Executive Order 13107, which, barring a congressional override this
week will become the law of the land, is a perfect example of how global
governance is overtaking self-governance in the United States.
Despite the rejection by the U.S. Senate of the Convention on the
Rights of the Child, and the refusal of the Senate to even consider many
of the other 81 U.N. Human Rights Treaties, the president has laid the
foundation through this EO to implement the objectives of those
treaties. The will of the U.N. is being implemented voluntarily by the
Clinton/Gore administration. The process was not initiated by this
administration; George Bush, with his Environmental Protection Agency
Administrator William K. Reilly, was eager to usher in the “New World
Nor is the process limited to Human Rights Treaties. This
administration is actively implementing the unratified Convention on
Biological Diversity, the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on
Climate Change, and the policies of Agenda 21. With the implementation
of each of these UN policies, another piece of America’s national
sovereignty is eroded.
Defenders of these policies say “so what, these are good policies
that should be implemented.” Not all Americans agree, and therein lies
the great danger to America. The U.S. Constitution provides a mechanism
for grinding the differences of opinion out of public policy through
public debate, and questions are resolved by the public, accountable
votes of elected officials. When public policies are adopted by elected
officials which differ from the will of the people, the people can
change their elected officials and thereby change the public policy.
When public policies originate in Geneva, Rio de Janeiro, or Kyoto, and
are implemented by executive order and administrative decree, those who
dissent, or who may have a better idea, are silenced. Policies are
imposed upon the people who neither give their consent, nor have
recourse to change those policies.
The process is bad enough, in that it bypasses the fundamental
process prescribed by the U.S. Constitution. But even worse is the
underlying philosophy of governance upon which U.N. policies are based.
Consent of the governed is the empowering principle of American
government; control of the governed is the empowering principle of
The Kyoto Protocol exemplifies this principle: to achieve its
objective, the UN
document would allow the UN to control the use of energy in rich nations
in order to force industry to move to poor nations that have no controls
on energy use. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
seeks to “create the conditions” to grant “freedom from want” to those
who want. The only way to achieve that result is to “take” from those
who have, and “give” to those who have not. Control of people is the
essential ingredient in the implementation of virtually all U.N.
policies because the underlying philosophy demands it.
By contrast, the philosophy that underlies the U.S. Constitution is
the belief that people who are free to pursue their own survival and
prosperity will create the interpersonal and business relationships
necessary to achieve their own objectives. In 200 years, this philosophy
has demonstrated its validity by producing national prosperity unmatched
by nations that have existed for thousands of years.
Proponents of global governance deny a desire to control people. In
fact, they claim their objective is to ensure a greater degree of
freedom and prosperity to those who are now denied even basic freedoms
and live in crushing poverty. That, they say, is the purpose, hope, and
objective of the 81 Human Rights Treaties. What they fail to recognize,
or admit, is the fact that neither freedom, nor prosperity, is a
commodity that any government can give; they can only be limited,
restricted, or denied by government. Any attempt by any government to
expand either the freedom or prosperity of some, necessarily requires
that the freedom and prosperity of others
be limited, restricted, or denied.
The American experiment in self governance is just over 200 years
old. It has been incredibly successful — so far — a beacon of hope to
the world. The only hope of the developing world to escape the cycle of
impoverished servitude is to follow America’s example of casting off
governmental constraints and allowing free people to use the resources
provided by their creator to pursue their own survival and prosperity.
Executive Order 13107 diminishes the candlepower of America’s beacon
of hope. What’s worse, it allows the United Nations a larger measure of
control over the beacon. If the trend continues, even for another few
years, the United Nations will extinguish the light altogether, and
America will be stripped of its wealth in order to achieve “equity” in
the new “sustainable” millennium, by those who think they know how
everyone ought to behave.