United Nations: Debating Club or Global Government?

Over the last century, forces believing in a utopian future have put forth many plans for the betterment of mankind. The establishment of the United Nations in mid-century was, for these utopians, only an interim step in the hoped-for establishment of a global government. As the twenty first century gets started, the one-worlders and the transnationalists are picking up steam, as they amass power in the effort to subvert our constitution and indeed the aspirations of freedom loving people throughout the world. To the mind of a utopian, the failure of all previous attempts to repeal the forces of human nature are explained away by resorting to nitpicking details of implementation of the previous attempts. In this view, Communism was brought to its knees by the unfortunate imposition of a few power mad leaders, and its failure can not be blamed on any tendency of power to corrupt the human soul. All the theory needs is a better implementation than that which was tried the last time. For these people, transnational socialism is the golden solution whose time has come. They have been joined by the environmentalists, as greens are working to transform and control the world's economic system, in pursuit of global governance.

No one has said it better than Henry Lamb who, in an article written this week, writes:

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.N.'s highest priority appears to be to contain, constrain, and ultimately, to control the United States. [...] Germany, aided by France and Russia, has been at the forefront of this effort for more than a decade. Their current display of solidarity on Iraq, and NATO, is far more public than normal, which suggests that they believe they now have the power to force the United States to conform to their demands.[...] Willy Brandt, then-Chancellor of Germany, called an emergency meeting of the world's socialist leaders in 1991, when George H.W. Bush stood up to Saddam Hussein. Out of this meeting came the Commission on Global Governance, which produced a blueprint for creating world government. That blueprint has now been substantially implemented, and the one-worlders believe they have the power to force the U.S. to acquiesce to their will.

It is easy to dismiss these groups as just another bunch of loonies, but when you read the document, you see that much of their agenda has been, or is about to be accomplished:

* Global taxation;
* A standing UN army;
* An Economic Security Council;
* UN authority over the global commons;
* An end to the veto power of permanent members of the Security Council;
* A new parliamentary body of "civil society" representatives (NGOs);
* A new "Petitions Council";
* A new Court of Criminal Justice;
* Binding verdicts of the International Court of Justice;
* Expanded authority for the Secretary General.

Of course, for the eight years when the Clinton administration supported the global governance agenda, the aims of the Tranzies were advanced greatly, and now the Bush administration is trying to set the movement back. Europe is firmly on board, or at least is trying to appear so, and the developing world believes that it has little to lose. What they all want is to have some of the golden eggs that we Americans have established for ourselves over the last century, without having to nurture the golden goose.

It is easy to agree with Henry Lamb, and adocate that we allow the U.N. to die. Without us, it would become just another irrelevant treaty organization. I believe that the world needs a place where the geopolitical knots that arise can be unravelled without resort to violence, but to survive, the world body needs some systemic changes that reflect today's reality, rather than the reality that existed a half century ago. On the other side, the vast majority of the General Assembly members would vote to remove our veto over the Security Council in a second. But presently, when France can veto any action that the other world powers agree upon, the situation is intolerable.

The UN must change if it is to survive. Some nations must be promoted, some must be demoted. The U.S.A. must share prominence with other nations whose importance is relevant to today. But no change will not be possible unless and until the old order is rendered obsolete. The disarmament of Iraq is the place where the change begins.