge says it’s "focused on technical telecommunications standards and built around the participation of governments," and Google is blunter, arguing that "only governments have a voice at the ITU." The story is a bit more complicated than that, of course. National delegations to the ITU are full of telecommunication company representatives — in the US, you’ll find Cisco, Sprint, Apple, AT&T, and many others in the directory. It is fair, though, to say that that ICANN looks for input from a much broader range of stakeholders, and that the ITU’s "one country, one vote" model will give governments final say. ICANN also, however, runs under the aegis of the US government, something that hasn’t always sat well internationally. Russia’s proposal to essentially turn over ICANN to ITU member states is extreme, but the basic idea of internationalizing the domain name system has supporters worldwide. "Countries [outside the US] balk at being dependent" on ICANN, Winseck says, especially as domain name seizures become an increasingly common tool in the US war on piracy. "They’ve been pushing to internationalize this, and there’s no reason to suspect that they’re not going to continue."

A PRODUCTION OF REMA MARKETING AND WWW.GLOBALREPORT2010.COM ©2012,2013, All rights reserved

29


TRANSITIONS UPDATE: THE UNITED NATIONS

Once you get past the basic concept of the ITU’s expansion, you’ll reach specific internet management proposals, submitted by dozens of countries and organizations. These have drawn the most vehement complaints, and for good reason. A number of them are unremarkable, or even helpful — agreeing to prioritize emergency communications or to fight certain kinds of phone fraud, for example. But among these, you’ll find calls to make internet filtering more acceptable and undermine net neutrality. The United Nations is also considering a new Internet tax targeting the largest Web content providers, including Google, Facebook, Apple, and Netflix, that could cripple their ability to reach users in developing nations. The European proposal, offered for debate (recently in Dubai which we refer to later on) at a December meeting of a U.N. agency called the International Telecommunication Union, would amend an existing telecommunications treaty by imposing heavy costs on popular Web sites and their network providers for the privilege of serving non-U.S. users, according to newly leaked documents. The documents (No. 1 No. 2) punctuate warnings that the Obama administration and Republican members of Congress raised about how secret negotiations at the ITU over an international communications treaty could result in a radical re-engineering of the Internet ecosystem and allow governments to monitor or restrict their citizens' online activities. "It's extremely worrisome," Sally Shipman Wentworth, senior manager for public policy at the Internet Society, says about the proposed Internet taxes. "It could create an enormous amount of legal uncertainty and commercial uncertainty." The leaked proposal was drafted by the European Telecommunications Network Operators Association, (ETNO), a Brussels-based lobby group representing companies in 35 nations that wants the ITU to mandate these fees. While this is the first time this proposal been advanced, European network providers and phone companies have been bitterly complaining about U.S. content-providing companies for some time. France Telecom, Telecom Italia, and Vodafone Group, want to "require content providers like Apple and Google to pay fees linked to usage," Bloomberg reported last December. ETNO refers to it as the "principle of sending party network pays" -- an idea borrowed from the system set up to handle payments for international phone calls, where the recipient's network set the per minute price. If its proposal is adopted, it would spell an end to the Internet's long-standing, successful design based on unmetered "peered" traffic, and effectively tax content providers to reach non-U.S. Internet users. In a statement the ETNO defended its proposal as "innovative" and said it had been adopted unanimously by its executive board. It would amend the treaties by saying, "to ensure an adequate return on investment in high bandwidth infrastructures, operating agencies shall negotiate commercial agreements to achieve a sustainable system of fair compensation for telecommunications services," A PRODUCTION OF REMA MARKETING AND WWW.GLOBALREPORT2010.COM ©2012,2013, All rights reserved

30


TRANSITIONS UPDATE: THE UNITED NATIONS

Such sender-pays frameworks, including the one from ETNO, could prompt U.S.-based Internet services to reject connections from users in developing countries, who would become unaffordably expensive to communicate with, predicts Robert Pepper, Cisco's vice president for global technology policy. Developing countries "could effectively be cut off from the Internet," says Pepper, a former policy chief at the U.S. Federal Communications Commission. It "could have a host of very negative unintended consequences." It's not clear how much the taxes levied by the ETNO's plan would total per year, but observers expect them to be in the billions of dollars. Government data show that in 1996, U.S. phone companies paid their overseas counterparts a total of $5.4 billion just for international long distance calls. If the new taxes were levied, larger U.S. companies might be able to reduce the amount of money they pay by moving data closer to overseas customers, something that Netflix, for instance, already does through Akamai and other content delivery networks. But smaller U.S. companies unable to afford servers in other nations would still have to pay. Momentum for internet regulation has largely thought been given impetus by a meeting in the middle of a December 2012 night at a U.N. conference in Dubai where the presiding chairman of the International Telecommunication Union conference surveyed the assembled countries to see whether there was interest in having greater involvement in the U.N. governing the Internet. A majority of countries gave their approval.

With a sufficient majority supporting the U.N. becoming more active in controlling the Internet, the chairman put forth a resolution. The chairman, though, insisted the survey "was not a vote." The resolution was supported by Cuba, Algeria, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia; the United States opposed it. The proposed resolution resolves that the secretary general of the U.N. "continue to take the necessary steps for ITU to play an active and constructive role in the multi-stakeholder model of the Internet," according to a draft of the text. "While it is our understanding that the resolutions made at the WCIT are non-binding, the Secretary-General might treat them as binding, which effectively creates a dangerous mandate for the ITU to continue to hold discussions about internet policy into the future," A PRODUCTION OF REMA MARKETING AND WWW.GLOBALREPORT2010.COM Š2012,2013, All rights reserved

31


TRANSITIONS UPDATE: THE UNITED NATIONS

accessnow.org writes, responding to this proposed text. The pro-digital freedom blog writes, "Further, although minor in scale compared to the impact that defining internet in the ITRs and giving control of it to member states, as Russia proposed, this resolution problematically opens the door to further debate over internet policymaking within ITU fora, and away from multi-stakeholder bodies. As Access has made clear, the ITU is government-centric, lacks transparency, excludes key stakeholders including civil society, and fails to promote a multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance that was embraced by the world's governments at the 2005 World Summit on Information Society (WSIS). And in a similar vain as this resolution’s recognition of the WSIS Outcome Documents and Tunis Agenda before it, future ITU documents will undoubtedly cite to this resolution as approving the ITU as a forum for discussing internet governance and justifying a further expansion of its role." The preliminary draft resolution also states, "To foster an enabling environment for the greater growth of the Internet ... that, as stated in the WSIS outcomes, all governments should have an equal role and responsibility for international Internet governance and for ensuring the stability, security and continuity of the existing Internet and its future development and of the future internet, and that the need for development of public policy by governments I consultation with all stakeholders is also recognized."

Accessnow.org explains the concern with this article: it gives governments primacy in the development of internet-related public policy, which is contrary to Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda – a provision cited twice in this resolution. Provision e’s wording could also be read to give preference to discussing internet policy in UN fora, because these are the only institutions that explicitly give “all governments... an equal role and responsibility...” Provision a of the resolution further invites Member States to discuss internet policy issues in other ITU fora. While this provision is caveated to only refer to internet-related issues that are within the ITU’s mandate, which lessens the impact somewhat, Access does not believe that the ITU is an appropriate institution to discuss internet policy.

Given the shady nature of the middle-of-the-night introduction of the resolution, it's unclear how ITU conference will proceed. Nevertheless, they are expected to meet again early Thursday morning (local time), and will need to have the resolution finalized, if they decide to go further, before the conference concludes on Friday. A PRODUCTION OF REMA MARKETING AND WWW.GLOBALREPORT2010.COM ©2012,2013, All rights reserved

32


TRANSITIONS UPDATE: THE UNITED NATIONS

Here's the full text of the proposed resolution: PRELIMINARY DRAFT NEW RESOLUTION To foster an enabling environment for the greater growth of the Internet The World Conference of International Telecommunication (Dubai, 2012), recognizing a) the WSIS Outcome Documents including Geneva (2003) and Tunis Phases (2005); b) that the Internet is a central element of the infrastructure of the Information Society, has evolved from a research and academic facility into a global facility available to the public.; c) the importance of Broadband capacity to facilitate the delivery of a broader range of services and applications, promote investment and provide Internet access at affordable to both existing and new users.; d) the valuable contribution of all stakeholder groups in their respective roles as recognized in paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda to the evolution, functioning and development of the Internet.; e) that, as stated in the WSIS outcomes, all governments should have an equal role and responsibility for international Internet governance and for ensuring the stability, security and continuity of the existing Internet and its future development and of the future internet, and that the need for development of public policy by governments I consultation with all stakeholders is also recognized,; f) Resolutions 101, 102, and 133 of the 2010 Plenipotentiary Conference.,invites Member States 1 to elaborate on their respective position on international Internet-related technical, development and public policy issues within the mandate of the ITU at various ITU fora including, inter alia, the World Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum, the Broadband Commission and ITU-T and ITU-ÂŹD Study Groups.; 2 to engage with all their stakeholders in this regard.,resolves to instruct the Secretary-General

A PRODUCTION OF REMA MARKETING AND WWW.GLOBALREPORT2010.COM Š2012,2013, All rights reserved

33


TRANSITIONS UPDATE: THE UNITED NATIONS

6. THE UNITED NATIONS AND PARENTING A United Nations human rights treaty that could prohibit children from being spanked or homeschooled, ban youngsters from facing the death penalty and forbid parents from deciding their families’ religion is on America’s doorstep, a legal expert warns.

Michael Farris of Purcellville, Va., is president of ParentalRights.org, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association and chancellor of Patrick Henry College. He has stated earlier in 2012 that under the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, or CRC, every decision a parent makes can be reviewed by the government to determine whether it is in the child’s best interest. “It’s definitely on our doorstep,” he said “The left wants to make the Obama-Clinton era permanent. Treaties are a way to make it as permanent as stuff gets. It is very difficult to extract yourself from a treaty once you begin it. If they can put all of their left-wing socialist policies into treaty form, we’re stuck with it even if they lose the next election.”

The 1990s-era document was ratified quickly by 193 nations worldwide, but not the United States or Somalia. In Somalia, there was then no recognized government to do the formal recognition, and in the United States there’s been opposition to its power. Countries that ratify the treaty are bound to it by international law. Although signed by Madeleine Albright, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., on Feb. 16, 1995, the U.S. Senate never ratified the treaty, largely because of conservatives’ efforts to point out it would create that list of rights which primarily would be enforced against parents. The international treaty creates specific civil, economic, social, cultural and even economic rights for every child and states that “the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.” While the treaty states that parents or legal guardians “have primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child,” Farris said government will ultimately determine whether parents’ decisions are in their children’s best interest. The treaty is monitored by the CRC, which conceivably has enforcement powers. According to the Parental Rights website, the substance of the CRC dictates the following: Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children. A PRODUCTION OF REMA MARKETING AND WWW.GLOBALREPORT2010.COM ©2012,2013, All rights reserved

34


TRANSITIONS UPDATE: THE UNITED NATIONS

A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison. Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion. The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision. A child’s “right to be heard” would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed. According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare. Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure. Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC. Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC. Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent. “Where the child has a right fulfilled by the government, the responsibilities shift from parents to the government,”

Farris said. “The implications of all this shifting of responsibilities is that parents no longer have the traditional roles of either being responsible for their children or having the right to direct their children.”

The government would decide what is in the best interest of a children in every case, and the CRC would be considered superior to state laws, Farris said. Parents could be treated like criminals for making every-day decisions about their children’s lives. “If you think your child shouldn’t go to the prom because their grades were low, the U.N. Convention gives that power to the government to review your decision and decide if it thinks that’s what’s best for your child,” he said. “If you think that your children are too young to have a Facebook account, which interferes with the right of communication, the U.N. gets to determine whether or not your decision is in the best interest of the child…. If you think your child should go to church three times a week, but the child wants to go to church once a week, the government gets to decide what it thinks is in the best interest of the children on the frequency of church attendance.”

He said American social workers would be the ones responsible for implementation of the policies. Farris said it could be easier for President Obama to push for ratification of the treaty than it was for the Clinton administration because “the political world has changed.”

A PRODUCTION OF REMA MARKETING AND WWW.GLOBALREPORT2010.COM ©2012,2013, All rights reserved

35


TRANSITIONS UPDATE: THE UNITED NATIONS

At a Walden University presidential debate last October, Obama indicated he may take action. “It’s embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land,” Obama said. “I will review this and other treaties to ensure the United States resumes its global leadership in human rights.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been a strong supporter of the CRC, and she now has direct control over the treaty’s submission to the Senate for ratification. The process requires a two-thirds vote. Farris said Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., claimed in a private meeting just before Christmas that the treaty would be ratified within two years. In November, a group of three dozen senior foreign policy figures urged Obama to strengthen U.S. relations with the U.N. Among other things, they asked the president to push for Senate approval of treaties that have been signed by the U.S. but not ratified. Partnership for a Secure America Director Matthew Rojansky helped draft the statement. He said the treaty commands strong support and is likely to be acted on quickly, according to an Inter Press Service report. While he said ratification is certain to come up, Farris said advocates of the treaty will face fierce opposition. “I think it is going to be the battle of their lifetime…there’s not enough political capital in Washington, D.C., to pass this treaty. We will defeat it.”

A PRODUCTION OF REMA MARKETING AND WWW.GLOBALREPORT2010.COM ©2012,2013, All rights reserved

36


TRANSITIONS UPDATE: THE UNITED NATIONS

7. THE UNITED NATIONS, RELIGIOUS SPEECH AND ISLAM On September 15th,2012 Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was escorted out of his home by Los Angeles County Sheriff’s officers in Cerritos, California.

Mr. Nakoula, a California man convicted of bank fraud has was escorted to an interview with federal officers probing possible probation violations stemming from the making of an anti-Islam video that has triggered violent protests in the Muslim world. The Obama Administration helped the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) push through their resolution condemning the stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization of people based on religion. Team Obama led the way for the resolution to pass through the General Assembly back in December 2011. Since then the U.N. General Assembly has adopted a resolution condemning the stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization of people based on their religion, and urging countries to take effective steps “to address and combat such incidents.” The resolution, an initiative of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), is based on one passed by the U.N.’s Human Rights Council in Geneva last spring. The State Department last week hosted a meeting to discuss ways of “implementing” it. Every year since 1999 the OIC has steered through the U.N.’s human rights apparatus a resolution condemning the “defamation of religion,” which for the bloc of 56 Muslim states covered incidents ranging from satirizing Mohammed in a newspaper cartoon to criticism of shari’a and post-9/11 security check profiling. Critics regard the measure as an attempt to outlaw valid and critical scrutiny of Islamic teachings, as some OIC states do through controversial blasphemy laws at home. Strongly opposed by mostly Western democracies, the divisive “defamation” resolution received a dwindling number of votes each year, with the margin of success falling from 57 votes in 2007 to 19 in 2009 and just 12 in 2011. This year’s text was a departure, in that it dropped the “defamation” language and included a paragraph that reaffirms “the positive role that the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and

A PRODUCTION OF REMA MARKETING AND WWW.GLOBALREPORT2010.COM ©2012,2013, All rights reserved

37


TRANSITIONS UPDATE: THE UNITED NATIONS

the full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information can play in strengthening democracy and combating religious intolerance.” The nod to freedom of expression won the resolution the support of the U.S. and other democracies, with the Obama administration and others hailing it as a breakthrough after years of acrimonious debate. US Muslim groups welcomed the U.N. resolution condemning religious intolerance. The American Muslim Perspective reported: Leading American Muslim civil advocacy groups have welcomed passage of a United Nations resolution that condemns the stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization of people based on their religion, and urging countries to take effective steps “to address and combat such incidents.”

The resolution — sponsored by the 57-nation Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and adopted with participation of the United States and the European Union — was adopted by consensus of the 193 members of the United Nations. The resolution declares that “discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief constitutes a violation of human rights.” It also expressed concern about the incitement to religious hatred and the failure of some states “to combat this burgeoning trend.” The resolution calls on states “to take effective measures to ensure that public functionaries in the conduct of their public duties do not discriminate against an individual on the basis of religion or belief.” Governments also are expected to make “a strong effort to counter religious profiling, which is understood to be the invidious use of religion as a criterion in conducting questionings, searches and other law enforcement investigative procedures.” Whilst religious freedom may seem to be a positive development from a Christian perspective, what many do not realize is that religious freedom would be regulated to meet varying standards; e.g. Biblical Christians could not have the same public worship say a Muslim may have (Church bells no – Islamic adhan by muezzin yes); Biblical Christians would be jailed preaching against homosexuality, Biblical Christians could be jailed for preaching (Christ’s Great Commission) for atheists and non-Christians might be offended and incited to violence and so on and so on. This is not the only recent development where Islam seems to be gaining significant political influence within the United Nations. The world needs a global capital and it should be the capital of Islamic Turkey, Istanbul, according to a UN special representative. Richard Falk, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights, wrote a Nov. 1, 2012, opinion piece for the controversial al Jazeera English site calling for a "global capital" because of integration "by markets, by globally constituted battlefields, by changing geopolitical patterns." While Turkey is a longstanding U.S. ally and a member of NATO, its nearly 80 million population is 99.8 percent Muslim, according to the CIA Factbook. Its Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has had

A PRODUCTION OF REMA MARKETING AND WWW.GLOBALREPORT2010.COM ©2012,2013, All rights reserved

38


TRANSITIONS UPDATE: THE UNITED NATIONS

several run-ins with Israel over access to Gaza. In March, he urged Israel to "stop the brutal attack against Palestinians and stop the massacre and bloodshed." The U.S. Embassy in Turkey sent out an "emergency message" for U.S. citizens in September warning of "a planned anti-American march/protest" in Istanbul. The march was tied to protests against the YouTube video claimed by critics to be anti-Islamic. "The Department of State strongly recommends avoiding the march/protest location as well as any other large crowds that may gather in Istanbul to protest against the controversial video that has created other demonstrations throughout the world," explained the warning. Falk recommended what al Jazeera called a "modest proposal" that should move the world past "the persisting tendency is to view the hierarchy of global cities from a West-centric perspective: London, New York, Paris, Los Angeles placed in the first rank." Along with his UN duties, he is the Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and Visiting Distinguished Professor in Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Falk said there were two sides on where to locate such a capital - hard and soft power dynamics. He defined hard power as a view "that history is principally made by those who prevail in warfare, and little else." His description of soft power included "culture, political vitality, religious identity and ethics shapes and forms what unfolds." He listed "several factors" why to choose Istanbul. Those included the city as a tourist destination, it has "also become a secure and acceptable place to hold the most delicate diplomatic discussions," it is convenient, and Turkey has "gained economic and political credibility at a time when so many important states have either been treading water so as to remain afloat." He credited Turkey for "achieving a stable interface between secular principles and religious freedom" and for "moving away from the 'over-secularisation.'" Falk said choosing Istanbul as a world capital would be good because Turkey could provide the "satisfactions of a post-Western world civilisation."

A PRODUCTION OF REMA MARKETING AND WWW.GLOBALREPORT2010.COM Š2012,2013, All rights reserved

39


TRANSITIONS UPDATE: THE UNITED NATIONS

8. THE CLOSING SUMMARY The monarch butterfly is known for its extraordinarily long migrations, which it makes twice in its two-year lifespan. During the summer months, millions of monarchs can be found fluttering from Canada and the United States to their winter home in central Mexico—traveling in some cases more than 2,000 miles! It seems God has also placed this inner drive to migrate in many of His other creatures, but only when He has established a place for them to go. Throughout civilization, humanity has longed for a better world. Undeniably, nurturing visions of utopia appear to be a powerful, instinctive desire within us. We are all in search of a better place, a world where there is unity and harmony. Humans seek a completely new order of things; one might even call it an intrinsic yearning for a “new world order.” You’ve probably sensed this desire in your own heart. Even during the best of times, we often find ourselves with a vague feeling of discontent. And in times of distress, these longings can become truly overwhelming. Think about when all your best efforts to improve your life seem stymied by forces or events out of your control; or when an unwelcome tragedy comes and a precious loved one dies an untimely death. Or how about when you read the morning paper and the headlines shriek with fresh reports of violence, outbreaks of disease, and millions starving. In the Bible, you soon find the varied accounts of the power-hungry trying to conquer the planet and establish a new world order. Genesis chapter 10 addresses the earth’s first monarch, the mighty Nimrod, who founded the city of Babel (later known as Babylon). He had visions of a new and powerful centralized government, and he built himself a lofty tower to consolidate that vain and dangerous vision. But Nimrod’s plans were permanently frustrated when his tower’s construction was halted by that wellknown universal breakdown in communications. Nebuchadnezzar, whose life is chronicled in the book of Daniel, came on the scene years later. He brought Babylon to the height of its glory and envisioned extending its influence and power throughout the known world. But you probably already know that Nebuchadnezzar’s dreams were interrupted by a seven-year bout of insanity. Then came the Mede and Persian armies led by Cyrus, who also sought a new, glorious government not yet achieved by mankind. But a few centuries down the line, Alexander the Great ended these misbegotten aspirations of the Persians. After conquering them, he rapidly subjugated huge territories for Greece. It has been said that his utopian vision included the search for the fabled “Fountain of Youth,” where he hoped his achievements would be rewarded by immortality. But he died tragically young, having never found what did not exist. Alexander’s expansive empire was soon divided and conquered by the Romans. Their Caesars then began implementing their unique version of utopia called “Pax Romana”—or Roman Peace. But gradually, history tells that the Roman Empire also crumbled in strife and turmoil. A PRODUCTION OF REMA MARKETING AND WWW.GLOBALREPORT2010.COM ©2012,2013, All rights reserved

40


TRANSITIONS UPDATE: THE UNITED NATIONS

The list of men searching for the elusive all-controlling, one-world government goes on: Charlemagne, Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm, and, of course, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao. All of these famous (and infamous) men watched coldly as their grand schemes failed. And even the League of Nations and the United have all done their part in attempting to establish their own modified versions of the new world order. But we see how even these peacetime organizations fail miserably at bringing people together! However there is one government to come that will never fail. The bible talks about how Jesus Christ will return to earth in the future to establish a real physical rule of law on earth. He will establish his rule of law by first overwhelming the satanic one world government and then establishing a messianic age where justice and peace will reign. The good thing is that if you are a Christian you don’t have to worry about the state of the world because whether you live to witness the return of Jesus Christ or you pass from this world into the spiritual dimension your hope is that the next stage of your life will be far more incredible than what you are experiencing whilst on this earth in its fallen state. This is why it is important that as you witness the evidence all around you in regards to the formation of a secular one world government that you warn others of the necessity to receive Jesus Christ because time is short and Christ is coming back again for those who are ready.

A PRODUCTION OF REMA MARKETING AND WWW.GLOBALREPORT2010.COM Š2012,2013, All rights reserved

41

globalwatch-jan, 2013 transitions  

Robin de Ruiter, 58, is perhaps the most prominent European conspiracy writer after David Icke.In this now available online book, Ruiter pro...