• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

The “bipartisan” bug has bitten Republicans Christopher Shays and Jim
Leach, who joined Democrats Nita Lowey and Eliot Engel in introducing
the United Nations Arrears Payment Act. The bill would release $575
million of what the U.N. claims is owed by the United States.

It would be more appropriate if Shays and Leach would introduce the
U.N.
Must Repay America Act, and set a firm time limit (say two days) for the
U.N. to reimburse the United States for the billions we have spent above
and beyond our assessment, on U.N. peacekeeping operations around the
world. A General Accounting Office report found that peacekeeping in
Rwanda, Somalia, Haiti and the former Yugoslavia (before the current
situation there) cost U.S. taxpayers $6.6 billion — six times more than
the amount the U.N. says is owed by the United States.

These numbers do not include the nearly $2 billion paid by U.S.
taxpayers each year to support nearly 130 other United Nations
organizations. In the waning moments of the 105th Congress, a budget
deal was struck that resulted in an additional $193 million going to the
Global Environment Facility (GEF), an international body that hands out
U.S. tax dollars to non-governmental organizations, or NGOs, around the
world to promote the U.N.’s global agenda. In its June 1998 report, the
GEF listed $767,019,000 disbursed for “biodiversity” projects, and
$748,142,000 going to “global warming” projects. Five powerful NGOs were
listed as executing agency or collaborating agency on 42 protects
totaling $792,705,000. Those NGOs are The Nature Conservancy, the
International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Greenpeace, World
Resources Institute, and the World Wildlife Fund. It is not surprising
that these NGOs are among those groups now pressuring Congress to send
more loot to the U.N.

Two U.N. support groups issued press releases to coincide with the
introduction of the United Nations Arrears Payment Act: the United
Nations Association (UNA), headed by William Luers, and the Campaign for
U.N. Reform, headed by John Anderson, unsuccessful third-party
presidential candidate. Anderson claims that every time the U.N.
institutes reforms called for by the U.S., Congress stops the money and
asks for more reforms.

The simple truth is that the restructuring that is going on at the
U.N. is not reform at all, it is a consolidation of power to more
forcefully implement the recommendations of the U.N.-funded Commission
on Global Governance (CGG). Maurice Strong was a member of the
commission which issued a 410-page report called ***Our Global
Neighborhood.*** http://www.sovereignty.net/p/gov/gganalysis.htm The
same Maurice Strong is now executive coordinator for U.N. Reform. Strong
issued his first report on reforming the U.N. on July 14, 1997. He
announced the creation of the “Peoples Assembly,” recommended in the CGG
report, to convene in the year 2000. He described his “reform” as the
reorganization of the U.N. into five administrative units, as
recommended by the CGG. He announced the creation of a new International
Criminal Court, as recommended by the CGG, which was adopted in Rome
last year. Maurice Strong is not reforming the U.N., he is restructuring
it as was recommended by the Commission on Global Governance.

One of the reforms Congress has asked for is a more open, democratic
deliberation process. The U.N. is going the other way. Moreover, instead
of the U.S. influencing the U.N., the U.N. is influencing the U.S. The
president issued a directive to his President’s Council on Sustainable
Development (PCSD) in which he said the science of global warming was
not to be discussed. The U.N. does not allow discussion of the science
of global warming, despite the growing body of scientific evidence that
human activity has little or no effect on global climate. The
Environmental Protection Agency is spending millions of dollars on a
propaganda campaign across the nation, in which the science of global
warming may not even be addressed.

At the United Nations, decisions are taken “by consensus.” Having
attended nearly a dozen U.N. meetings, I can say without fear of
contradiction that no decision is ever reached that differs from the
pre-determined outcome desired by the U.N. bureaucracy. Dissenters are
marginalized and ignored, at best, and at worst, they are ridiculed and
eventually excluded from the process. Increasingly, this same process is
used to get rid of dissenters in stakeholder councils, in watershed
councils, and in the decision process espoused by the PCSD.

Every dime the U.S. sends to the U.N., forces the American taxpayer
to fund the demise of American Sovereignty. Listen to the words of
Maurice Strong and the Commission on Global Governance: “… countries
are having to accept that in certain fields, sovereignty has to be
exercised collectively, particularly in respect of the global commons.”

“The principle of sovereignty … must be further adapted to
recognize changing realities.”

“It is time to begin thinking about self-determination in a new
context — the emerging context of a global neighborhood rather than the
traditional context of a world of separate states.”

“What is needed is recognition of the reality that … it is simply
not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual
nation-states, however powerful.”

Strobe Talbott, Bill Clinton’s deputy secretary of state, has long
believed that national sovereignty is an obsolete notion. He wrote in
Time magazine in 1992: “Nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all
states will recognize a single global authority … ‘citizen of the
world’ will have assumed real meaning.” Now he is working to make it
happen.

What else does the U.N. have in store for the United States?
According to the CGG report, the veto power of the five permanent
members to the Security Council should be removed, and the Security
Council expanded to 23 members that change on a rotating basis. Such an
arrangement would remove any semblance of oversight of the U.N.
bureaucracy. Look for a U.N. standing army under the day-to-day command
of the Secretary General. Could the expansion of NATO be a precursor to
this CGG recommendation?

The CGG called for the implementation of the “Tobin” tax, which would
tax international currency exchange and provide approximately $1.5
trillion dollars to the U.N. annually, nearly 150 times the U.N.’s
current budget. Canada recently adopted a resolution in support of the
Tobin tax. Gustave Speth, former head of the United Nations Development
Program (and member of Clinton’s transition team), and former head of
the World Resources Institute, has been promoting the Tobin tax for
years.

The United Nations, and its various NGO support groups, are
methodically eroding the idea of national sovereignty and filling the
vacuum with a parade of new treaties to be implemented by some agency of
the United Nations. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan told the Economic
Forum in Devos, Switzerland that “nationalism” and “terrorism” are a
threat to world peace and economic stability.

Every dime America sends to the U.N. hastens the day when American
children will pledge allegiance to the U.N. blue, instead of the red,
white, and blue. Every treaty to which the U.S. agrees gives the U.N.
more power to dictate how individual Americans live their daily lives.
With the current crowd in the White House, it is not even necessary to
agree to a treaty; this crowd has turned the White House into little
more than an administrative branch of the U.N. Not another dime, not
another red cent to the United Nations.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.