Two news stories from Europe two weeks ago ought to tilt Americans upright in their chairs. The reports strip away any illusions that remain about the growing threat of global interventionism by the United Nations.

The first report is an Agence France story on the displeasure of the Council of Europe over the supposed ill-treatment of Afghani terrorist detainees, guests of the United States at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Council of Europe, with a membership of 43 nations, denounced the U.S. plan to establish military courts with the power to impose the death penalty. The Council of Europe prefers that "acceptable conditions of arrest, detention and judgment" be "guaranteed by the U.N.'s International Criminal Court system." European bureaucrats would make American interests and self-defense subject to the United Nations.

The second report concerns the travail of Italy's nimble prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi. A billionaire businessman, Berlusconi has massive legal woes. Italian magistrates have launched nine investigations into the Prime Minister's affairs. Charges against Berlusconi range from an illegal shuffling of professional soccer players, to tax evasion and the current charge that he bribed Italian judges. Three of the investigations have been completed, and none have resulted in a final conviction.

Berlusconi, of the center–right party, counters that leftist Italian political factions have attempted to sabotage his administration and his reputation. Berlusconi's defenders claim the left has commandeered Italy's mani pulite (clean hands) campaign that was designed to clean up the notorious warrens of Italian politics.

The prime minister's party says that mani pulite is being used by the left against Berlusconi and others who cannot be beaten at the polls. Berlusconi contends that a "group of prosecutors tried to frame the person chosen by Italians to govern," thus attempting to rule by intimidation. The left retorts that the judiciary reforms proposed by the government are engineered to favor clever rats like Berlusconi.

It would be easy to dismiss this opera as Italian politics as usual. It would be, if the reports ended there.

The real drama is that the United Nations saw an opportunity to flex its influence over a sovereign nation's domestic affairs. The U.N.'s "special rapporteur" designated to oversee the independence of judges, Param Cumaraswamy, warned the Italians on Wednesday that the government may befoul "the rule of law" if it blocks prosecution of the prime minister.

Cumaraswamy announced that he plans to travel to Italy to investigate the circumstances. The rapporteur hopes to resolve the "crisis."

What crisis? In a world grappling with terrorism, Russian weapons exports to China, AIDS, and biowarfare, where in the hierarchy of crises does Italian political infighting (as practiced for years) rank? The answer is, close to the top for world federalists – those champions of global governance.

For the United Nations, Italy's internal froth is a grand opportunity to establish a new world governing principle: The United Nations is the earth's last court of appeal, the final arbiter of who is or is not abiding by "the rule of law." It is no secret that the U.N. is positioning itself as the hub of global governance. Consider the infrastructure under construction within the United Nations.

During the Millennium Assembly of the United Nations, there was talk of establishing a "people's assembly" where non-elected members of non-governmental organizations would form a parallel assembly to the General Assembly. This so-called "voice of the sovereign people of the world" would function not as representatives of nations, but as "citizens of the world." There is talk of abolishing the veto for members of the Security Council. That would mean that the majority (mob?) rule would have power over any nation, including those on the Security Council.

The International Criminal Court has 50 of the required 60 ratifications at which point the ICC comes to life. This court is a menace to national sovereignty and freedom, say its critics. The crimes will not be confined to "war crimes" but will investigate and prosecute vague so-called "crimes of aggression." One man's aggression is another man's defense. Recall that the United States has already been criticized for its overly "aggressive" response to Sept. 11. The Court will have the power to reach across borders and prosecute a nation's individual citizens without the consent of that nation when charges are brought by the U.N. Security Council.

Lest there be confusion over the precise jurisdiction of the Court, note the definition given by the Coalition for the ICC, "… the ICC jurisdiction will not be chronologically or geographically limited. The ICC will apply to international armed conflicts but also to crimes occurring in internal, intra states wars." That's inside the USA, in case you wondered.

Although few believe it will happen any time soon, there is also talk of an international tax that would fund the U.N., thus establishing its independence from dues-paying (or withholding) nations. Proposals are to tax international monetary transfers, and to institute a bit tax on bytes of data whizzing through the Internet. Equipped with a court, tax revenue, a parliament and its own blue-helmeted army, what is left to establish the U.N. as the locus of global governance? Perhaps, only the myopia of gullible nations.

Notice the mechanics of the proposed U.N. intervention in the Italian flap. According to Reuters, Cumaraswamy "sent an urgent appeal to the government after receiving information about nationwide protests by Italian magistrates." Who sent the information? There is no public outcry – the squabble has not harmed Berlusconi's standing with Italians. Note that there is no official Italian appeal to the U.N. Transport that concept to these shores: When the judges of this country are dissatisfied with the executive branch of the government, ought they to call in the U.N. to settle matters between the judiciary and the executive branch of government?

"Let him come … we have nothing to hide," said Italy's Justice Minister Roberto Castelli on hearing the news of the U.N. rapporteur's statement. Others, including Berlusconi's defense attorney, Niccolo Ghedini, criticized the arrival the United Nations' signature "blue helmets" to back up the dissident magistrates.

The state prosecutor of Milan, Gerardo D'Ambrosio, said, "I am happy that the U.N. has gotten involved." He shouldn't be. While it served the political purpose of some of the frustrated magistrates to appeal to the U.N., it is a dangerous tactic that may boomerang with a vengeance. Nations do not want or need the "intervention" of the United Nations in their domestic disagreements. Worse, this move by the Italian magistrates to seek U.N. intervention is a threat to all democracies. It raises the distinct possibility that each time an opposition party is bested by the party in power, they can simply threaten to go beyond national borders to force an issue.

And there is yet another facet of this report that bears closer examination. Could the United Nations itself have hinted to key leftist Italians that the U.N could be of service that would be mutually beneficial? Recall that Berlusconi had not shown proper reverence to U.N. demands during the summer of 2001. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization is headquartered in Rome. The FAO had scheduled its World Food Summit conference for November 2001 in Rome to address world "food security."

Following the devastation wrought by protesters in Genoa during the economic summit, Berlusconi, in office barely a month, suggested in June that Rome was not prepared to suffer a similar assault by angry demonstrators. He advised FAO Director General Jacques Diouf of his plan to relocate the November conference to a less accessible, less vulnerable city.

FAO officials beat their breasts and said the prime minister could not stop their conference. They were, after all, the United Nations and their delegates would be accommodated in Rome. Berlusconi refused to blink, citing his goal to protect "sacred Rome." Scalded, FAO officials finally agreed to relocate. It may be a stretch, but perhaps it would not displease the U.N. to return a favor to the upstart prime minister who dared to defend his capital as he saw best.

Berlusconi may be a shrewd businessman, or he may be a pinstriped crook. That is not the issue. Italians can determine for themselves in the next election if he is their kind of guy. The point is that a threat of U.N. intervention is being used against a prime minister of a sovereign nation for little more than political motives. Italians do not need or want the intervention of the U.N. in this matter. Nor does the world. It is a dangerous precedent.

Mary Jo Anderson is a contributing reporter to WorldNetDaily.