After a Year of Setbacks, U.N. Looks to Take Charge of World’s Agenda
It’s a story that just begs to be translated into English. It’s just another naked grab for power disguised as a helping hand. We come in peace, we’d like to run your country.
The UN bureaucrats, that no one elected, want to decide what happens to everyone everywhere in the world. They want p o w e r and control (I’m shocked I tell you!)
After a year of humiliating setbacks, United Nations Secretary General Ban ki-Moon and about 60 of his top lieutenants — the top brass of the entire U.N. system — spent their Labor Day weekend at a remote Austrian Alpine retreat, discussing ways to put their sprawling organization in charge of the world’s agenda.
The topics included:
– how to restore “climate change” as a top global priority after the fiasco of last year’s Copenhagen summit;
In charge of the world’s agenda? They want to control our weather, our money, our sources of power (is there anything much left?). Maybe we still get to choose the movies…
They really want to award the money you earned, to the people who didn’t, which includes their friends, their fans, and that enormous group of people who are about to become their friends. This is known as patronage. If you are the man handing out the money, you get the “thanks”. If you are the man forced to pay, your reward is to not-get-jailed.
– how to continue to try to make global redistribution of wealth the real basis of that climate agenda, and widen the discussion further to encompass the idea of “global public goods”;
They want a bigger army under their control:
– how to keep growing U.N. peacekeeping efforts into missions involved in the police, courts, legal systems and other aspects of strife-torn countries;
This one is pretty odd. “Capitalize” on immigration? What? — they want to say who-gets-to-live-where, and take a fee for it too? (It’s not like there’s a shortage of poor people wanting to move to rich lands and they’re somehow going to help solve the shortage.)
– how to capitalize on the global tide of migrants from poor nations to rich ones, to encompass a new “international migration governance framework”;
Is this code below for using the Internet and social networking to maintain their fan base inside the sovereign nations? (Meaning patrons, donors, naive do-gooders, people who want to use the UN for their own power games, and bullies who want an excuse to bully?)
– how to make “clever” use of new technologies to deepen direct ties with what the U.N. calls “civil society,” meaning novel ways to bypass its member nation states and deal directly with constituencies that support U.N. agendas.
The government you vote for is a “pesky nuisance”.
As one underlying theme of the sessions, the top U.N. bosses seemed to be grappling often with how to cope with the pesky issue of national sovereignty, which — according to the position papers, anyway — continued to thwart many of their most ambitious schemes, especially when it comes to many different kinds of “global governance.”
Strangely those democratic powerhouses of nations that contribute the vast bulk of world GDP often thwart the ambitious UN would-be-dictocrats. How inconvenient. Presumably this also refers to China.
Is this about saving the world AND personal megalomaniac grabs for power? Why not both?
Not coincidentally, the conclave of bureaucrats also saw in “global governance” a greater role for themselves.
Watch the language. They wonder what sovereignty means:
And for that to happen, the paper continues, “it will be necessary to deeply reflect on the substance of sovereignty, and accept that changes in our perceptions are a good indication of the direction we are going.”
Let’s help them: Sovereignty means having power and control over a land. Deciding who gets to stay there, who has to leave, how much people must pay in order to freely live on that land, ie: not just the Kingmakers, but the Kings.
National sovereignty — meaning the refusal of major powers like India, China and the United States to go along with sweeping global agendas — was specifically indicted for the failure of the much ballyhooed Copenhagen summit on climate change. “National sovereignty remains supreme,” as one position paper noted.
Climate is the most pressing excuse for their grab for control. They use the jargon “the “50-50-50 Challenge” which is their bumpersticker code for 50% more people by 2050, with 50% less emissions. Ha. Ha. Ha.
Their ambitions are enormous: a drastic redistribution of global wealth, “nothing less than a fundamental transformation of the global economy.” Previously they declared the US dollar ought to be tossed out as the world’s reserve currency.
The UN bureaucrats want to usurp our elected governments and they are hardly even bothering to disguise it at all:
And to do that, the paper suggests, equally dramatic shifts in political power may be needed. “Is the global governance structure, still dominated by national sovereignty, capable of responding with the coherence and speed needed?” it asks. “Or do we need to push the ‘reset’ button and rethink global governance to meet the 50-50-50 Challenge?”
The pursuit of happiness? Even that will be done on their terms. They want to tell us what we should desire (my emphasis).
Yet even as the U.N. bosses talk of delivering billions from poverty, their main aim, the papers argue should be much, much larger: to limit and redirect the aspirations for a better life of rising middle classes around the world.
As the opening session paper puts it: “The real challenge comes from the exponential growth of the global consumerist society driven by ever higher aspirations of the upper and middle layers in rich countries as well as the expanding demand of emerging middle-class in developing countries. Our true ambition should be therefore creating incentives for the profound transformation of attitudes and consumption styles.”
They want to be at the table when anything big happens (like the G20) to push for financial regulations. And they want to be the world’s policeman, an ambition they are making great bounds in:
Along with planting a new flag in the field of international financial regulation, the U.N. chiefs also contemplated the further growth of the U.N. as the world’s policeman. As another paper notes, U.N. peacekeeping operations “will soon have almost 17,000 United Nations police officers serving on four continents” — little more than two years after establishing what one papers calls the institutions “Standing Police Capacity.”
If you have police, you need prisons… oh and courts too. But who sets the laws and appoints the judges?
The peacekeepers are now also building a “standing justice and corrections element” to go with the semi-permanent police force — a permanent strike force to establish courts and prisons in nations where peacekeepers are stationed.
While parts of the UN can provide some services for the poor of the world, the world is not ready for “global governance”. What stands out is that the UN bureaucrat’s ambitions are so thinly disguised: it’s as if they have never met real resistance from the cash-cow countries which support them.
The one thing that gives me hope is that on a Rassmussen Poll last December, only 29% of Americans felt that the UN was an ally, and fully 15% regard the UN as an enemy.
H/t Neville, Oliver, Bob from SPPI.