Congressman Ron Paul, R-Texas, says yes, and has introduced
legislation (HR1146) to get the job done.
The majority of Congress, the administration, and many, if not most
of the American people, still believe the United Nations is the world’s
best hope for permanent peace. At the very least, it is time to examine
this belief to see if that hope is valid, or a baseless fantasy.
The United Nations was created to provide a forum for sovereign
nations to meet and discuss differences in hopes of finding peaceful
solutions to those differences. No one can find fault with this purpose
or this function. The United Nations itself, was never intended to
possess governmental power, but only to be a meeting place to facilitate
the cooperative exercise of the governmental power of sovereign nations.
The purpose and function of the United Nations is changing, however, and
the direction and objectives of those changes must be re-examined, and a
new decision must be made as to the appropriateness of U.S. involvement.
Ron Paul has made his decision; the rest of America has not.
The United Nations no longer sees itself as the facilitator for
cooperative action by sovereign nations. It sees itself as the
administrator of what is called “global governance.” Great care is
taken to distinguish “global governance” from “world government.” The
difference between the terms is much like the difference between the
terms “king,” and “dictator.” Whatever it is called, the new mission of
the United Nations is to consolidate the power to make, implement, and
enforce international law.
Conservative organizations such as the John Birch Society, have long
borne the brunt of ridicule for their warnings of U.N. ambitions. Still,
the proponents of global governance try to dismiss their opposition with
the label “conspiracy theorists” or “hate mongers.” These labels no
longer apply. The United Nations itself has published many documents
which reveal both the intent and the plan to achieve global governance.
The plan is quite comprehensive, and it is currently
The plan seeks to control environmental and social policy, education,
economic activity, and military action. The United Nations no longer
sees its responsibilities as limited to serving its sovereign nation
members. It has now assumed responsibility for providing security to all
the people of the world, without regard for the sovereign authority of
the nations in which those people live. The United Nations takes the
position that international law supersedes national law, and when there
is a conflict, international law prevails, and must be enforced.
So far, the United Nations has been able to create only two
enforcement mechanisms: the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the
International Criminal Court (ICC). The WTO is only the first step
toward controlling economic activity; the next step, consolidation of
currency flows, is well under way. The second step is necessary before
the U.N. can impose the “Tobin Tax” which will give the U.N. an
independent revenue source making it truly independent of its member
nations. The ICC is still getting organized, but it will have the power
to enforce virtually all international law. The public was told that the
ICC was a vehicle to prosecute only war criminals and international
terrorists, but it is clear from the preparatory literature that its
creators fully intend to amend the charter to broaden its jurisdiction
to environmental and social law as well.
Efforts to control education have been less successful for the U.N.
Dr. Robert Mueller’s World Core Curriculum has not been widely accepted
publicly, but is making headway under such names as “Goals 2000,” and
“School to Work,” and “Outcome Based Education.” As social treaties such
as the Convention on the Rights of the Child become more enforceable,
the education agenda will advance more rapidly.
Control of military activity is the big prize for the U.N. All the
other control mechanisms are only partial steps to ultimate U.N.
control. Control of military activity is the final step. And we are
moving in that direction very rapidly.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, the need for NATO diminished
greatly. Logically, NATO should have been disassembled. Instead, it was
expanded, raising a caution flag to all U.N. watchers. NATO’s
intervention into Yugoslavia’s civil strife, without U.N. sanction and
in direct violation of the NATO charter was quite confusing, until the
action is analyzed in the context of the U.N.’s ultimate objective.
NATO’s action is consistent with the U.N.’s objective of ignoring
national sovereignty when the security of people is at stake. The U.N.
could not act because of Russia’s veto power in the Security Council. So
NATO, not subject to such a veto, conveniently performed the objective
of the U.N. by bypassing the Security Council, possible only through the
complicity of the Clinton-Gore administration.
The G-8 peace plan now under discussion is designed to put the entire
operation which NATO started, safely under the command and control of
the U.N. NATO’s action, operation, and soon, its control, are within the
plan to give the U.N. control of all military action. NATO could
well be the beginning of the “standing army” called for in the
U.N.-funded report of the Commission on Global Governance, Our Global
The published plan for global governance intends to have all military
power, including the manufacture, sale, and distribution of munitions
(including handguns) under the auspices of the United Nations. The plan
calls for the elimination of permanent members of the Security
Council and elimination of all veto power. The published plan for global
governance is being implemented, particularly in the United States,
despite the fact that Congress has not ratified many of the key
treaties, nor has it authorized the use of U.S. military forces by the
Congressman Ron Paul obviously knows more about the United Nations
than many of those who still hope that it will do what it was created to
do. The U.N. has no intention of doing what it was created to do. The
U.N. fully intends to create a peaceful world, in which people are
conform to its vision of environmental, social, and economic equity.
Unless Americans are willing to surrender their military might, their
right to self-governance, and their national sovereignty, they should
carefully consider Ron Paul’s legislation, and seriously discuss it with
their own elected officials.