GEO POLITICS.....GLOBAL GOVERNANCE
Submitted by h.hoffman on Wed, 13/02/2008 - 21:28.
* Geo Politics..Global Governance
The Transatlantic Policy Network seeks EU-style integration for the European Union and the USA by 2015. We've been talking of this for at least 2 years Oh and by the way..what do you think is happening in Malta..Middle East and European Union Dialogue !!!!!Thats next!!!!!
Planning Underway for an EU-USA Common Market
Bill Hahn JBS
Wednesday February 13, 2008
The Transatlantic Policy Network seeks EU-style integration for the European Union and the USA by 2015.
Follow this link to the original source: "Creating a Transatlantic Common Market" or see end of this article
Even with all of the recent attention given to the North American Union (NAU) and its deep integration of trade markets in Canada, Mexico and the USA, it seems another effort at trade integration is underway. This time the plan is for greater integration of the European Union and the United States, and much like the Security and Prosperity Partnership of the NAU, the Transatlantic Union (TAU) is being quietly created.
According to an exclusive at TheNewAmerican.com, a little known NGO (non governmental organization) called the Transatlantic Policy Network, has been working behind the scenes to advance plans to merge the United States with Europe. The article states, "Working carefully, if quietly, since the early 1990s, the organization has moved quickly to gain the agreement of leaders on both sides of the ocean that further integration is necessary and desirable. Now, the organization is much closer to achieving its goals than anyone would suspect."
A paper published early last year by the organization entitled, "Completing the Transatlantic Market," states: "It is time for a complementary, top down approach to transatlantic cooperation through a joint commitment by the European Union and the United States to a roadmap for achieving a Transatlantic Market by 2015 and creation of an overarching framework for dialogue and action to achieve that goal."
The big difference between the NAU and the TAU is that Congress has already passed legislation embracing the TAU concept. H. Res. 390 was passed in late 2003 and states that the "United States and the European community are aware of their shared responsibility, not only to further transatlantic security, but to address other common interests such as environmental protection, poverty reduction, combating international crime and promoting human rights, and to work together to meet those transnational challenges which affect the well-being of all." To do this, TheNewAmerican.com points out that laws and regulations would need to be harmonized before any integration could begin.
While Americans were alarmed at this step in the NAU, especially considering how Mexico would need to be brought up to the US and Canada’s standards, we need to be similarly alarmed at the effort to meld the US into a transatlantic common market. Remember that the EU started as a common market that has now morphed into EU citizens not being able to vote on a new constitution, not having local representation (Parliament is forced to regularly travel to Brussels to approve or disapprove a mountain of legislation that they have not seen before) and not having individual national sovereignty for each of the 27 member countries. Rather, all countries are lumped together under a centralized EU bureaucracy.
The political union of Europe did not appear over night, but it did evovle from a European common market. Likewise, the U.S. would not likely undergo a political merger with Europe in the short term. But the natural progression, as demonstrated by the experience of Europe since World War II, is for economic union of the type required for a common market to lead, inexorably, to political union at some point in the future. This is just the sort of entangling alliance the Founding Fathers warned us about. They intended the USA to be independent of Europe. Present day Americans would do well to heed their wisdom.
=======================
European Union
Creating a Transatlantic Common Market
By: Dennis Behreandt
February 7, 2008
Practically everyone has heard of the efforts made by the Bush administration to advance the integration of the United States with Canada and Mexico in what many have called a North American Union. This magazine has distributed nearly 1 million copies of a special issue on the subject, CNN’s Lou Dobbs frequently discusses the issue on his nightly news program, and presidential candidate Ron Paul has even discussed the NAU during some of the Republican debates.
The NAU gets all the press, but for internationalists seeking a more integrated world, it is not the only game in town. Very quietly, behind the scenes, a little known NGO has been working to advance plans to merge the United States with Europe. No one has heard of the work of this group, the Transatlantic Policy Network (TPN), because it has never been covered by the mainstream media. That is a particularly interesting fact, given that TPN’s supporters and collaborators include many powerful and well-known corporations, think tanks and legislators on both sides of the Atlantic. That they are cooperating in an effort to merge the U.S. and the EU would seem to be at least marginally newsworthy.
Even though the mainstream media can’t be bothered to report on real news in the midst of its “all celebrity, all the time” coverage, the American people might be interested to learn that TPN’s plans are not just talk. Working carefully, if quietly, since the early 1990s, the organization has moved quickly to gain the agreement of leaders on both sides of the ocean that further integration is necessary and desirable. Now, the organization is much closer to achieving its goals than anyone would suspect.
Merger Ahead
In February 2007, TPN published its white paper entitled, Completing the Transatlantic Market. In that paper, the organization summarized its goals. The executive summary states:
It is time for a complementary, top down approach to transatlantic cooperation through a joint commitment by the European Union and the United States to a roadmap for achieving a Transatlantic Market by 2015 and creation of an overarching framework for dialogue and action to achieve that goal.
The emphasis placed on “top down” is not insignificant. As typically used by NGOs, that terminology usually implies that executive level leaders will impose their desires on the citizens of a nation, not the other way around as envisioned, for instance, by America’s Founders.
That aside, is the plan, as described by the TPN white paper, really anything to worry about? After all, isn’t a common “Transatlantic Market” just a matter of economics and trade policy that will have little or no effect on the sovereignty and independence of nations?
The experience of Europe over the last 60 years demonstrates that the creation of a common market is only a first step toward more thorough integration. The European Union itself started life as the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), an intergovernmental organization formed in the aftermath of World War II ostensibly to give a boost to the coal and steel industries in European nations ravaged by war.
But the ECSC was only meant to be a first step to further economic integration. In 1957 it was superseded by the European Economic Community (EEC) that was created by the Treaty of Rome. The EEC was the immediate predecessor of today’s European Union.
The progression from common market to political union as it occurred in Europe should not be mistaken for a singular and unusual event. It is, in fact, the process through which other international political mergers are expected to occur. The process was explained by University of Nevada professor of economics Glen Atkinson. In a paper published in the Social Science Journal entitled “Regional Integration in the Emerging Global Economy,” Professor Atkinson explained:
The lowest level of integration is a free trade area that involves only the removal of tariffs and quotas among the parties. If a common external tariff is added, then a customs union has been created. The next level, or a common market, requires free movement of people and capital as well as goods and services. It is this stage where institutional development becomes critical. The stage of economic union requires a high degree of coordination or even unification of policies. This sets the foundation for political union.
If TPN succeeds in catalyzing the existence of a transatlantic common market by 2015 as planned, that will be only one short step removed from actual political integration.
Integration Milestones
On its Website, TPN proudly lists some of its "achievements" in building the framework for a common market. “In a short space of time,” the organization says, it has “built a credible ‘network of networks’ linking the political, business and academic communities. It confirmed its value to members by helping to shape key developments in the EU-US partnership during the 1990s.”
According to the organization, some of its achievements include:
Creating the “New Transatlantic Agenda” in December 1995, described by TPN as “a blueprint for joint action by the US and the European Union across all of the most important political, economic, security and social aspects their relationship.”
Launching the “Transatlantic Business Dialogue” also in 1995 “with a specific objective to remove the trade and investment obstacles to the creation of a real transatlantic marketplace.
Creating the “Transatlantic Economic Partnership (TEP)” at the London EU-US Summit in May 1998. According to the organization, “TEP identified a series of elements for an initiative to intensify and extend multilateral and bilateral cooperation and common actions in the field of trade and investment, including formal trade negotiations and trust enhancing measures.”
These efforts have garnered significant transoceanic support, both from political and business leaders, for TPN’s plan. In 2004 and again in 2005, the EU parliament passed resolutions “in which the concept of completing the transatlantic market by 2015 is supported.” TPN notes with apparent satisfaction that the U.S. Congress has done likewise and points out that the “House of Representatives has also passed a resolution endorsing the concept of a ‘Transatlantic Partnership Agreement’ between the EU and the US.”
For those keeping track of Congressional malfeasance, this legislation, H. Res. 390, was introduced in the House by Nebraska Republican Doug Bereuter on October 2, 2003. It passed the House little more than a month later on November 5. The resolution found that the “United States and the European community are aware of their shared responsibility, not only to further transatlantic security, but to address other common interests such as environmental protection, poverty reduction, combatting international crime and promoting human rights, and to work together to meet those transnational challenges which affect the well-being of all.”
Moreover, it found that because of the “threats posed by global terrorism, terrorist states, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the nexus of the three, the partnership should be expanded progressively from a transatlantic community of values to an effective transatlantic community of action by developing a collaborative strategy and action plan for dealing with those challenges of mutual interest and concern.” (emphasis added.)
Support Network
The passage of the Bereuter resolution in the House in 2003 is a strong indication that the TPN plan has the widespread support of influential members of Congress. It is not necessary to look far to find just how many influential legislators have backed the transatlantic integration plan.
One such backer was the late Republican Congressman Henry Hyde, the powerful and influential former chairman of both the House Judiciary and International Relations Committees.
In its “Partnership Report” of June 2004, TPN notes that Hyde spoke in favor of creating an EU-US common market during a speech in Rome on June 29, 2003. According to the TPN report, Hyde “stressed the need for a ‘Transatlantic Economic Framework with the free movement of goods, services and investments….” That, as economist Glen Atkinson pointed out, is the very definition of a common market.
But Hyde wasn’t finished. He returned to this in a speech given in Chicago in September of 2003. In that speech, TPN points out, Hyde argued that America’s “economic relationship with Europe receives too little attention” and that the U.S. should be looking more closely at “the benefits to be obtained from closer cooperation across the Atlantic.” Accordingly, TPN notes, “Hyde called for the establishment of ‘a true Atlantic Marketplace’ and urged the EU and the US to ‘convene a high-level meeting of our respective regulatory policy-makers and regulatory bodies to try to establish common objectives in regulation and devise a process of formulating complementary regulations.” To put this in proper perspective, it should be noted that harmonization of law and regulation is a necessary prerequisite that must be accomplished before any economic or political integration of nations can occur. Finally, in 2004, Hyde, along with Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis and Minister of the European Parliament (MEP) Jim Nicholson, who was serving as Chairman of the European Parliamentary Delegation to the US, signed a joint statement “calling for a barrier-free transatlantic market by 2015,” thereby officially endorsing the plan preferred by TPN.
There are many other important legislators on both sides of the Atlantic that continue to back the integration plan, and some of them actually serve as leaders within TPN itself. The most prominent of these is Republican Senator Robert Bennett of Utah. Bennett is chairman of the TPN Management Committee, one of the top leadership positions at TPN, according to the organization’s Website. The Honorary U.S. President of TPN is Robert S. Strauss, a key Carter administration official and former ambassador to the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation. Joining Strauss and Bennett in TPN leadership positions are:
Former Congressman Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) — now Senior Transatlantic Fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the US, another group promoting U.S.-EU integration;
Democratic Congressman Ron Kind of Wisconsin who has been an active supporter in Congress of regional free trade agreements;
Former Congressman Mike Oxley (R-Ohio), infamous co-author of the notorious Sarbanes-Oxley Act that, as described by Congressman Ron Paul, unconstitutionally gave “the federal government authority to regulate the accounting standards of private corporations” in the wake of the Enron and other financial scandals of the early part of the decade.
In addition to these U.S. legislators serving in leadership positions with TPN, there are many others who are members of TPN’s “U.S. Congressional Group.” These include six Senators — the aforementioned Senator Bennett of Utah, Thad Cochran (R-Mississippi), Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska), Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland), Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), Gordon Smith (R-Oregon) – and 49 Representatives. Some of the noteworthy members of the latter cohort include former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee F. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin), current Chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee Tom Lantos (D-California), Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee John Dingell (D-Michigan), and current House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio). It seems that selling out U.S. sovereignty is a very popular and bi-partisan pastime.
The Usual Suspects
Among businesses and think tanks one finds the usual crowd of internationalists heading up the lists of those supporting the TPN program of transatlantic integration. European and American business members include such influential companies as Boeing, BASF, Microsoft, Coca Cola, IBM, Time Warner, Walt Disney, Walmart, Xerox, Merck, Nestle, UPS and a host of others. The inclusion of media titans Time Warner (owner of CNN) and Disney (owner of ABC News) perhaps explains in part the media blackout on the coverage of TPN’s activities.
Among think tanks, the TPN membership list is a who’s who of internationalism-promoting groups. Included on the list is the granddaddy of them all, the Council on Foreign Relations. Joining the CFR is the Atlantic Council of the United States which seeks a “healthy transatlantic relationship” as “an essential prerequisite for a stronger international system.” Other organizations serving as TPN members include:
The Brookings Institution
The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
The Chamber of Commerce of the United States
The German Marshall Fund of the U.S.
The Centre for European Policy Studies
The European Roundtable of Industrialists
Institut Francais des Relations Internationales
All of these and several other groups have lent their support to the TPN goal of creating a Transatlantic Market by 2015. As umbrella organization TPN points out, this market is to be created by executive decree from the top down, and that is exactly what has been happening. Meanwhile, the citizens who are being herded into this arrangement have no say in the matter. In fact, they are being kept in the dark.
KYOTO'S WATER WIZARDS
The following breakdown of a BBC article points out that the agenda behind the Kyoto Treaty is to privatize the world's water and put it into the hands of wealthy elites who will control its ebb and flow and determine who drinks and who thirsts. These Kyoto adherents meet regularly at what they call WORLD WATER FORUMS after which they return to home countries and give politicians their orders. Every nation in the world is at one stage or another of losing control of its water resource.
A group opposing the Kyoto Treaty is attempting to establish a WORLD WATER PARLIAMENT, and the article lays out their goals as well. ~ Jackie Jura
Firstly, here's the plans the Kyoto Treaty is working on:
"...12,000 people met in Kyoto at the official Third World Water Forum to determine the direction of current water policies
... dominated by private corporations who favour large projects such as dams, instead of simpler technologies
... want water privatisation and "commodification" of water
... enabling creeping corporate control via privatisation
... escalating water scarcity and sparking future "water wars"
... the Iraq war was also about control of Iraq's huge water resources
... creating water-wasteful processes through water supply systems based on "heavy engineering" solutions such as dams
...international financial institutions' control water supply finance
...industry and World Bank spokesmen advocate public-private partnerships
... water services are included in the on-going World Trade Organisation negotiations, in particular the European Commission's recently leaked WTO negotiating requests to open up the water services in many developing countries to foreign private investment
... no parliamentary sovereignty over water-trade negotiations
... they're planning a Fourth World Water Forum in Montreal in 2006
Here are the goals of a group forming to oppose the water plans of the Kyoto Treaty:
Their goal is a WORLD WATER PARLIAMENT. They met in Italy at the same time the meeting in Kyoto, Japan was going on.
...The Florence meeting's 1,400 participants (70% Italians) came from pacifist, environmental, development and farmers' NGOs, as well as local authorities. They met to carry forward the Porto Alegre World Social Forum's call in January for a new democratic world water parliament and a halt to water privatisation.
...The world's water resources must become a common global good under a new international system anchored in a constitutional right to water for all
The final declaration in Florence called for:
- a guaranteed minmum of 40 litres a day to each world inhabitant by 2020, while meeting ecosystem needs
- a radical overhaul of present water-wasteful processes in all economic sectors, prioritising rehabilitation and maintenance of existing water supply systems over "heavy engineering" solutions such as dams
- public-public partnerships instead of public-private partnerships advocated by industry and the World Bank in Kyoto
- upgrading tap water quality to reduce mineral water consumption
- innovative funding mechanisms including water taxes and ethical investment funds to ensure continued local authority ownership and mangement of water supplies - under the supervision of democratic assemblies representing consumers and workers
- a critical review of international financial institutions' role in water supply finance and establishment of a World Water Solidarity Fund
- international river basin authorities
- withdrawal of water services from the on-going World Trade Organisation negotiations
- a parliamentarians' water network to promote recovery of parliamentary sovereignty over trade negotiations, in particular as regards water
- The 2006 meeting in Montreal of the fourth World Water Forum should be replaced with the inaugural World Water Parliament."
above compiled from Alternataive water future outlined. BBC News, Mar 24, 2003
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
U.N. Wants to Rule New World Order
Diane Sabom
In the name of peace, the world body wants member states to subjugate their sovereignty to the organization and grant the authority to field what amounts to a standing U.N. army.
Outside the north entrance to the United Nations in New York City stands an oversized sculpture of a pistol with its barrel tied in a knot, presumably the symbol of the U.N.'s founding purpose: "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war."
But in the three days of the Millennium Summit of world leaders (Sept. 6-8), many would say that knot became metaphorically undone to point the barrel straight at the heart of national sovereignty. Attempting to untie the knot was the largest gathering of heads of state ever assembled, arriving in mini-motorcades at a United Nations heavily barricaded for their security. Royalty and civilian heads of state jostled each other, each wearing their kingdom's best as they wound their way into the great hall to speak in tandem about "global interconnectedness" and the need for "collective responsibility" in the face of threats to "our common humanity."
To meet the heavy burden of this collective responsibility, they unanimously approved the so-called "Millennium Declaration." Subject to rubber-stamping by the U.N. General Assembly, this declaration purports to authorize, among other things, "the resources and tools" which the United Nations needs "for conflict prevention, peaceful resolution of disputes, peacekeeping, post-conflict peace-building and reconstruction."
From a podium centered between two great TV monitors, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan implored the 150-plus world leaders in the cavernous hall on the opening day to consider "very seriously" the report of the Panel on U.N. Peace Operations, a report known by the surname of its chairman, former Algerian foreign minister Lakhdar Brahimi. On the second day, Annan warned representatives of all 15 member states of the U.N. Security Council that the body's reputation "to make the difference between peace and war" was on the line, particularly in Africa. As if "pre-briefed," to use the words of one analyst, the Security Council quickly adopted a resolution to strengthen "the central role of the United Nations in peacekeeping," to address the root causes of conflict and, most importantly, to welcome the Brahimi report.
The Brahimi report aims to make the United Nations "a credible force for peace" by restructuring its Department of Peacekeeping Operations, elevating peacekeeping to "a core activity of the United Nations" and substantially increasing funding through the yearly budget instead of current ad hoc arrangements: "It means bigger forces, better equipped and more costly but able to be a credible deterrent." It calls for robust "rules of engagement" so that U.N. forces "do not have to cede the initiative to their attackers" and so that U.N. "troops or police who witness violence against civilians [will] be authorized to stop it."
John Bolton, a former assistant secretary of state for international organizations during the Bush administration and now a senior vice president at the American Enterprise Institute, tells Insight that it will not be "a bunch of people with blue helmets sitting at a base somewhere," but more "a quasi rapid-deployment force." Nevertheless, Bolton testified on Sept. 20 before the House International Relations subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights that "the U.N. now wants the capacity to wage small wars (small `moral' wars, of course)."
While some might call this a peacekeeping force, others might look at it and see a U.N. standing army. Brett Schaefer of the Heritage Foundation tells Insight that equipping the United Nations with combat capability is "ill-conceived. Essentially [it] allow[s] the. U.N. to pick the good guys and the bad guys. And I don't trust the U.N. to make that decision." The Brahimi report encourages U.N. member states to establish a national pool of civilian police officers ready to serve for one year and to enter into partnerships with other states to form "brigade-size standby forces ready for effective deployment." One such training facility, the Kofi Annan International Peacekeeping Training Centre, already is operative in Ghana. Brahimi announced that contributing troops "implies a willingness to accept the risk of casualties on behalf of the mandate."
The themes of high casualties and of subjugating "state sovereignty" to the needs of "humanity" came up again on Sept. 7 across town at the Gorbachev State of the World Forum, coconvened with Canadian Gen. Romeo Dallaire -- the former commander of U.N. forces in Rwanda who tried to warn the United Nations of the then still pending massacre of some 800,000 people. Dallaire captured the summit's fundamental dilemma underpinning the summit between state sovereignty and "humanity." When BBC interviewer Tim Sebastian asked who is responsible for such international failures in Rwanda, the general fingered "every sovereign state that put self-interest before humanity." His subsequent remarks implied that a country's reluctance to accept casualties represented "self-interest."
Annan apparently long has felt national sovereignty to be a thorn in his peacekeeping side. He told The Economist nearly a year ago that traditional notions of sovereignty and the ways states define their national interests are "obstacle[s] to effective action in humanitarian crises" such as Rwanda. "A new, broader definition of national interest is needed in the new century, which would induce states to find greater unity in the pursuit of common goals and values ... the collective interest is the national interest.... Humanity, after all, is indivisible" [italics added].
In his advance summit report, We the Peoples: The Role of the United Nations in the Twenty-first Century, Annan invoked the European Union as a model "security community," one "characterized by dependable expectations that disputes will be resolved by peaceful means." The report sets down a new concept of "a human-centered security" which cites that people are threatened less through territorial acquisition today than, for example, through internal conflict, resource depletion and wars among the poor. Thus "security," from this point of view, requires prevention. Attempting to put "legs" to that notion, Annan emphasized to the Security Council on July 20, "We must make conflict prevention the cornerstone of collective security." President Clinton, showing remarkable sync with the secretary-general, informed the Security Council on Sept. 7 that "we will be forced increasingly to define security more broadly."
How a security threat is defined determines the basis for action by the Security Council under provisions of the U.N. charter. Brahimi's tampering with these provisions (and the redefinitions of "human security" by Annan and Clinton) worries Henry Lamb, the of Eco-logic and the president/ of Sovereignty International Inc. "I find the changes most disturbing," Lamb tells Insight. "The U.N. charter authorizes military action only by the Security Council, and then only when invited by affected member states. As decision-making authority is removed from the Security Council, ostensibly to enable a faster response effort -- and even a pre-emptive strike capability -- the real power is further consolidated into administrative [bureaucratic] hands."
Underpinning such "human security" is the new concept of "individual sovereignty," which Annan juxtaposed to "state sovereignty" in The Economist article. Annan implies that states serve individuals by protecting their rights. Unlike the rights in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, which are endowed by a Creator, however, the "rights" to which the secretary-general refers are "enshrined in the charter of the U.N. and subsequent international treaties."
Journalist Mary Jo Anderson learned firsthand that rights "enshrined in the charter of the U.N." are very vulnerable indeed. A writer for the Catholic journal Crisis who sharply has criticized the United Nations for failing to protect the human rights of religious persons, she was told by officials in the U.N. press office that "religious publications had no place at this summit." "Minus sovereignty," she tells Insight, "we all become `citizens of the world' and thus there is no longer an advocate, a defender of our rights as we understand them." Only by presenting proof of previous U.N. press accreditation did she eventually receive credentials.
To be sure, "rights" increasingly are being redefined at the United Nations in ways that many religious people believe do not protect them. Some, mostly Western U.N. delegations -- including the United States -- recently have moved to legalize prostitution, to advocate "child rights" that pit children against parents and to reinterpret as "fundamental human rights" abortion, sex education for adolescents in schools without parental consent and homosexuality. The strategy is first to label something a "human right" and then to use a "right" to trump contrary claims by sovereign nations seeking to uphold traditional morality.
The same process of "rights creation" is being applied to the issue of peacekeeping and prevention. For example, Annan spoke to a meeting of the U.N. Development Program (UNDP) on Sept. 11: "Without development we can neither prevent conflict nor build peace. Without development, people will not enjoy human rights in any meaningful sense -- which is why we have now come to understand development as being in itself one of those rights. Without development, there will not be justice in the world -- and people without rights will be unlikely to `practice tolerance and live together in peace [italics in original].'"
Heritage's Schaefer scoffs at the idea of development being a right: "All you're doing by saying everything is a right is confusing people. The right to pursue happiness doesn't mean you're going to have happiness."
Even the administrator of the UNDP, Mark Malloch Brown, has learned to say the right things despite the UNDP's notoriety as an advocate of "world governance." Brown tells Insight he gets "very, very nervous" when the right to development is viewed "in the same way as the right to political free speech or the vote." In an exclusive interview, he cautions, "To me, it is just implausible to believe that you can legislate a right to a job or to education or to health care. What you can do is legislate the right to an opportunity, but what will create the job or the opportunity for education for your children is the role of an individual in creating wealth in a society; [that is] what will pay for the job." Brown's agency, with offices in 136 countries, is according to Annan "well-placed to take the lead" in postconflict "peace building."
Broadened concepts of national interest, human security and "rights" form the backdrop against which mere peacekeeping no longer is the rule. According to Brahimi, more often peacekeeping must involve "peacemaking and peace-building." Only by peace-building can the so-called "peacekeepers" make a graceful exit from the scene. It will be the job of peacekeepers, Brahimi says, "to maintain a secure local environment for peace-building and the peace-builders' task to support the political, social and economic changes that create a secure environment that is self-sustaining."
All of this expanded peacekeeping and peace-building amounts to "international nannyism," Bolton tells Insight, borrowing a phrase from Johns Hopkins University professor Michael Mandelbaum. Nannyism likewise could describe the "shared responsibility" for managing worldwide economic and social development," which the Millennium Declaration insists the world should adopt as a value. Moreover, such responsibility, especially for economic globalization, is to be monitored: "It is our job [i.e., the U.N.'s] to ensure that globalization provides benefits not just for some but for all" and "serve[s] as the place where the cause of common humanity is articulated and advanced," says the declaration.
In a clip that was edited out prior to delivering his summit talk but still was distributed to the press, Clinton, in effect, corroborated a willingness to assume the nanny role in "build[ing] social and economic institutions ... to keep alive the hope for peace." As if taking a page from Brahimi, he further emphasized in speeches to both the summit and to the Security Council the need to recognize "the iron link between deprivation and war" in order to prevent conflict. According to the report and We the Peoples, the sources of conflicts include poverty, distribution, discrimination, corruption, a failure of governance, the contest for power, competition for scarce resources and issues of ethnicity, religion or gross violation of human rights. Stated another way, any of these "root causes" of conflict could constitute a threat to international peace that requires peacekeeping intervention.
Bolton reminded the House subcommittee that such peace-building used to be called "nation-building" and that as run by the Clinton administration in Somalia ended in disaster. In one view, the concept of "indivisible humanity" is a threat to export Somalias around the world -- an undertaking that might turn Lyndon Johnson's Great Society into a global-society give-away, create hot spots in Africa and elsewhere and introduce "regovernance" and/or reconstruction in an effort to prevent conflict and to build peace. Global experts from the United Nations would be redesigning economies, training civilian police, strengthening legal and penal systems, rehabilitating degraded environments, ensuring "food security" and deepening the processes of democratization and civil society. Democracy would be imposed by authoritarian fiat.
During his summit talk, Clinton gave a vote of confidence to Annan's proposals to have the United Nations rule the world: "When leaders seize [the] chance for peace, we must help them. [T]he U.N. did not have the tools to finish the job [in Sierra Leone and West Timor]. We must provide those tools -- with peacekeepers that can be rapidly deployed with the right training and equipment, missions well-defined and well-led, with the necessary civilian police." Comparing Clinton's statement to the administration's "wavering" policy on peacekeeping in general, Chantal de Jonge Oudraat of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace glossed it for Insight as "sufficiently vague" so as to be hard to tell whether it meant the United States would send troops or train them for other countries. To Oudraat, "progress" would require actual troop engagement to send a strong signal to opponents of peace, and that means the United States would have to pay the bill: "The U.N. is a useless, weak organization without the support of the U.S. None of this, none of this [the Brahimi objectives] can become a reality without the United States."
COPYRIGHT 2000 News World Communications, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2000 Gale Group
United Nations Millennium Declaration
1 comments:
Hello. This post is likeable, and your blog is very interesting, congratulations :-). I will add in my blogroll =). If possible gives a last there on my blog, it is about the SBTVD, I hope you enjoy. The address is http://sbtvd.blogspot.com. A hug.
Post a Comment