Globocops out of Africa

The downward spiral of terror and mayhem engulfing the African nation of Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia) has a diamond lining for the global governance crowd.

Despite the fawning rhetoric of "concern," the wholesale pillaging of a once prosperous nation may soon provide cover for the United Nations to move in under the guise of "peacekeeper." The blue helmets of the U.N. peacekeeping troops and teams of mediators, conflict resolution specialists and policy analysts will parade before the world once again in a grand role of global policeman.

The global governance elites relish each new -- and growing -- addition to the list of the world's flashpoints. Unstable regions provoke collateral U.N. involvement that advances the dream of globalists. Few in the mainstream media recognize that, for each new Somalia, Angola, Zimbabwe, Democratic Republic of Congo, East Timor or Kosovo, the world federalist fellows secure a new base of operation. Soon they will be able to puddle jump from base to base around the planet.

The peacekeeping process rarely brings peace; rather, it tends to exacerbate the horror as any numbers of African experiences demonstrate. Last month the United Nations sought to deploy 5,500 troops in Democratic Republic of Congo. A U.N. spokesman explained that "the mission will also include a force to maintain security on the border between Rwanda and DRC." The DRC draws support neighbors, Angola and Zimbabwe. One can ask why there is any confidence in this U.N. exercise, given the abject failure of the U.N. peacekeeping mission in Rwanda. In fact, the inter-ethnic warring continued when the Hutu political and military leaders simply reassembled themselves within the U.N. refugee camp that then served as their base of operations.

TRENDING: Montana lawmaker follows Trump's lead, moves to designate Antifa as domestic terror group

When hostilities escalated, new categories of humanitarian abuses required still more U.N. personnel. Soon, the millions of fleeing refugees caused "ecological degradation" where prosperous farmland once stood; starvation looms. The U.N. addresses "food security." Child soldiers are conscripted to replace their fathers slain in battle. The U.N. decries the use of boy soldiers and cites the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. In comes the Special Representative for Children in Armed Conflict. The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees reports in next. Women and children in U.N. refugee camps are raped and thus the U.N.'s population control brigade rushes in with manual vacuums for camp abortions. AIDS is rampant, and the U.N.'s World Health Organization encamps.

This massive U.N. involvement in a nation reflects the vision of U.N. Undersecretary-General for Peacekeeping Jean-Marie Guehenno, who calls for increased cooperation among U.N. systems that promote "development and governance." It is not enough to try to quell the fighting and restore peace. The entire U.N. subculture is installed. Guehenno observed, "The blue helmets need more than their blue helmets to be respected."

A strong case can be made that volatile situations are allowed to fester until they require a U.N. interventionist "solution."

For more than 20 years, the West permitted Mugabe, a Marxist thug, to consolidate his dictatorship. USAID enriched Mugabe's reign despite the fact that he bought Soviet MIGs. All the same, he did not export terrorism or threaten any nation with a nuclear weapon. Nor did his comrade across the border in Congo. By any measure, Mugabe is not a danger to the world at large. The primary rationale for entry into the African nations and the former Yugoslavia is "human rights abuse."

Genocide and racism -- reliable emotional prods -- are the favored justifications to send in the globocops. While no one sanctions human-rights abuse, two questions ought to be considered.

First, is civil war sufficient reason to assault the sovereignty of a nation? Does international intervention ever solve the underlying issues in a nation's internal disputes? A fair appraisal indicates the opposite; the artificial divisions created by various interventionist treaties that ignored ethnic and cultural realities gave us the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Serbian-Croatian conflict, and the African wars where tribal boundaries were ignored.

Secondly, why are certain nations occupied by "peacekeepers" while other nations with equal or worse records of abuse (China, North Korea, and Russia) allowed to continue on their merry way? "Peacekeeping" by U.N. troops is not an option, apparently, in Communist countries.

Perhaps the goal is less about peacekeeping and more about creating an image of a world aflame -- a world in need of global governance and a standing "peace army." Peacekeeping and peacemaking are two vastly different enterprises; one is the police action of a government, the other is a diplomatic engagement.

In the mid 1990s CNN's Bernard Shaw opined, "With the end of the Cold War, the
United Nations is beginning to put muscle behind its words, plunging into the business of
waging peace -- becoming, in effect, a planetary police force." Behind Bernie Shaw burbling cheerily to the American public about a planetary police force, there are legions of global elites who believe that a world government (and its police force) is inevitable.

Harvard University promotes a novel project: Program on Human Security. The mission statement of the program reads, "the people within those [sovereign] states do not necessarily have political freedom and democracy, proper health care, education, enough food, or freedom from crime. In response to these developments, the international community has gradually moved to combine economic development with military security and other basic human rights to form a new concept of 'human security.'"

The Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs joins Harvard: "Human security places a focus on the security of people. This constitutes a major and necessary shift in
international relations and world affairs, which have long placed predominant emphasis on the security of the state." Notice, again, that the state loses sovereignty if the ill-defined "security of people" is invoked.

Who is this "international community" that is making the decision to overthrow the concept of sovereignty? Who granted permission for this "international community" to determine which rights are "human rights" that demand priority over national borders, ethnicity and cultures?

The age-old puzzle is not solved by a "necessary shift in international relations" or "human security." The ancient question remains: "Who will guard the guardians?"

Mary Jo Anderson is a contributing reporter to WorldNetDaily.