William F. Jasper
Over the past several months, a steady drumbeat in elite media circles has been pounding out a persistent theme: global crises have exposed the limits of national sovereignty and underscored the necessity for nations to embrace "global governance."
“We are in the midst of a phase of history in which nations will be redefined and their futures fundamentally altered,” wrote media mogul Rupert Murdoch in a recent memo to the management staff of News Corp, his global media empire, which includes Fox TV.
FBI Special Agent Jack Cloonan, a lead investigator in the bureau’s “bin Laden Unit,” was in Yemen on September 11, 2001 when airliners began crashing into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. As soon as he could get a flight, Cloonan flew back to New York. His first order of business upon his return was to go see a very special inmate who was being held in the secret section of a federal prison. The prisoner was Ali Mohamed, who, for at least a decade and a half, had been Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri’s top spy inside the U.S. government.
“Calling all terrorists! Calling all spies! Calling all current or future enemies of the United States! Uncle Sam wants YOU to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces — in exchange for valuable military and intelligence training … AND CITIZENSHIP!”
The United States Senate may vote very soon on one of the most far-reaching and dangerous treaties our government has ever considered for ratification: the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (also known as the Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST). The treaty, which has simmered on the back burners of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for decades, would give the United Nations control and jurisdiction over the world's oceans, nearly three-quarters of the surface of our planet.
Like virtually all other treaties flowing out of the United Nations, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea is not what it purports to be. Stripped to its bare essence, it is a naked grab for power, an effort to transfer power from the nation-state to the emerging world-state. It comes as no surprise to those who study U.S. foreign policy that the major organizational force promoting the convention is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the premier organization in the United States promoting global governance. One of the first major send-offs for LOST was an article entitled "Who Will Own the Oceans?" in the council's journal, Foreign Affairs, in April 1976. Between then and now the CFR's membership, along with its substantial assets and influence, has been summoned to propel this unwanted treaty to its near-ratified present status.
President Barack Obama's inaugural committee billed his January 20 National Prayer Service at the National Cathedral as a celebration of America's "diversity of faith." Among the official participants offering prayers at the event was Dr. Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America.
As we have reported in the past week (here and here), former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has been extraordinarily busy of late, flitting about the world and proclaiming the need for President-elect Obama and other leaders to seize current crises as opportunities to build a "new world order." Now Kissinger has formalized his verbal statements in an essay for the International Herald Tribune, which is the global edition of the New York Times. The essay, entitled, "The chance for a new world order," came out on January 12, when Kissinger was in Beijing (along with new world order advocates Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcrosft and Winston Lord) to celebrate our growing interdependence with communist China, a key part of the new world order crafted by Kissinger nearly 40 years ago when he paved the way for Nixon's historic trip to China.
According to Henry Kissinger, the various political and economic crises currently conflicting the world offer President-elect Barack Obama an opportunity to create a "new world order." That's what the former Secretary of State told CNBC's Mark Haines in a January 5 interview from the busy floor of the New York Stock Exchange.
Shortly before the opening of the 1995 United Nations World Summit on Social Development in Copenhagen, Denmark, the Commission on Global Governance issued its much-heralded report, Our Global Neighborhood, which was presented as a guiding star to the summit. In the foreword to the report, written by Commission co-chairmen Ingvar Carlson, former socialist president of Sweden, and Shridath Ramphal, former president of the World Conservation Union, we are assured that the Commission on Global Governance is not advocating world government. "The development of global governance is part of the evolution of human efforts to organize life on the planet," write the co-chairmen. "As this report makes clear, global governance is not global government. No misunderstanding should arise from the similarity of terms. We are not proposing movement towards world government...."