July 13, 2009
Global Governance on climate agenda
Clark tasked to pave the way for World Government
Media commentators missed the big story in Helen Clark’s appointment to the United Nations Development Programme. As bestselling “Air Con” author IAN WISHART explains, she takes the helm in the UN’s number three position just as the UN pitches to become an overarching world government, with real executive powers and effective control of the armies of all UN members. Clark didn’t join the UNDP to concentrate on third world charity work, but with a much bigger brief:
“What is at stake is to launch a reform process of the general UN system in view of fostering a new global agenda and building a New World Order.”
They could be the utterings of a raving conspiracy nut. Or perhaps the writings of one of those intellectual villains from any one of a dozen James Bond movies. But they aren’t. Instead, these are the words of one of the world’s major lobby groups – a collection of world leaders and left-wing politicians who meet each year for global conferences and policy initiatives. They call themselves Socialist International, and that paragraph kicked off a major 40 page briefing document that appears to set the stage for a new role for the United Nations: turning it into a full-fledged world government.
Socialist International is not a small-fry organisation. Affiliated to the controversial and secretive Bilderberg Group, its membership list includes heavy hitters – New Zealand’s Helen Clark co-chairs the Asia-Pacific Committee of Socialist International for example, and her predecessor in the UNDP role, Kemal Dervis, also has links to Socialist International. President Obama’s climate change ‘czar’ Carol Browner was listed as a senior official on the Socialist International website on January 2nd this year, although that reference has mysteriously disappeared following her appointment to the US administration. The organisation’s use of ‘climate change’ as an excuse to introduce world governance has been backed by no less a figure than British Prime Minister Gordon Brown:
“The first meeting of the SI Commission for a Sustainable World Society – the body established to address the global environmental agenda, climate change and the issues of governance required to deal with these common challenges - took place at 10 Downing Street on Monday 19 November, 2007 hosted by Prime Minister Gordon Brown,” begins one news release on the SI site.
But it’s the contents of a document entitled “Reforming the United Nations for a New Global Agenda” that appear to contain a blueprint for the future of the United Nations, and it appears no coincidence that Helen Clark, a Socialist International member since 1976, has just been appointed with an agenda to reform the United Nations.
In her interview with the Listener’s Ruth Laugeson this month, Helen Clark hammered the point home:
“The Secretary-General, when one reads his speeches and comments, he’s looking for a fresh face for the UN…As I see it, he’s very reform-minded about the organisation. One of the questions I got asked at one point along the way was ‘New Zealand’s had a tremendous amount of public sector reform, haven’t you?’.”
Clark would know. Laugesen writes in her preamble to the interview that Clark’s role will be bigger than people realise:
“Her brief will extend well beyond the UNDP’s US$5 billion budget. During her four year term she will also chair the UN Development Group, an umbrella group for the 33 UN agencies, funds and departments that play a role in development around the globe.”
What you can expect to see is a new, streamlined UN, with a prototype already being trialled at country level:
“There’s been a pilot [programme] going on that,” says Clark, ‘the One UN pilot.”
“The One UN” will see “one leader of the UN in a country, one programme, one budget…My job will be to be rolling that out further,” Clark says.
But the UN Reform briefing paper prepared by Socialist International in 2005 signalled exactly what Clark was talking about:
“The UN Funds and Programmes should be streamlined and merged in order to avoid overlappings, increase the efficiency and enhance the role of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).”
Another item on Socialist International’s agenda is a cleanout of senior UN staff in favour of those capable of ushering in the New World Order they talked about:
“There should be a one-time review and replacement of personnel, including through early retirement, to ensure that the Secretariat is staffed with the right people to undertake the tasks at hand.”
Socialist International boasts that its extensive global networks make it perfectly placed to help the United Nations usher in unprecedented global change, “provided… that socialist and progressive governments in advanced countries show the political courage to both explain and honor their internationalist commitments.”
If you weren’t aware that Labour and other socialist governments had “internationalist commitments” that transcended loyalty to their people well, now you are.
Funding the United Nations as a de-facto world government won’t come cheap, and the Socialist International briefing paper makes this clear when it talks about raising US$100 billion for development aid each year:
“The mobilization of these resources may require … some forms of international taxation such as a carbon tax or a tax on the production or sale of armaments, or a small profit tax surcharge on the income of large corporations.”
This echoes a call in a previous 1994 UN Development Programme report, cited in Chapter 16 of Air Con, which also calls for a world carbon tax to fund a bigger, stronger United Nations, and a tax on all financial transactions in the world, known as ‘the Tobin Tax’.
Overhauling the UN will also be accompanied by overhaul of the World Bank and the International Monetary fund, with more of a focus shifting wealth from the West to the Third World:
“Social and redistributive policies should form an integral part of IMF and World Bank financed reforms and that the measurement of growth and economic welfare should take into account environmental effects and the use of finite natural resources.”
All of this ties into the climate change scare, and is part of the real agenda behind global warming publicity – transferring wealth under the guise of a planetary emergency. The proposed reforms being thrashed out for this December’s new climate change treaty at Copenhagen would see multinationals encouraged to close down factories in the West and re-open them in Asia and Africa, where carbon restrictions won’t be as harsh for the developing countries.
In effect, millions of jobs in New Zealand, Australia, the US, Britain and other OECD countries will vanish as manufacturing is moved elsewhere, and the carbon taxes and emissions schemes will be used to incentivize multinationals to invest in the third world.
Helen Clark, in her Listener interview, hints at this:
“The climate change talks at the end of the year in Copenhagen: the developing countries’ needs are going to have to be paramount. Because whether we can bring developing countries into the framework will make or break our efforts to deal with the climate change problem.
“That’s going to mean funding, and it’s going to mean technology transfer.”
But that’s just a tiny part of what’s looming around the corner. The UN Development Programme has been pushing for a world government structure since 1994, and now Socialist International is weighing in with its vision of “one person, one vote” across the globe:
“The question of legitimacy is at the heart of the ‘international system’. Legitimacy requires a certain degree of ‘global democracy’ that would gradually increase over time. At the same time, realistic global governance cannot ignore existing power relations in both the economic and military sense. A blueprint that ignores the resources controlled by various actors and their relative weights in the world would not be feasible. The reform agenda must try to balance three divergent requirements:
1. Global democracy, which in some fundamental sense must give equal weight to each human being;
2. Recognition of the endurance of nation states which do have ‘equal’ legal status as sovereigns and remain fundamental ‘units’ of the international system; and reflection of the divergent economic and military ‘capabilities’ of nation states. It is obvious that India, Japan, Sri Lanka and Barbados, to take four examples, while being “equal” sovereign nation states, have very different economic and defense capabilities which must be reflected in the architecture of the international system.
3. It is important to stress that a United Nations adapted to the needs and realities of the 21st Century should be the overall institutional setting for both the political and the economic sphere. The current arrangements need to be replaced by new ones, changing from the post World War II representation to constituencies, weighted votes and universal participation, and adjusting the policies of those institutions in favour of the actual needs of today’s world.”
Precisely how the United Nations can turn itself into a “legitimate” global democracy when more than three quarters of its member states are totalitarian or undemocratic regimes, remains to be seen. And a simple “one person, one vote” would effectively become a global government ruled by communist China. So if “reform” of the United Nations does indeed include this move to become “the overall institution”, some pretty tough challenges lie ahead in terms of working out the structure.
Socialist International’s briefing paper alludes to the problems of existing standing armies and military capabilities of nation states, but as part of the reform process it anticipates the UN ordering the transfer of military capability from nation states to the UN, via “peacekeeping” allocations, an idea first mooted in a UN global governance paper in 1994:
“The international community must provide increased funds for peacekeeping, using some of the resources released by reductions of defence expenditures. The cost of peacekeeping should be integrated into a single annual budget and financed by assessments on all UN member countries--with an increase of the peacekeeping reserve fund to facilitate rapid deployment.”
Essentially, as nations reduce their militaries the extra money is provided to the UN to enable it to maintain a rapid deployment force of soldiers. Over time, the UN military capability and readiness could allow it to intervene almost instantly anywhere in the world.
Under the blueprint already being used at the United Nations, it will become illegal under international law for countries to have large armed forces unless those forces ultimately report to the United Nations as Commander-in-Chief:
“Military force is not a legitimate political instrument, except in self- defence or under UN auspices;
The development of military capabilities beyond that required for national defence and support of UN action is a potential threat to the security of people.
Weapons of mass destruction are not legitimate instruments of national defence.
The production and trade in arms should be controlled by the international community.”
For “international community”, read “United Nations”.
Reform of the UN Security Council is also proposed, with the European Union expected to take a seat as a permanent member of the UN SC, replacing Britain and France. That would mean the EU, USA, Russia and China would become the permanent members with powers of veto, leaving the US potentially isolated.
“The EU should speak with one voice both at open and closed Security Council meetings. The medium-term goal should be to have a permanent EU seat in the Security Council, replacing the nation states,” says the Socialist International report.
Additionally, Socialist International proposes widening the Security Council to include more Third World and Arab nations.
The biggest proposed change to the Security Council, however, is the removal of the power of veto entirely:
“The UN should aim at a veto-free culture in the Security Council. There is no doubt that the veto-based decision-making structure has a number of negative features. Sensitive matters often trigger repeated vetoes, which means that the Security Council is unable to act in areas that are in fact clearly within its area of competence. One example of this is the Israel-Palestine conflict, in relation to which the Unites States has exercised a veto on several occasions, thus blocking any real decisions by the Security Council concerning the conflict.”
The briefing paper from Helen Clark’s Socialist International overlooks the reality that, without the power of veto, nuclear war in the last 50 years would have been a certainty.
This 2005 document preceded the global economic crash by three years, but it contains in its pages details of a proposed new global economic administration to coordinate the entire global economy:
“Hence there is a need to establish on a global coordination level a new United Nations Security Council on Economic, Social and Environmental issues [UNESEC] - a Council for Sustainable Development.
b) This Council should be composed and function in a manner that takes into account the difficulties facing the current UN Security Council. The eventual permanent members should be more representative of the world as a whole and of all the major economic regions, including the United States, Europe, China, Africa, Latin America, Oceania and Asia. In other words, it should reflect the world of 2005, not the world of 1945.
c) The Council for Sustainable Development should be independent of the Security Council and have the same standing with respect to international economic and social matters as the Security Council has in peace and security matters. It should be in a position to improve coordination between international economic, financial, social and environmental policies. It should be a deliberative forum aimed at contributing to world social and economic justice, stability and prosperity on the basis of the UN Charter. It should have the task of:
continuously assessing the state of the world economy and ensuring macro-economic coordination;
providing a long-term strategic framework for sustainable development;
securing consistency between the policy goals and activities of the international economic, social and environmental institutions;
producing common guidelines on the priorities of the global agenda, monitoring their follow-up and acting as a coordinating body for trade-offs between trade, employment and the environment.
“Once a year the Council should meet at the level of heads of state and government together with the chief executives of all main global agencies related to sustainable development.”
The plan will also see some kind of global control of financial markets, coupled with a “redistribution of wealth” agenda:
“Socialists and social-democrats agree that with increasing globalization and, in particular, increasing integration of financial markets, there is need for a global regulator of these markets as well as an institution that can help countries that experience financial crisis. Markets do need regulation and supervision, and when they have become global, these functions must also be global. Moreover, the developing countries generally, and even more so, the least developed countries, should have access to concessional resources, both, because they cannot cover the costs of providing for global public goods from which everyone benefits such as environmental protection, disease control and security and, as a matter of international solidarity, there should be some redistribution of income from the most fortunate to those most in need also across national borders.”
By now you should be beginning to appreciate how the new world order will work. The UN Security Council will become stacked with members undoubtedly approved by Socialist International, and the USA will lose its power of veto, substantially or even entirely. Because of new funding streams from carbon taxes and a global financial transaction tax, the UN will have its own revenue and be capable of putting its own “peacekeeping” military force into action. Meanwhile, the new Sustainable Development Council will have the same draconian powers to direct how the world economy should develop and how resources should be collected and spent. Countries wishing to dispute would get a hearing in the UN General Assembly, but if they didn’t have the political support they could be ordered to tow the line or face increasingly harsh sanctions from the UN community.
Voting rights on the new Sustainability Council would be based on “three main criteria: a country’s share in world population, GDP and contributions to the UN global goods budget.”
In other words, the more you contribute to the UN, the more say you have in governing the affairs of other countries.
“The voting powers that result from such a scheme must have two essential characteristics: they must appear reasonable and appeal to the demand for legitimacy present in world public opinion, and they must be acceptable to the nation states that would have to agree to the reform.”
If you are wondering how Helen Clark fits into this massive reform long term, UNESEC will be the face of “The One UN”:
“The UNESEC would be the governance umbrella for all specialised economic and social agencies currently in the UN system, such as the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the International Labour Organization (ILO), the World Environment Organisation (WEO) to be created, and so on, as well as the Bretton Woods Institutions and the WTO…What is proposed is a UNESEC which acts as a strategic board for the entire international system in the economic, social and environmental sphere.”
Socialist International adds that UNESEC “would be a source of strengthened legitimacy for all institutions, particularly the IMF and the World Bank and thus give multilateralism the necessary global support, desperately needed in order to efficiently tackle the global challenges we face.”
Much of Socialist International’s work on this concept, incidentally, was written by Helen Clark’s predecessor at the UNDP, Kemal Dervis. So it’s fair to say that this document has an excellent pedigree as a likely indicator of what Clark’s real role will be.
Every government needs its own judiciary to enforce its legality, and some kind of military strength to enforce its power practically. We’ve dealt with plans for UN militarisation, and the judicial power will come through the International Court of Justice, colloquially known as the World Court. Socialist International wants “Security Council enforcement of World Court decisions and other international legal obligations” to be incorporated as part of the reformed UN.
Climate change and other environmental issues will come under the global control of a new UN agency:
“A World Environmental Organization, grouping existing programmes, would be able to muster more authority and influence than the existing programmes (like UNEP) can do in isolation. This new body should be created with the authority to define and enforce laws, to establish the official data on environment and to develop a worldwide monitoring system.”
In a section of the report specifically addressing the proposed global government, Socialist International writes:
“New ways of enhancing democratic representation and citizenship at world level should be envisaged.”
Part of that process of gaining “legitimacy” is for topics being considered by the UN to be also debated in national parliaments, with your local MPs slowly becoming “global MPs” representing your interests directly at the UN – this quote taken directly from a 2004 UN document:
“Member States should make way for an enhanced role for parliamentarians in global governance. They should instruct the Secretariat to work with national parliaments and the Inter-Parliamentary Union, as appropriate, to convene one or more experimental global public policy committees to discuss emerging priorities on the global agenda. These committees would comprise parliamentarians from the most relevant functional committee in a globally representative range of countries. In an experimental five-year period, different organizational arrangements could be tested and, through periodic review, refined over time.”
Socialist International sees world government as inevitable:
“At some point, contemplation of a UN Parliamentary Assembly will be needed to complement UN General Assembly, where the states are represented. Such a development should be supported by the gradual emergence of truly global citizenship, underpinned by rights drawn from the 1948 declaration on Human Rights and the 1966 Covenants on civil and political rights and economic and social rights.
“International democracy is feasible and politically necessary. Such an Assembly should be more than just another UN institution. It would have to become a building block of a new, democratically legitimate, world order.”
Key players in drafting the self-proclaimed ‘New World Order’ include “NGOs, trade unions, women, indigenous groups, local authorities, academia and the business sector”, with the ultimate aim being a “Global New Deal” – a phrase now being used by British Prime Minister (and Socialist Internationalist) Gordon Brown:
“UK Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, called the G20 Summit in London a “Global New Deal” and solution to the current financial crisis,” reported the Jakarta Post this month, one of thousands of news agencies around the world carrying the new phrase. But here’s how Socialist International described the plan four years ago:
“Bearing in mind these two objectives of the UN reform process, the way forward is to develop new political instruments to mobilise more actors at international, regional, national and local levels in order to change the power relationships and force real and meaningful reforms. New global alliances are needed to strike a new Global Deal and to put a new global agenda underway.”
UN Development Programme head Helen Clark has confirmed British Prime Minister and global ‘New Dealer’ Gordon Brown is one of her backers:
“I sounded it out first with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. They said, ‘You’d be terrific at that…you can get buy-in from very significant players’,” Clark told the Listener this month.
As a former vice-president of Socialist International, Brown would have been a key player in shoehorning Clark into the UN’s third most powerful position on a reform agenda driven by the organisation she’s been a member of since 1976 – Socialist International – and blueprinted by the previous UNDP head Kemal Dervis.
Despite her protestations to the contrary, it would be a fair bet that Clark’s ascension to such a role has been planned for quite some time.
[To read more of the UN’s agenda for global government, the proposed new global tax and its direct relationship to the climate change scare, read Ian Wishart’s new book Air Con: The Seriously Inconvenient Truth About Global Warming, available from Amazon UK, Amazon US, Borders, and good bookstores everywhere, or grab it online at http://www.ianwishart.com ]
The Socialist International paper, referencing UNDP material, can be downloaded from the UN website: http://www.un-ngls.org/orf/UN-reform-Socialist%20International-%20Position%20Paper_%20240105.doc