Maurice Strong How NGO's are Changing the World
Sovereignty International formed
Chemical Weapons Convention before
the Senate
Good Science: Our
Grandchildren's Inheritance
Who Controls the Money? The appointment of
Maurice Strong as a
"Senior Advisor"
assigned the task of
reforming the UN is
extremely significant.
Get acquainted with this
man.
One of the most
important documents we
have found is discussed
on page 8. Here, the
UN's philosophy on
private property rights is
laid bare. This document
explains why Americans
have experienced an
incremental loss of
property rights and
reveals what may be
expected in the future.
A new organization is
now on the scene:
Sovereignty
International. ECO will
not hold a national
conference in 1997;
Sovereignty International
will. Details on page 16.
This organization has
been accredited to attend
the climate change
negotiations in Bonn,
Germany and is planning
to make its presence felt.
The longest article we
have ever published
appears on page 24. It
will become an
invaluable source of
information for future
reference and provide a
comprehensive
understanding of the global financial restructuring that is is now underway.
Two new items are now available. A one-hour video of Henry Lamb's presentation to the
Granada Forum in Los Angeles, taped last October, and a new Special Report on The Rise of
Global Green Religion. This 36-page report is supported by 89 endnotes and provides a
comprehensive understanding of how the National Religious Partnership for the Environment
(NRPE) is infiltrating 67,000 American churches with the doctrine of gaia and promoting
political activity based on a biocentric gaia belief system.
We hope the information we provide will help you convince your neighbors and your elected
officials that the threat to national sovereignty and individual freedom in America is real.
By Henry Lamb
There is only one power on earth strong enough to stop the relentless drive toward global
governance: the Congress of the United States. And there is little indication that
Congress is inclined to stop it. There are a few individual members of both houses who
share our concerns; there are others who are actively promoting the global agenda. The vast
majority of members simply are not aware of the issues. In their defense, we are aware of the
incredible work load each member must bear. They, like most Americans, simply do not have
the time to learn about the intricacies of international intrigue that pose a clear and present
danger to individual freedom, property rights, free markets, and ultimately, to national
sovereignty.
Proponents of global governance rely on keeping Congress in the dark. Much of the global
agenda is designed to by-pass Congress and implement policy administratively or collaboratively
through "stakeholder councils" at the local and state level. When voices of concern or opposition
are raised, they are immediately attacked as "fantasy from the twilight zone," as Representative
George Miller (D-CA) said on the House floor. Bill Richardson (D-NM), and UN Ambassador
designate, ridicules those who are concerned, saying they visualize "blue-helmeted UN troops
sweeping in black helicopters, driving out poor Smokey the Bear-hatted park rangers in a
triumphant victory of the new world order of sinister forces."
Proponents of global governance will not confront the very real issues that concern us. Instead,
they seek to divert attention from the issue and discredit and ridicule the messenger. This tactic
is a strategic maneuver, used with great success by spokesmen for NGOs (non-government
organizations) as well as by government officials. Such unscrupulous attacks provide a window
through which to view the character of those individuals whose personal goals are more
important than the U.S. Constitution -- which they have sworn to defend.
Our concerns are not diminished because they are ridiculed. Nor is America's sovereignty any
less threatened. The importance of our task, however, is increased. We must find ways to
inform our elected officials that our concerns are real, and that Congress, alone, has the power to
prevent defacto global governance by the rapidly expanding UN system.
The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) is one of the first treaties to be presented to the
Senate for ratification. Most Americans know nothing about this treaty or its implications for
national sovereignty. Americans must get informed, and then inform those who represent them
in Congress. Right behind the CWC is the Convention on Biological Diversity, and then the
Convention on Desertification, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the
Convention on the Law of the Seas, and the Convention on the Safety of UN Personnel, and then
the Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change. All of these international
Conventions, or treaties, have profound impact on America. All take a measure of national
sovereignty and give it to an agency of the UN.
With our former UN Ambassador now confirmed as Secretary of State, and with Bill Richardson
designated to be our UN Ambassador, the Clinton Administration has rolled a red carpet across
the bridge to the 21st century. With Kofi Annan in place as the new UN Secretary General, and
with Maurice Strong appointed as the Senior Advisor to reform the UN, the UN and its agencies
are expecting to march into America waving the banner of social justice, equity, and
environmental protection.
They need American dollars. Congress controls the purse-strings. Only by refusing to support
the UN budget can America stop the march toward global governance. Our task is to know the
facts, to make sure that our neighbors know the facts, and to make sure that our elected officials
know that we know the facts, and that we expect them to know as well - and to act accordingly.
Shortly after his selection as UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan told the Lehrer News Hour
that Ingvar Carlsson and Shirdath Ramphal, co-chairs of the UN-funded Commission on
Global Governance, would be among those asked to help him reform the sprawling,
world-wide UN bureaucracy. His first choice, however, announced in the Washington Post on
January 17, was none other than Maurice Strong, also a member of the Commission on Global
Governance.
Strong's appointment as Senior Advisor, "to assist planning and executing a far-reaching reform
of the world body," is seen by UN watchers to be a masterful strategic maneuver to avoid
political opposition while empowering Strong to implement a global agenda he has been
developing for years. More than 100 developing nations coordinated a "Draft Strong" movement
in 1995 to replace Boutros Boutros-Ghali. But Strong's name was never presented publicly as a
candidate. His appointment avoids the public scrutiny and the possibility of a veto. As a Senior
Advisor to Kofi Annan, Strong will have a free hand to do what he wants while Annan takes the
heat - or the praise. Strong prefers to operate in the background. He, perhaps more than any
other single person, is responsible for the development of a global agenda now being
implemented throughout the world. Although various components of the global agenda are
associated with an assortment of individuals and institutions, Maurice Strong is, or has been, the
driving force behind them. It is essential that Americans come to know this man who has been
entrusted with the task of "reforming" the UN - this man Maurice F. Strong.
Strong is also closely aligned with Mikhail Gorbachev and was a participant in Gorbachev's State
of the World Forum in San Francisco in 1995.2 His organization, Earth Council, and Gorbachev's
organization, Green Cross International, are currently developing a new "Earth Charter" for
presentation to the UN General Assembly and ratification by all UN members before the year
2000. He served on the Brundtland Commission, headed by Gro Harlem Brundtland, then-Vice
President of the World Socialist Party. Strong's love for socialist ideas is scattered throughout
his professional life - as they apply to everyone else. For himself, he is quite the capitalist.
He ran away from home at 14. His father retrieved him from Vancouver. But in 1945, after
completing the 11th grade, Strong was off again to become an apprentice fur trader in Hudson
Bay. Strong's business success was remarkable. At 19, he was an investment analyst. At 25, he
was Vice President of Dome Petroleum. At 31, he became the President of Power Corporation of
Canada. He headed both Petro Canada and Hydro Canada, and made a few deals on the side as
well, one of which was the acquisition in 1978 of the Colorado Land & Cattle Company which
owned 200,000 acres of San Luis Valley in Colorado -- from Saudi arms dealer Adnan
Khashoggi.3
The ranch, called Baca, sat on the continent's largest fresh water aquifer. Strong intended to pipe
the water to the desert southwest, but environmental organizations protested and the plan was
abandoned. Strong ended up with a $1.2 million settlement from the water company, an annual
grant of $100,000 from Laurance Rockefeller, and still retained the rights to the water.
Strong's success in business was exceeded only by his success in government. From his post as
founding director of the Canadian International Development Assistance Program (CIDA), he
was elevated by Prime Minister Lester Pearson to represent Canada's interests in international
affairs.
Strong's first exposure to the UN came in 1947 when, at 18, he went to New York to take a job
as assistant pass officer in the Identification Unit of the Security Section. He lived with Noah
Monod, then treasurer of the UN. Here, he first met David Rockefeller and learned that the UN's
funds were handled by Rockefeller's Chase Bank. He also met the other Rockefeller brothers and
other influential people as well.
The idea of global governance emerged during this era. John J. McCloy was a member of the
law firm that represented the Rockefeller's business interests. McCloy helped set up the World
Bank and became its first president. He also became an assistant to Roosevelt's secretary of war,
Henry Stimson. McCloy had been with Truman, Andrei Gromyko and Stalin at Potsdam in
1945, and it was McCloy who first received word that the atomic bomb test at Almagordo had
been successful. He was appointed to a presidential commission to respond to a Soviet proposal
that the United Nations control future development of atomic power. McCloy recommended that
the U.S. turn over all information about the atomic bomb, including where to find uranium, to the
UN. This idea of allowing the UN to become a supranational agency was also promoted by the
Rockefellers and the Rockefeller-funded Council on Foreign
Relations.4
Although Strong kept his UN job only two months, he met very influential people through Noah
Monod who would later prove to be very useful. Strong returned to Winnipeg, failed to qualify
for the Royal Canadian Air Force, and took a job as trainee analyst for James Richardson and
Sons. By 1951, he had taken a job with Dome Petroleum, on whose board of directors was
Henrie Brunie, a close friend of John J. McCloy. Dome became one of the largest oil companies
in Canada but its shareholders resided on Wall Street, never very far away from Standard Oil and
the Rockefellers.
In 1951 Strong married, and in 1952, abruptly sold his home, quit his job and took a world
cruise. He wound up in Nairobi and took a job with CalTex, a company formed to exploit Saudi
oil. His job involved travel to exotic parts of the world for two years. Strong visited his distant
cousin, Robbins Strong, in Geneva, who was the Secretary of the Extension and Intermovement
Aid Division of the international YMCA. He met Leonard Hentsch whose Swiss bank handled
the money of the YMCA. Strong wanted to become an international ambassador for the YMCA,
but settled for a position on the International Committee of the U.S.A. and Canada which raised
funds for the YMCA.
This experience may have been the genesis of Strong's realization that NGOs (non-government
organizations) provide an excellent way to use NGOs to couple the money from philanthropists
and business with the objectives of government. In 1959, Strong created his own company, MF
Strong Management. While serving as executive vice-president of Canada's Power Corporation,
he also ran his own company, Alberta gas company, another company called Ajax, and elevated
his role in the international YMCA and Canada's Liberal Party. He told Elaine Dewar, "We
controlled many companies, controlled political budgets. We influenced a lot of appointments....
Politicians got to know you and you them."5
While Strong was expanding his influence in the business world and in Canadian politics, his
friend, John J. McCloy became entrenched in the Kennedy administration as the head of the U.S.
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. McCloy continued to promote the idea of turning all
defense over to the UN through his Blueprint for the Peace Race: Outline of Basic Provision of a
Treaty on General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World (Publication 4, General
Series 3, May 3, 1962).
By 1966, Strong had moved up again in government. He became Director General of Canada's
External Aid. He also became President of Canada's YMCA. Strong's primary job was to
deliver the foreign aid promised by Lester Pearson's government. Rather than hire a staff, Strong
contracted with a Quebec-based engineering firm called SNC-Lavalin, to supply "technical
facilities" with the proviso that the firm would hire only those individuals approved by Strong.
External Aid was transformed from a one-man operation to the Canadian International
Development Agency (CIDA) in 1968, which Strong headed. His mentor, Lester Pearson,
created another institution called the International Development Research Center (IDRC). The
IDRC was a quasi-government agency that had unique authority to receive charitable donations --
and issue tax deductible certificates -- and give money directly to individuals, governments, and
private organizations. Strong became its head in 1970.
Through his creation and direction of CIDA, Strong controlled the implementation of aid
programs on the ground -- including who was hired to do the work, and through the newly
created IDRC, Strong controlled the issuance of tax deductible certificates and the distrubution of
both private foundation money as well as government money. He was in the perfect position to
make many friends around the world. Dewar describes the arrangement this way: "He had
helped create a federally funded but semi-private intelligence/influence network that could have
impacts both in Canada and abroad."6
Strong was chosen to direct Earth Summit I, in Stockholm in 1972, not for his demonstrated
interest in the environment, but because the Swedish representative to the UN believed that only
Strong, with his extensive worldwide network of friends, could get both the developed and
developing nations to participate. Strong was very busy when asked to organize the conference.
He was recruiting people for Trudeau's new government, and he was managing his private
investments which included real estate holdings in a company consisting of two former Canadian
officials and himself. He also took a position as trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation which
supplied a grant for the running of the Stockholm Conference office. He was also given the
writing services of Barbara Ward and of the French ecologist Rene Dubos, who worked for the
Rockefeller Foundation.
The 1972 Stockholm Conference on Human Environment (Earth Summit I) had far more
international significance than was ever reported. NGO's (non-government organizations) were
funded by the Canadian government to attend the conference to give the appearance of
participation by the general public. Of course, only those NGOs personally selected by Strong
received funding. One such NGO was headed by William Turner, Strong's protege who then
headed the Power Corporation which Strong once headed. Strong also personally softened the
Chinese to Nixon's initiatives. Strong visited China to persuade them to participate in the
Stockholm Conference; the Chinese had not appeared at any UN function since the 1949
revolution. The Chinese took Strong to visit the grave of his cousin, Anna Louise Strong. Nixon
named Henry Kissinger, who came from the Council on Foreign Relations, as his Security
Advisor, and his first assignment was to open secret discussions with China. The Rockefellers
gave Kissinger a $50,000 bonus when he went to work for Nixon.
The 1972 Stockholm Conference institutionalized the environment as a legitimate concern of
government, and it institutionalized NGOs as the instruments through which government could
varnish its agenda with the appearance of public support. The primary outcome of the
conference was a recommendation to create the United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP) which became a reality in 1973 with Maurice Strong as its first Executive Director. Not
surprisingly, Nairobi, Strong's headquarters twenty-years earlier, was chosen for the permanent
headquarters of the UNEP.
After establishing UNEP and setting its agenda, Strong returned to Canada where he resumed
chairmanship of both Petro-Canada and the IDRC. He was introduced to Scott Spangler, who
ran a Texas company called ProChemCo. Strong's partnership, Stronat, bought ProChemCo, and
changed the name to Procor, which immediately entered into a complex $10 million deal to
acquire AZL, also known as the Arizona-Colorado Land and Cattle Company. AZL's major
stockholder was Adnan Khashoggi. In the end, AZL acquired Procor, but Strong landed in
control of the conglomerate which owned feed lots, land, gas and oil interests, engineering firms,
and 200,000 acres which included the Baca ranch in Colorado. Amid this multi-national deal
making, Strong became a Vice President of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), a post he held until
1981.
In 1983, Strong was appointed to the UN's World Commission on Environment and
Development, headed by Gro Harlem Brundtland, Vice President of the World Socialist Party.
Strong also had a colleague appointed as Executive Director, Warren "Chip" Lindner, an
American lawyer, based in Geneva who had handled an intricate merger for Strong and who later
went to work for the World Wildlife Fund in Gland, Switzerland. Strong, and the World
Wildlife Fund, were largely responsible for the content of the Brundtland Commission's final
report, Our Common Future. Before the report was released, Strong was looking to the future.
At a luncheon with Swedish Prime Minister Ingvar Carlsson in 1986, Strong proposed another
world conference on the environment to be held on the 20th anniversary of the Stockholm
Conference. Both Sweden and Canada wanted to host the event, but Strong's visit to Collor de
Mello, prospective Brazilian President, convinced Strong that the event should be held in Rio de
Janeiro. Dewar says: "I was beginning to understand that the Rio Summit was part of a
Rockefeller-envisioned Global Governance Agenda that dated back before World War II...."
As Strong organized the Rio Conference, he utilized his vast network to ensure the outcome. His
office bought Bella Abzug's airplane tickets to attend a preparatory meeting in Geneva. He asked
her to schedule a special conference in Miami for women through her recently formed NGO
called Women's Environment and Development Organization (WEDO). Another NGO formed
by Abzug in 1981, the Women's USA Fund, had been almost dormant until 1991, when the NGO
received nearly $1 million. He arranged for the creation of the Business Council on Sustainable
Development. Strong's long-time colleague, and former cabinet minister to Pierre Trudeau, J.
Hugh Faulkner, was asked to leave his post as Executive Director of the International Chamber
of Commerce to take charge of the new organization. The new organization was immediately
accredited to the Rio Conference and designated to advise Strong who "needed people with their
feet on the ground to do a reality check on these UN guys." The Canadian Participatory
Committee for UNCED (CPCU) was entirely funded by the Canadian government and consisted
of carefully selected individuals who represented various NGOs.
The practice started by Strong at the 1972 conference, of cloaking the agenda in the perception of
public grassroots support from NGOs, culminated in Rio in 1992, with the largest collection of
NGOs ever assembled in support of Agenda 21. Only those NGOs that were "accredited" by the
UN Conference were permitted to attend. And only those which had demonstrated support for
the agenda were funded. Dewar calls these NGOs -- PGOs -- Private Government Organizations.
Strong has influence with the major Foundations which provide the funding for NGOs and he has
influence with the major international NGOs that coordinate the activities of the thousands of
smaller NGOs around the world. Strong has served, or is currently on the Board of Directors of
the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN); the World Wide Fund for Nature
(WWF); and the World Resources Institute (WRI); the three international NGOs that have
developed and advanced the global agenda since the early 1970s.
Strong also served on the UN-funded Commission on Global Governance, co-chaired by Ingvar
Carlsson, and Shirdath Ramphal, former President of the IUCN. The Commission's final report,
Our Global Neighborhood, sets forth detailed plans to achieve what is called "Global
Governance." In his new position as Senior Advisor to Kofi Annan, Strong is again well
positioned to implement the agenda he has been developing by calling its implementation
"reform." Undoubtedly, Strong's NGO network, funded by Foundations and governments tied to
Strong's worldwide interests, will be used to promote the agenda at the national level and at the
UN level.
One of the first steps likely to be taken will be a recommendation to dissolve the UN Economic
and Social Council (ECOSOC). This cumbersome body is one of five original organs of the UN
designated to oversee economic and social programs. Activities in these areas have expanded to
the extent that programs such as the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the
United Nations Development Program, and several others, now have their own budgets, staff,
and independent headquarters facilities. ECOSOC has become a useless layer of bureaucracy.
Strong will be praised for eliminating this waste.
In reality, the move will simply pave the way to strengthen the UN's power and will actually
result in more expense. The functions of ECOSOC will be divided between a newly created
Economic Security Council, and a reorganized Trusteeship Council. In other words, we will
praise the publicly touted "reform" of eliminating one UN agency, but probably never even be
told of the new activities of two new councils. This projection is based upon published
recommendations of the UN-funded Commission on Global Governance -- of which Maurice
Strong was a member. The implementation of this "reform" will require an amendment to the
UN Charter.
The G-77 nations, which represent 135 of the 185 member nations of the UN held a conference
in Costa Rica in January7 to outline amendments to Article 13 of the UN Charter which will be
necessary to bring about global governance as described in Our Global Neighborhood. Costa
Rica is the international headquarters of Strong's most recent NGO, Earth Council, and the UN
University, where a portion of the conference was held. Among the other recommendations of
the Commission on Global Governance is the elimination of the veto power of the five
permanent members of the UN Security Council, and a review of the entire concept of permanent
member status in ten years. Another recommendation would make decisions of the International
Court of Justice binding on all nations. Still another would create a UN standing army, and
another would provide for independent finance in the form of various global taxation schemes.
Strong has worked diligently and effectively to bring his ideas to fruition. He is now in a
position to implement them. His speeches and writings provide a clear picture of what to expect.
In 1991, Strong wrote the introduction to a book published by the Trilateral Commission, called
Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the World's Economy and the Earth's Ecology, by Jim
MacNeil. (David Rockefeller wrote the foreword). Strong said this:
"This interlocking...is the new reality of the century, with profound implications for the shape of
our institutions of governance, national and international. By the year 2012, these changes must
be fully integrated into our economic and political life."
He told the opening session of the Rio Conference (Earth Summit II) in 1992, that industrialized
countries have:
"developed and benefited from the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption which
have produced our present dilemma. It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of
the affluent middle class -- involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen
and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning,
and suburban housing -- are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to
environmentally damaging consumption patterns."
In an essay by Strong entitled Stockholm to Rio: A Journey Down a Generation, he says:
"Strengthening the role the United Nations can play...will require serious examination of the need
to extend into the international arena the rule of law and the principle of taxation to finance
agreed actions which provide the basis for governance at the national level. But this will not
come about easily. Resistance to such changes is deeply entrenched. They will come about not
through the embrace of full blown world government, but as a careful and pragmatic response to
compelling imperatives and the inadequacies of alternatives."
"The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of
international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new
imperatives of global environmental cooperation. What is needed is recognition of the reality
that in so many fields, and this is particularly true of environmental issues, it is simply not
feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation-states, however
powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental
security."8
Maurice Strong has demonstrated an uncanny ability to manipulate people, institutions,
governments, and events to achieve the outcome he desires. Through his published writings and
public presentations he has declared his desire to empower the UN as the global authority to
manage a new era of global governance. He has positioned his NGO triumvirite, the IUCN,
WWF, and the WRI, to varnish UN activity with the perception of "civil society" respectability.
And now he has been appointed Senior Advisor to the UN Secretary General and assigned the
responsibility of reforming the United Nations bureaucracy. The fox has been given the
assignment, and all the tools necessary, to repair the henhouse to his liking.
-ecologic staff
1. Elaine Dewar, Cloak of Green (Toronto, Ontario: Lorimar & Co., 1995), p. 254.
2. The Gorbachev Foundation/USA, "Revisioning Global Priorities," Program Brochure, March
2, 1995. (On file)
3. Marci McDonald, Maclean's, October 10, 1994, p. 51.
4. Elaine Dewar, Op Cit., p. 263.
5. Elaine Dewar, Op Cit., p. 270.
6. Elaine Dewar, Op Cit., p. 274.
7. Robert Pease, "A Chance To Save the United Nations," Cape Cod Times, December 30, 1996.
8. Maurice Strong, "Stockholm to Rio: A Journey
Down a Generation." (On file)
To the framers of the U.S. Constitution, property was as sacred as life and liberty. The
inalienable right to own -- and control the use of -- private property is perhaps the single
most important principle responsible for the growth and prosperity of America. It is a right that
is being systematically eroded.
Private ownership of land is not compatible with socialism, communism, or with global
governance as described by the United Nations. Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Mao -- all took steps to
forcefully nationalize the land as an essential first step toward controlling their citizens. The UN,
without the use of military force, is attempting to achieve the same result.
The land policy of the United Nations was first officially articulated at the United Nations
Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I), held in Vancouver, May 31 - June 11, 1976.
Agenda Item 10 of the Conference Report sets forth the UN's official policy on land. The
Preamble says:
"Land...cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the
pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument
of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if
unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development
schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be
achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole. Public control of land use is
therefore indispensable...."
The Preamble is followed by nine pages of specific policy recommendations endorsed by the
participating nations, including the United states. Here are some of those recommendations:
Recommendation A.1
(b) All countries should establish as a matter of urgency a national policy on human settlements,
embodying the distribution of population...over the national territory.
(c)(v) Such a policy should be devised to facilitate population redistribution to accord with the
availability of resources.
Recommendation D.1
(a) Public ownership or effective control of land in the public interest is the single most
important means of...achieving a more equitable distribution of the benefits of development
whilst assuring that environmental impacts are considered.
(b) Land is a scarce resource whose management should be subject to public surveillance or
control in the interest of the nation.
(d) Governments must maintain full jurisdiction and exercise complete sovereignty over such
land with a view to freely planning development of human settlements....
Recommendation D.2
(a) Agricultural land, particularly on the periphery of urban areas, is an important national
resource; without public control land is prey to speculation and urban encroachment.
(b) Change in the use of land...should be subject to public control and regulation.
(c) Such control may be exercised through:
(i) Zoning and land-use planning as a basic instrument of land policy in general and of control of
land-use changes in particular;
(ii) Direct intervention, e.g. the creation of land reserves and land banks, purchase, compensated
expropriation and/or pre-emption, acquisition of development rights, conditioned leasing of
public and communal land, formation of public and mixed development enterprises;
(iii) Legal controls, e.g. compulsory registration, changes in administrative boundaries,
development building and local permits, assembly and replotting.
Recommendation D.3
(a) Excessive profits resulting from the increase in land value due to development and change in
use are one of the principal causes of the concentration of wealth in private hands. Taxation
should not be seen only as a source of revenue for the community but also as a powerful tool to
encourage development of desirable locations, to exercise a controlling effect on the land market
and to redistribute to the public at large the benefits of the unearned increase in land values.
(b) The unearned increment resulting from the rise in land values resulting from change in use of
land, from public investment or decision or due to the general growth of the community must be
subject to appropriate recapture by public bodies.
Recommendation D.4
(a) Public ownership of land cannot be an end in itself; it is justified in so far as it is exercised in
favour of the common good rather than to protect the interests of the already privileged.
(b) Public ownership should be used to secure and control areas of urban expansion and
protection; and to implement urban and rural land reform processes, and supply serviced land at
price levels which can secure socially acceptable patterns of development.
Recommendation D.5
(b) Past patterns of ownership rights should be transformed to match the changing needs of
society and be collectively beneficial.
(c)(v) Methods for the separation of land ownership rights
from development rights, the latter to be entrusted to a
public authority.
The official U.S. delegation that endorsed these
recommendations includes familiar names. Carla A. Hills,
then-Secretary of Housing and Urban Development became George Bush's Chief trade
negotiator. William K. Reilly, then-head of the Conservation Foundation, became Bush's
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Among the NGOs (non-government
organizations) present, were: International Planned Parenthood Federation; World Federation of
United Nations Associations; International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN); World
Association of World Federalists; Friends of the Earth; National Audubon Society; National
Parks and Conservation Association; Natural Resources Defense Council;
and the Sierra Club.1
These ideas came to America in the form of the Federal Land Use Planning Act which failed
twice in Congress during the 1970s. Federal regions were created and the principles of the UN
land policy were implemented administratively to the maximum extent possible. NGOs were at
work even then, lobbying for the implementation of UN land policy at the state and local level.
Both Florida and Oregon enacted state Comprehensive Planning Acts. Florida created state
districts and multi-county agencies to govern land and water use. Most states, however, were
slow to embrace the UN initiative toward centralized planning and land management.
The foundation for the propaganda campaign may be found in three publications published
jointly by the UN and its NGO collaborators: World Conservation Strategy, (UNEP, IUCN,
WWF, 1980); Caring for the Earth, (UNEP, IUCN, WWF, 1991); and Global Biodiversity
Strategy, (UNEP, IUCN, WRI, 1992). These documents, along with Our Common Future, the
report of the 1987 Brundtland Commission (UN Commission on Environment and Development)
set the stage for Earth Summit II, the UN Conference on Environment and Development
(UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.
This conference produced Agenda 21, the ultimate plan of action to save the world from human
activity. The document echos the 1976 document on land use policy, though in somewhat muted
terms. From Section II, Chapter 10 (page 84):
"Land is normally defined as a physical entity in terms of its topography and spatial nature; a
broader integrative view also includes natural resources: the solid, minerals, water and biota that
the land comprises. Expanding human requirements and economic activities are placing ever
increasing pressures on land resources, creating competition and conflicts and resulting in
suboptimal use of both land and land resources. It is now essential to resolve these conflicts and
move towards more effective and efficient use of land and its natural resources. Opportunities to
allocate land to different uses arise in the course of major settlement or development projects or
in a sequential fashion as land becomes available on the market. This provides opportunities...to
assign protected status for conservation of biological diversity or critical ecological services."
Objective 10.5
"The broad objective is to facilitate allocation of land to the uses that provide the greatest
sustainable benefits and to promote the transition to a sustainable and integrated management of
land resources:"
(a) "To review and develop policies to support the best possible use of land and the sustainable
management of land resources, by not later than 1996;"
(b) "To improve and strengthen planning, management and evaluation systems for land and land
resources, by not later than 2000;"
(d) "To create mechanisms to facilitate the active involvement and participation of all concerned,
particularly communities and people at the local level, in decision-making on land use and
management, by not later than 1996."
Activities 10.6:
(c) "Review the regulatory framework, including laws, regulations and enforcement procedures,
in order to identify improvements needed to support sustainable land use and management of
land resources and restrict the transfer of productive arable land to other uses;"
(e) "Encourage the principle of delegating policy-making to the lowest level of public authority
consistent with effective action and a locally driven approach."
Activities 10.7:
(a) "Adopt planning and management systems that facilitate the integration of environmental
components such as air, water, land and other natural resources using landscape ecological
planning... for example, an ecosystem or watershed;"
(b) "Adopt strategic frameworks that allow the integration of both developmental and
environmental goals; examples of those frameworks include...the World Conservation Strategy,
Caring for the Earth...."2
Earth Summit produced other documents which directly affect private property rights and land
use: the Convention on Biological Diversity, which authorized the production of the Global
Biodiversity Assessment (GBA).
The GBA is a massive, 1,140-page document that supposedly provides the "scientific" basis for
implementing the Convention on Biological Diversity and other environmental treaties. It
discusses land-use extensively (approximately 400 pages). Some of the more poignant
revelations may be found in Section 11.2.3.13 (page 767):
"Property rights are not absolute and unchanging, but rather a complex, dynamic and shifting
relationship between two or more parties, over space and time."
The legal approach to this UN view of property rights is discussed in Section 11.3.3.2 (pages
786-787):
"Plants and animals are objects whose degree of protection depends on the value they represent
for human beings. Although well intentioned, this specifically anthropocentric view leads
directly to the subordination of biological diversity, and to its sacrifice in spite of modern
understanding of the advantages of conservation. We should accept biodiversity as a legal
subject, and supply it with adequate rights. This could clarify the principle that biodiversity is
not available for uncontrolled human use. Contrary to current custom, it would therefore become
necessary to justify any interference with biodiversity, and to provide proof that human interests
justify the damage caused to biodiversity."3
Under the UN's concept of land and resource management, the owner is not even considered as
one who may have a right to determine how his land is to be used. It is a higher authority that
represents the "community" to whom "proof" must be offered that a proposed use is justified.
This process effectively separates the right of ownership from the right of use, an objective
discussed in Recommendation D.5(c)(v) of the 1976 document. And who, exactly, is this "higher
authority" to whom proof must be presented? The authority envisioned by the UN is not local
elected officials, but rather local "stakeholder councils" dominated by NGO professionals.
Most Americans are totally unaware of this relentless, 20-year campaign by the UN to gain
control over land use around the world. Many people believe that the UN is a distant, benevolent
do-good organization that is expensive, but which has no direct affect on America. Nothing
could be further from the truth.
The 1992 Earth Summit also produced the UN Commission on Sustainable Development and a
new international NGO called Earth Council. Earth Council, located in Costa Rica, is headed by
Maurice Strong, Secretary General of Earth Summit I and II, the first Executive Director of the
United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), and a director of World Resources Institute
(WRI). The function of Earth Council is to coordinate the work of national councils on
sustainable development. Currently more than 100 nations have created national councils for the
purpose of implementing Agenda 21 at the national level.
In America, The President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) was created by
Executive Order in 1993, and presented its report, Sustainable America, A New Consensus, in
1995. It is a compilation of 154 action items patterned after Agenda 21, to be implemented in
America. At the November, 1995 meeting of the PCSD, Council members who were also
Cabinet members announced that at least 67 of the action items could be implemented
"administratively," without Congressional involvement. The document provides 16 "We
Believe" statements, which embrace the 27 principles articulated in the Rio Declaration from
Earth Summit II. Among those statements is this:
"We need a new collaborative decision process that leads to better decisions; more rapid change;
and more sensible use of human, natural, and financial resources in achieving our goals."
The report says further:
"...society outside of government -- civil society -- is demanding a greater role in governmental
decisions, while at the same time impatiently seeking solutions outside government's power to
decide. Our most important finding is the potential power of and growing desire for decision
processes that promote direct and meaningful interaction involving people in decisions that
affect them."
The PCSD report says (page 113):
"What has become clear is that the conflicts over natural resources increasingly are exceeding the
capacity of institutions, processes, and mechanisms to resolve them. The Council endorses the
concept of collaborative approaches to resolving conflicts."
Conflicts arise because:
"Privately owned lands are most often delineated byboundaries that differ from the geographic
boundaries of the natural system of which they are a part. Therefore, individual or private
decisions can have negative ramifications. For example, private decisions are often driven by
strong economic incentives that result in severe ecological or aesthetic consequences to both the
natural system and to communities outside landowner boundaries."
In plain english, the PCSD has determined that private land owners make land use decisions that
are inconsistent with the land use principles laid down in the Global Biodiversity Assessment,
Agenda 21, and the 1976 report of the UN Commission on Human Settlements. To solve this
problem, the PCSD issued the following recommendations (page 115):
Action 1. The President should issue an executive order directing federal agencies under the
Government Performance and Results Act to promote voluntary, multistakeholder, collaborative
approaches toward managing and restoring natural resources.
Action 2. Governors can issue similar directives to encourage state agencies to participate in and
promote voluntary, multistakeholder, collaborative approaches.
Action 3. Public and private leaders (within the constraints of antitrust concerns), community
institutions, nongovernmental organizations, and individual citizens can take collective
responsibility for practicing environmental stewardship through voluntary, multistakeholder,
collaborative approaches.
Action 4. The federal government should play a more active role in building consensus on
difficult issues and identifying actions that would allow stakeholders to work together toward
common goals. Both Congress and the executive branch should evaluate the extent to which the
Federal Advisory Committee Act poses a barrier to successful multistakeholder processes, and
they should amend regulations to help accomplish this.4
Interestingly, a recommendation of the PCSD's Population and Consumption Task Force, which
was not included in the final report, said: "The President and Congress should authorize and
appoint a national commission to develop a national strategy to address changes in national
population distribution that have negative impacts on sustainable
development."5 Compare this
recommendation to Recommendation A.1 from the 1976 Habitat document.
Implementation of the UN's land use philosophy is well under way in America, and is now being
accelerated through the use of the "collaborative process" using stakeholder councils. The 1973
Endangered Species Act has been expanded administratively to now cover not only endangered
species, but the habitat which a listed species may wish to use -- even though the habitat may be
privately owned. This policy breathes life into the GBA recommendation to extend legal rights
to biodiversity. It, in fact, clarifies "the principle that biodiversity is not available for
uncontrolled human use."
The legal status of biodiversity has been further elevated by the Vice President's "Ecosystem
Management Policy," which places biodiversity protection at the same priority level as human
health, and which further instructs officials to consider human beings to be a "biological
resource" in all ecosystem management activities.
Consistent with other PCSD recommendations, the federal government is actively funding
stakeholder councils throughout the country to begin the process of creating "sustainable
communities" as envisioned in Agenda 21. Sustainable communities are essential to the concept
of land use and resource management envisioned by the Global Biodiversity Assessment, and
required by the Convention on Biological Diversity. Ultimately, if the UN plan is realized, at
least half of the land area of North America will be converted to wilderness, off limits to human
beings. An additional 25% will be controlled by government in collaboration with "civil society"
in which individuals will have to prove that a proposed use will not harm biodiversity. Humans
are to be relocated into "sustainable communities" that are described as "islands of human
habitat" surrounded by natural areas.
It is now clear that the UN's land use policies, though refined over time, have had a
predetermined objective from the very beginning. That objective -- as bizarre as it may sound --
is to place all land and natural resources under the ultimate authority of the UN. The official
report of the UN-funded Commission on Global Governance, Our Global Neighborhood, calls
for placing "the global commons" under the direct authority of the UN Trusteeship Council, and
defines "global commons" to be: "The atmosphere, outer space, the oceans beyond national
jurisdiction and the related environment and life-support systems that contribute to the support
of human life."6 Moreover, the UN Trusteeship Council is to be selected from "civil society"
representatives. The Commission on Global Governance also calls for the creation of a new
"Petitions Council" which would receive petitions from "Stakeholder Councils" in each nation
for the purpose of directing the petitions to the correct UN agency for resolution and enforcement
actions.
The objectives are real, published in official documents, and the process is well underway. The
strategy originated with the IUCN, WWF, and the WRI, and is being advanced at the policy level
through UN organizations, international treaties and agreements, and on the ground through a
massive organization of "civil society" NGOs. Here, only the highest peaks of UN activity have
been identified. Virtually every activity, conference, and action plan devised by the UN since the
early 1970s has been aiming toward the ultimate objective of eventual global governance
founded upon the principles of collectivism, central planning, and omnipotent enforcement,
disguised by the language of equity, social justice, and environmental protection.
Sadly, American policy has failed to honor the Constitutional commitment to life, liberty and
property. The next four years in America may well be the historic watershed which will be seen
by future generations as the point from which the blessings of freedom were shared with the
entire world, or the point from which the world began its descent into global tyrrany.
- ecologic staff
1. Information here cited is from "Report of Habitat: United Nations Conference on Human
Settlements," Vancouver, 31 May - 11 June, 1976, (A/Conf.70/15), personally photocopied from
the archives of the UN Library at Geneva, Switzerland, December 6, 1996. (On file)
2. Citations from Agenda 21 are taken from: Agenda 21: The United Nations Programme of
Action From Rio, ISBN No. 92-1-100509-4, UN Publication-Sales No. E.93.1.11. Address
inquiries to: Room S-894, United Nations, New York, NY 10017, Fax: (212) 963-4556.
3. The Global Biodiversity Assessment is publihed by the Cambridge University Press, ISBN
No. 564316, and is available for $44.95 plus S&H by calling (914) 937-9600.
4. Sustainable America: A New Consensus is published by the U.S. Government Printing Office,
Mail Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9328, ISBN No. 0-16-048529-0.
5. "Draft Recommendations from the PCSD
and Response Examples," ecologic,
November/December, 1995, p. 13.
6. Our Global Neighborhood, The Report of
the Commission on Global Governance, (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1995), pp.
251-253.
The term NGO (non-government organization) is a
relatively new term in the American vocabulary.
Already, there is a conscious effort to replace the
term with a more politically-correct term -- "civil society."
There is a major difference: NGO may apply to any non-profit organization; "civil society"
applies only to those NGOs that are "accredited" by the United Nations.
According to Our Global Neighborhood, the official report of the UN-funded Commission on
Global Governance, published in 1995, there are 28,900 international NGOs in the world and
hundreds of thousands of national NGOs. As of late 1994, only 980 were officially "accredited"
by the UN's Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). The 980 accredited NGO's, however, are
affiliated with tens of thousands of affiliated NGOs in virtually every nation on earth. These
NGOs, by virtue of their affiliation with accredited NGOs, constitute what the UN describes as
"civil society." Other NGOs are described as "populist organizations" which can "...in a minute
destroy the work of decades of deliberation."
The modern NGO story begins with the creation of the United Nations. One month after the UN
Charter went into force, Julian Huxley signed the document that created the United Nations
Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Two years later, the same Julian
Huxley was instrumental in the creation of the International Union for the Conservation of
Nature (IUCN). The IUCN consolidated the work of the British Fauna and Flora Preservation
Society, and other conservation groups that had been working throughout the British Empire, and
aligned its work with the activities of UNESCO. To better fund its work, the IUCN created
another, more public organization in 1961 called the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), which was
headed by Prince Philip. During the 1960s, the IUCN lobbied the UN General Assembly to
create a new status for NGOs. Resolution 1296 was adopted in 1968 which grants "consultative"
status to NGOs. The IUCN has "accreditation" with six UN organizations.
Working in tandem, the IUCN and the WWF created still another NGO in 1982. Russell Train,
then-President of the WWF-USA, amassed $25 million in grants to create the World Resources
Institute (WRI) and selected Gustave Speth, co-founder of the Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC) as its first President. This triumvirate, consisting of the IUCN, WWF, and
WRI, is the driving force behind the rise of NGO influence at the UN and around the world.
The IUCN's membership includes 53 international NGOs; 550 national NGOs; 100 government
agencies; and 68 sovereign nations. The US State Department contributes more than $1 million
per year to this NGO, and President Clinton issued Executive Order #12986 which grants this
NGO certain diplomatic "privileges and immunities." In the USA alone, the WWF reported
1995 income to be $138,874,116 and assets at $62,558,896. The WRI is perhaps the world's
most influential "think tank" which produces the so-called scientific foundation for the global
agenda, and coordinates much of the activity of affiliated NGOs as well. Maurice Strong has
been, or is currently a director or officer of each of these NGOs.
These three NGOs have published jointly with the United Nations Environment Program
(UNEP) all of the documents from which the global agenda has been developed:
From these foundational works come such policy
documents as: the Convention on Biological Diversity; the
Framework Convention on Climate Change, and Agenda 21.
Implementing the policies
NGOs play two vital roles in the implementation of the
policies that are developed by the triumvirate. First the
ideas must be hammered into policy statements that are adopted by an official UN body, then the
policies must be translated into actual practice on the ground. NGOs fulfill both of these
functions.
Writing in the January/February, 1997 issue of Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on
Foreign Relations, Jessica Mathews says:
"NGOs set the orignial goal of negotiating an agreement to control greenhouse gases,...proposed
most of its structure and content, and lobbied and mobilized public pressure to force through a
pact that virtually no one else thought possible when the talks began."
"More members of NGOs served on government delegations than ever before, and they
penetrated deeply into official decision-making. They were allowed to attend the small working
group meetings where the real decisions in international negotiations are made. The tiny nation
of Vanuatu turned its delegation over to an NGO with expertise in international law (a group
based in London and funded by an American foundation), thereby making itself and other sea-level island states major players in the fight to control global warming. As a result, delegates
completed the framework of a global climate accord in the blink of a diplomat's eye -- 16 months
-- over the opposition of the three energy superpowers, the United States, Russia, and Saudi
Arabia."
Mathews is referring to NGO involvement leading to and including the 1992 Earth Summit in
Rio. NGOs, however, swarm over, and are deeply involved in virtually every conference
arranged by the United Nations.
With a substantial grant from the Tides Foundation, the Institute for Global Communications
(IGC) joined forces with the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) in the mid
1980s to form an Internet site which has become the communications hub for 50,000 NGOs in
133 countries which reaches "tens of millions" of Internet users. This specialized NGO has
contracts with the UN to provide communication services for UN meetings around the world.
The President's Council on Sustainable Development also uses this NGO to disseminate
information about its work. The Internet site is designated simply: igc.apc.org. It is responsible
to a very large extent, for the increased effectiveness of NGOs during the last decade.
Another important tool used by NGOs are the publications provided to the delegates at the UN
conferences. One such publication, called ECO, has been published by NGOs at every UN
meeting since the first Earth Summit in 1972. At the recent global warming negotiations in
Geneva, this publication listed 19 staffers, and published "thanks" to its funders which included
the Environment Ministries of Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, Rent-a-Mac, EuroFax, and
APC. Another publication, published sporadically and called Earth Negotiations Bulletin, was
published from March, 1993 to March, 1994 by the International Institute for Sustainable
Development in Winnipeg, at a cost of $530,000, of which $279,550 came directly from
Canadian taxpayers.
The activities of these NGOs are coordinated through the World Resources Institute through their
publication called the NGO Networker. Each of the coalitions have their own coordinating
mechanism. CITNET, for example, publishes a newsletter which lists administrative offices in
California, a UN Liaison Office in New York, and proclaims that it is a project of the Tides
Foundation. Its Internet address is listed at igc.apc.org. Some of the organizations included in
this coalition are: the Sierra Club; Faith in Action; The Humane Society of the United States;
Greenpeace International; the IUCN; Friends of the Earth; Second Nature; the Earth Council
(Maurice Strong's newest NGO); World Resources Institute; and many others.
One of the functions of these NGOs is to activate their respective memberships to support
specific policy measures as they are presented to Congress, and to support individual candidates
that support the overall agenda. The Sierra Club was deeply involved in the 1996 Congressional
elections spending millions of dollars in support of candidates friendly to their cause.
Funding
The underlying coordination of NGO activity comes from the funding sources. The
Environmental Grantmakers Association (EGA) is an informal association of more than 120
foundations and businesses assembled by the Rockefeller Foundation. The EGA meets annually
to decide which NGOs and which projects will be funded. Annual grants to NGOs through this
organization have been estimated in the range of $500,000,000. The federal government also
funds NGOs. During an 18-month period recently analyzed, the Department of Interior awarded
grants totalling $242,000,000 to more than 800 NGOs. Even more money comes from the UN.
According to the 1996 First Quarter Report of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), a total of
$2.3 billion had been spent on global warming projects, with most going to accredited NGOs
around the world. The report identified 39 such projects which were coordinated by either the
IUCN, the WWF, or the WRI, worth a total of $350 million.
These NGOs are funded to achieve specific objectives. The Tides Foundation operates what it
calls an "Incubator Program." This program creates new NGOs to perform special tasks. The
Environmental Working Group is one such program. Among its tasks is a project called the
Clearinghouse for Environmental Research. One of its functions is to identify "populist
organizations" that oppose the global agenda and attempt to discredit those organizations.
Another organization, created in 1992, called the Greater Ecosystem Alliance, was created for the
purpose of generating public acceptance of the idea of ecosystem management in the northwest,
specifically, to introduce the concept of the Wildlands Project.
Every community has one or more such NGOs, which often consist of no more than two or three
professionals, funded by a foundation such as the Tides Foundation, placed in a community to
begin building public support for some component of the international agenda. Currently,
sustainable communities are the hot item. NGOs have been dispatched to targeted communities
to develop what is often called "visioning councils" which are eligible for federal grants to
develop a community plan for a sustainable community. The criteria for a sustainable
community comes directly from Agenda 21, adopted in Rio, Americanized by the President's
Council on Sustainable Development, and designed to translate international policy into local
ordinances, and state and federal law.
NGOs in the future
The power claimed by NGOs in the recent past is nothing compared to what is planned for the
future. At Habitat II, UN Rule 61 gave accredited NGOs full participation in the negotiating
sessions with official delegates. Our Global Neighborhood recommends the creation of a new
Assembly of the People which is to consist of 300 to 600 representatives of accredited NGOs.
The Assembly will meet annually before the UN General Assembly meeting to provide ideas and
information to the official delegates. Another new UN entity is recommended: a Petitions
Council. The Petitions Council would be a small council of representives from accredited NGOs
whose job it would be to receive petitions of non-compliance from NGOs on the ground. The
UN calls this an "early warning system." Such petitions would be screened by the council and
forwarded to the appropriate UN organization for enforcement action. Still another
recommendation would restructure the UN Trusteeship Council which would be governed by
representatives from accredited NGOs who would have "trusteeship" over the global commons
which is defined to be: "the atmosphere, outer space, the oceans beyond national jurisdiction, and
the related environment and life-support systems that contribute to the support of human life."
NGOs provide the interface with the rest of society. NGOs that are not affiliated with an
accredited NGO (which confers civil society status), are systematically discredited, discounted,
and labeled as populist activists. Every civil society NGO is empowered by a funding source that
pays for a specific function designed to advance a broader agenda. The funding source, whether
public or private, is working to advance an agenda that has been coordinated by and developed
through the NGO triumvirate working with the UN agencies and national governments. The
result is phenomonal effectiveness at the international, national, and local levels. There is every
reason to believe that NGO effectiveness will increase.
- ecologic staff
In December, 1996, Sovereignty
International, Inc., became a legal entity, a
not-for-profit corporation which has
applied for 501(c)(3) tax-deductible status. It
is the outgrouwth of the Sustainable Freedom
Coalition and is formed expressly for the
purpose of bringing educational information to
the international policy debate. Since 1972,
every UN conference has hosted a collection
of NGO's, accredited by the UN, most of
which are major environmental organizations,
funded by private foundations, the federal
government, or by the UN itself. These NGOs
lobby the delegates before and during the UN
meetings and are largely responsible for the
outcome of the policy statements, treaties, and
other documents produced by the UN
conferences. Until now, there has been little
or no voice of opposition other than selected
business and industry NGOs. Environmental organizations, accredited by the UN, have become
"civil society" in the eyes of the policy makers.
It is high time that the UN policy makers realize that "civil society" includes thousands of
organizations that cherish national sovereignty more than global governance; free markets more
than managed trade; and individual freedom more than managed societies. Since 1972, at each
of these UN conferences, the environmental organizations have published a newsletter for the
attending delegates called ECO. At the next UN Conference, and at all subsequent UN
Conferences, Sovereignty International intends to publish a newsletter for the attending delegates
called ecologic. Permission for use of the name has been granted by the Environmental
Conservation Organization.
The initial board of directors consists of the Steering Committee of the Sustainable Freedom
Coalition: Henry Lamb, Chair; Floy Lilley, Vice Chair; Robert O. Voight, Secretary/Treasurer;
Tom McDonnell, Director; and Dr. Michael S. Coffman, Executive Director. The board will
eventually number 18, with one-third of its members nominated by and elected from the
Advisory Council. Sovereignty International will have no members - only affiliates. The
Advisory Council will be selected from affiliates. It is through the Advisory Council that the
organization will perform its tasks.
The Advisory Council will be organized around five major Working Groups, each of which will
have several committees:
I. Global Governance II. Communications III. Environment IV. Development V. Security Committees for each of the sub-issues are now being formed to identify constituencies and to
share information. As each working group is organized, it will have its own conferencing facility
on the Internet. Affiliates may choose to participate in one or more working groups and will
have access to all the working group conference facilities. Access to these facilities will be
available only to affiliates. As the system matures, affiliates may also access documents and data
from an extensive collection of material. Private chat-rooms will also be available for
international conferencing for planning and to develop strategies for upcoming UN Conferences.
State and country leaders will also be provided secure conferencing facilities for use in the
development of state and country strategies.
Environmental organizations have used the Internet for the last ten years to facilitate their
communications. The major difference is that their efforts have been funded by enormous grants,
particularly from the Tides Foundations, and from contracts with the UN. Sovereignty
International has no such funding; money must come from those individuals and organizations
that are concerned about national sovereignty, free markets, and individual rights.
It is extremely important that the United Nations realizes that there are hundreds, if not thousands
of organizations in America and around the world that are not ready to accept the global agenda
without at least offering alternative ideas. Therefore it is essential that Sovereignty International
have as many affiliate organizations as possible. It is equally important that Sovereignty
International find the resources it needs to accomplish all its tasks. Organizations and
individuals who wish to participate and/or support Sovereignty International are invited to do so
by sending their tax deductible contribution to:
P.O. Box 220 in the amount of:
Assosciate $100 All affiliates will receive Sovereignty International's newsletter called World Concerns, and will
be invited to participate in Internet conferences as they become available. This organization is
entering the international arena several years behind the international NGOs that have thoroughly
dominated international policy. With adequate support, Sovereignty Internation can be a vital
counterbalancing force bringing the principles of national sovereignty, free markets, and
individual rights into the debate.
Sovereignty International: A Statement of Purpose
SOVEREIGNTY INTERNATIONAL, Inc., arises out of concern that pressures to enact
"globalization" are serious threats to the national sovereignty of nations around the world.
National sovereignty derives from, and is empowered by, the people governed. Sovereignty
International holds that the ultimate political power must rest with national governments which
are directly accountable to the people governed. In no case should a supranational government
evolve which supplants the sovereignty of any nation.
Governments frequently disagree. We hope the world has learned the lesson that war is not the
way to resolve disagreements among nations. But neither is a supranational government
claiming to have the power to impose and enforce conflict resolution. Cooperation among free
people -- expressed through sovereign governments serving the best interests of the people
governed -- remains the only long-term solution to the inevitable problems which confront a
developing civilization.
What then is the proper role of the United Nations? Has it outlived its usefulness to the world?
Perhaps it has. Perhaps it needs reform. If the United Nations is simply a neutral forum where
nations gather to discuss, debate, and seek cooperative solutions to mutual problems, then the
United Nations can become extremely useful in facilitating human progress.
On the other hand, if the United Nations develops elitist ideas about how society should be
managed, and pursues its own agenda for social engineering with its own mechanisms for
imposing and enforcing its agenda -- devising its own mechanism for taxing individuals and
nations -- then the mission of the United Nations will have been betrayed. Moreover, this
institution will have set a course programmed for disaster.
We are concerned that with more than 130 organizations and agencies scattered around the
world -- each with its own budget and bureaucracy, each having its own agenda and outreach --
the United Nations may well be arrogating unto itself a form of supranational sovereignty.
We are concerned that the process of consensus employed by the agencies of the United
Nations fails to take into account the contrary views and ideas of people it expects to govern.
We are concerned that there is no direct accountability to The Sovereign People when policy
decisions taken by United Nations' organizations and agencies are enacted.
We are concerned about the relentless drive toward global governance articulated in the report
of the Commission on Global Governance, Our Global Neighborhood.
We promote global cooperation among sovereign nations, empowered by free people. Solutions
to the problems which must be solved will emerge from the creativity of free people -- not from
governments. History should make it abundantly clear that governments should serve the people
who empower them -- not conversely.
In April 29, 1997, the UN's Chemical Weapons
Convention will become international law, having
been ratified by 65 nations. Ratification by the
United States is now pending in the form of S1732, now
under consideration. Secretary of State, Madelein Albright,
has committed full support of the Clinton Administration.
By a large majority, Americans support the idea of banning
chemical weapons, and this treaty -- fifteen years in the making -- is presented as the means to
achieve a global ban on such weapons. But will it? Strong opposition to the treaty has arisen,
but has been given almost no voice in the press. A coordinated campaign by the administration
seeks to discredit the opposition rather than to engage in debate about genuine concerns about the
treaty. Here is a summary of the case for, and against, the Chemical Weapons Convention
(CWC).
The leading non-government proponent for the CWC is the Chemical Manufacturers Association
(CMA). In a November 26 letter to President Clinton, CMA President, Fred Webber said: "As
the chief architect of the Convention, the U.S. faces the unwelcome prospect of being absent at
the start of its own creation." CMA believes that this "is a chilling thought" because "Important
details such as the reporting and record-keeping requirements, the composition of the
international inspectorate, and the reach of the treaty's reporting and inspection protocols, all
carry significant consequences for our industry."
Webber goes on to say: "Many of the treaty's most important regulatory details have not yet been
decided. If the U.S. does not ratify the CWC in early 1997, our government will have no voice in
deciding the final size and scope of the treaty...."
Perhaps more significantly, Webber tells the President: "Worse still are the trade implications of
abstaining from the treaty. The Convention expressly states that treaty members may not conduct
business in regulated materials with non-parties. Parties may impose immediate sanctions
against non-parties based on `national security' considerations. We believe that as much as $600
million a year in U.S. export sales will be placed at risk should the U.S. refuse to ratify the
Convention."
Robert H. Bork, one of America's most distinguished Constitutional scholars, expressed some of
his concerns last August in a letter to Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary
Committee. Here are a few of Bork's concerns:
"Fourth and Fifth Amendment concerns are raised by the United States' obligation to open to on-site inspections any facility, whether in the public sector or privately owned. Apparently, no
probable cause need be shown. A foreign state will have the right to challenge inspection of a
U.S. facility without the grounds that are essential for a search warrant."
"The U.S. is required by the CWC to enforce inspection by an international team, even over
opposition from the owner. On-site personnel can be compelled to answer questions, provide
data, and permit searches of anything within the premises -- including records, files, papers,
processes, controls, structures and vehicles."
"Whatever the merits otherwise of the claim that the `pervasively regulated industries' exception
avoids the Fourth Amendment problems, it is my understanding that the majority of the 3,000 -
8,000 companies expected to be covered are not pervasively regulated."
"Additional Fifth Amendment problems arise from the authority of inspectors to collect data and
analyze samples. This may constitute an illegal seizure and,
perhaps, constitute the taking of private property be the
government without compensation. The foreign
inspections will not be subject to punishment for any theft
of proprietary information."
"How can we accede to an arrangement that grants an international inspection agency the right to
demand access to thousands of privately owned U.S. facilities without requiring the foreign
inspectors to demonstrate probable cause necessary to secure a judicial warrant -- except by
compromising the American owners' Constitutional rights?"
"Similarly, how can those owners be denied due process -- or, for that matter, the right to sue for
damages in the likely event that the foreign inspectors use their eighty-four hours of on-site
inspection to elicit sensitive proprietary data and then that data finds its way into the hands of
competitors overseas? As you are well aware, there is growing concern about illegal commercial
espionage. If we are not careful, it would appear that we may be creating through the CWC a
legal opportunity for carrying out such intelligence collection, to the severe detriment of
America's competitive position."
"A further concern arises from the fact that the new Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons will be significantly less accountable that the U.S. regulatory agencies for information
collected in the course of international inspections of American businesses. I understand that the
draft implementing legislation proposes to preclude requests about OPCW inspections that might
otherwise be made under the Freedom of Information Act."
"Whatever one thinks...about the wisdom of ratifying a treaty that is inherently unverifiable,
unenforceable and inequitable, the likelihood that will compromise the Constitutional rights of
many thousands of American companies and their owners and employees should be sufficient
grounds for its rejection."
Similar concerns have been expressed by former Secretaries of Defense Dick Cheney, Donald
Rumsfeld, and Caspar Weinberger, and former Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, former Secreatry
of State Alexander Haig, and former National Security Advisor, William Clark.
The CWC has been ratified by 65 nations. At least 120 nations have not ratified the treaty.
There is no guarantee that the remaining nations will ever ratify the treaty, and even if all were to
ratify the treaty, there is no reason to think that Lybia, Iraq, and dozens of other nations, would
comply. In its zeal to support the CWC, the Chemical Manufacturers Association contends that
compliance and reporting would be no problem for American companies. A briefing paper
prepared by the CMA says "Some 2,000 facilities throughout the United States are likely to have
CWC obligations. Less than 200 facilities will be subject to on-site inspections." Of course the
final rules for inspections will not be determined until after the treaty is ratified, but with such
spotty inspections anticipated in America, is it reasonable to expect more thorough inspections in
other nations?
The fact is that no one knows what procedures will be finally decided by the implementation
organization created by the treaty. The fact is that the treaty gives that body full power to enact
whatever protocols and rules of procedure it deems necessary at any time in the future. The fact
is that the treaty cedes national sovereignty to the UN by granting to an international authority,
power to ignore the Constitutional rights of Americans.
The treaty further cedes national sovereignty to the UN by allowing the World Trade
Organization (WTO) to enforce trade sanctions against the U.S. if it does not ratify the treaty.
This feature of the WTO is the first real enforcement tool ever granted to the UN. The CWC is
the first treaty since the creation of the WTO to explicitly call for trade sanctions against nations
that are not parties to the treaty. The Conference of the Parties of other treaties are currently
discussing using the WTO to enforce such treaties as the Framework Convention on Climate
Change, and other treaties.
The Clinton Administration has committed full support for the CWC, which will be one of the
first treaties to be considered by the 105th Congress. Like boxcars on a train, other treaties are
lined up, ready for the Clinton Administration to push through the Senate. The Convention on
Biological Diversity; the Convention on Desertification; the Convention on the Law of the Seas;
the Convention on the Rights of the Child; the Convention on the Safety of UN Personnel; the
Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and the Protocol to
the Framework Convention on Climate Change -- are all waiting their turn to roll through the
Senate, where, if ratified, each will carry another load of America's national sovereignty to be
deposited in the UN's expanding vault of international power.
- ecologic staff
By Gerald M. Freeman
Gerald M. Freeman is President of Stone Forest Industries. My presentation concerns a number of topics: Science, or more specifically, the misuse of
science, miscast theories such as global warming, ozone depletion, and air pollution, and
questions about the inheritance we will bequeath our grandchildren.
A wise old philosopher once said: "Individuals are occasionally guided by reason, but the masses
seldom."
We seem to be in this situation today. Our society is confronted by radical environmental
factions and their goal of "restoring original conditions." How would they do this? How would
they restore original conditions? By invoking false science, and by promoting the fallacious
necessity of concepts such as global warming, ozone depletion, and air pollution.
Science, for many of us and for many past generations, has been considered our friend. Science
helps solve problems confronting humankind. Science helps to advance the human condition and
science helps us to improve our technological and industrial capabilities. This means human
beings are more comfortable, and have increasing amounts of freedom.
But this is all changing. And it is changing under an intentional and long term design to negate
the human condition, to negate human values. To the zealous environmentalist, nature is all
good. Humankind is seen as a destroyer of this good, so humankind is a doer of evil, and must
be held in check.
This thesis is borne out in the extreme by David Graber, a research biologist with the National
Park Service. He wrote in a Los Angeles Times book review:
"Human happiness...[is] not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists
who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn't true. Somewhere along the line -- at
about a billion years ago -- we quit the contract, became a cancer upon Earth."
What has happened to our belief in science during the last 30 years or so is that radical
environmentalists have trumped up fiction after fiction after fiction to shock the public, to horrify
the public, to intimidate the public. So the public has lost faith in science, in technology, and in
industry.
I am reminded of that famous observation of our nation's self-destructive calamity expert,
Stephen Schneider, as reported in Discover magazine; he said:
"On the one hand, as scientists, we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect
promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but, which means that we must include
all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts...[but] we need to get some broad-based
support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media
coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and
make little mention of any doubts we may have...each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest."
Why this pious, this blameless fervor? Why this devotional righteousness? We have all heard
the argument that humankind is over-populating the planet, that natural resources are being
depleted, and that our days are numbered.
We do know that Mother Earth is nearly indestructible. Scientific fact tells us she has survived
Ice Ages and bombardments of solar and cosmic radiation that would pale our visions of space
wars. There have also been total reversals of the magnetic poles and even of the seasons.
Gregg Easterbrook, a contributing editor of Newsweek, says of human forays against nature:
"Human assaults are pinpricks compared to forces of the magnitude nature is accustomed to
resisting." Easterbrook believes we should not be concerned about destroying the ecology. He
says:
"Our worry should be that the environment will slowly, and patiently, find a way to destroy us.
The full measure of the environment's toughness is how little it needs us, the sea otter, the
spotted owl, or any creature."
Indeed, science tells us that 99 percent of all the living things that once adorned Mother Earth
have become extinct.
For a moment, let's imagine that because of previously unidentified cataclysmic furies, the
human race was obliterated, in a flash, at 11:37 this morning. Did the planet suddenly become a
Garden of Eden? A firebrand environmentalist's Shangri-La?
Of course not. Somewhere a tornado's savage funnel is spewing devastation. A volcano is
preparing to expel gaseous despoliation into the atmosphere. The climate continues to change, as
it always has. Species such as cows and pigs and chickens -- species that existed because of
commercial value to humankind -- are beginning to vanish.
Freethinking environmentalists would have us believe that any human damage inflicted upon
nature is irreversible, unalterable. But science tells us that extinction is nature's only irreversible
event. Despite this, the American public not only believes our natural state is degenerating, it
believes that human damage is the cause.
Implausible as it may seem, a Louis Harris poll in 1990 revealed that most Americans rate the
environment more important than a satisfactory sex life. To my mind, the poll provides these
insights about our contemporary society:
But how is this possible? Three reasons:
A recent British study concludes that there are 15,000 environmental groups worldwide, with an
annual income exceeding $1.5 billion. Most of these organizations are in North America and
Western Europe. Their membership equals ten percent of the western world's population.
Then there was the "Return to the Ice Age" scare of the 1970s. Some of the folks who once
predicted a new Ice Age -- such as Schneider -- are the same people who today are shouting
"global warming! global warming!" This can only be attributed to the well-polished tactics of the
scaremongers, and to the emotional grip that environmentalism has on the western world. We
are being constantly barraged with examples of the ever-widening scholarly and intellectual split
between the environmental and scientific communities, and, just as damaging, of the misuse of
science. Perhaps some of the best examples of this destructive disparity and presentation of
bogus science are the debates over global warming, stratospheric ozone, and air pollution.
Global Warming
Let's examine global warming. Radical environmentalists who are in emotional discord over
technological progress and economic growth are pounding the global warming drum with a
fervor heard `round the world. Man-made emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases -- the
argument goes -- will cause massive flooding and other natural calamities. But a Gallop Poll of
eminent North American climatologists showed that 83 percent of them debunked the global
warming theory. And for good reason. Computer models used to support the global warming
theory have been roundly criticized, but almost exclusively in scholarly journals. Specifically:
It is a valid scientific fact that the manner in which heat is captured and released by bodies of
water suggests that the ocean warming assumed by global warming models is erroneous. This,
obviously, would have devastating consequences for the accuracy of the models. It is flawed
science of this sort that makes skeptics of prominent scientists. Hugh G. Ellsaesser, guest
scientist at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, has said about warming trends:
"There is almost universal agreement among atmospheric scientists that little...of the observed
warming (which, by the way, is less than one-half degree centigrade) of the past century can be
attributed to the man-induced increases in greenhouse gases."
Haroun Tazieff, a volcanologist, geologist, and former secretary of state for Prevention of
Natural and Technological Disasters for the French government, goes Ellsaesser one better:
"Global warming is an outright invention. It is absolutely unproven, and in my view it is a lie. A
lie that will cost billions of dollars annually...There is no danger from the CFCs to the ozone
layer, nor is there any danger from CO2, no greenhouse effect, nor any risk of any kind of global
warming. It is, to me, a pure falsehood."
And, noted climatologist Professor Robert Pease agrees. Pease shows mathematically that it is
impossible for chlorofluorocarbons to destroy large quantities of ozone in the stratosphere. His
contention is that relatively few CFCs are even capable of reaching the stratosphere in the first
place.
We should be very careful to protect our grandchildren's inheritance where global warming is
involved. At stake is nothing less than the advancement of technology and prosperity and quality
of life around the globe.
If some international organization, such as the United Nations, were to police the cap or the
reduction of carbon dioxide emissions, as they plan, it is difficult to imaging what would happen.
Professors Ben Bloch and Harold Lyons, in their book Apocalypse Not, say this move would cost
America trillions of dollars and create a bureaucratic control previously unknown. They also say
life expectancy in the Third World would plummet. And they said this about the scaremongers
who would institute CO2 controls:
"The prospect for such control is clearly an enticement to people who advocate the prevention of
global warming. Having been defeated at every turn in their quest to improve the condition of
mankind by control of the distribution of income and wealth, the old guard of socialists and
economic planners has formed itself into a new group of eco-socialists that has now an almost
perfect excuse for a new kind of social control: The economy can be blamed for every
conceivable quirk in the weather...that is the single genuine issue of the greenhouse effect...."
Stratospheric Ozone
The so-called harmful effects of man-made chemicals -- chlorofluorocarbons, or the familiar
CFCs -- on the earth's atmosphere is called "a showcase for the misuse of science." There is
evidence that carbon dioxide -- and other molecules consisting of more than two atoms -- absorb
infrared radiation and thereby might impede the escape of heat radiation from the earth's surface.
In fact, it is the greenhouse effect from naturally occurring CO2, and water vapor that has
warmed the earth's surface for billions of years. Without the natural greenhouse effect -- and
nature's depositing of 200 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year -- Planet Earth
would be frozen and without life.
The case against CFCs is not only conjectural, but it is increasingly evident that it is scientifically
deficient. These deficiencies start with computer models that have been proven fallacious. If the
doomsayers' computer simulations were practical, they would have accurately predicted weather
trends before measurements proved the trends had occurred. They have not done so. Let me
repeat: If their computer simulations were practical, they would accurately predict trends before
measurements proved they occurred.
Interestingly, one of the most famous of all computer model goofs occurred at the National
Academy of Sciences. This organization conducted a study using a model developed by several
of the scientists who originated the ozone-thinning theory. The "originators" model claimed
there would be an eighteen percent ozone decline. In this instance, the investigating scientists
were honest enough to release new figures. For example, within a few years the originator's
forecast was lowered from eighteen percent to seven percent and then to two percent!
It is unscientific, also, that the scaremongers withhold relevant information from the public. For
example, the fact that there are frequent -- sometimes even daily -- natural changes in the ozone
veil. These variations can total up to 50 percent of mass in some parts of the world. And the
public is never told that these natural changes last only a few weeks or that there is no resultant
lessening of ozone.
Definitely not in the scaremonger's lexicon is any talk about the benefits of ultraviolet radiation
or about the fact that there are hundreds of millions of people who require more radiation than
they are presently receiving. For skeletal land animals -- including man -- there is only one
natural source of Vitamin D -- which is required to metabolize calcium into bone. That single
source is the action of ultraviolet radiation on the skin's oils.
"The one person who has trouble making a buck out of environmental issues is the whistleblower
-- the one who says; `Hold up a minute. Let's look at the facts.' The lowly consumers and
taxpayers are getting stuck with the bill."
And, I might add, more and more of them:
Air Pollution
Actually, the most expensive environmental regulations currently in existence concern air
pollution. The Clean Air Act was instituted by Congress in 1963 and amended in 1970 and
1990. The act is responsible for the expenditure of literally hundreds of billions of dollars on
emission controls. But the most recent amendments extend far beyond the nation's
manufacturing companies, and impose sanctions on not only small business but also on
individual automobile owners. Soon, it could be the barbecue and the lawn mower.
What the public has been told by the scaremongers and what the public believes, because the
environment has been presented as an omniscient domain, is that air pollution poses a perilous
threat to human health and, without regulation and rigid government controls, air quality will
rapidly deteriorate. The scaremongers have done their job well. In the book The Population
Bomb, author Paul R. Ehrlich claimed a killer smog in Los Angeles was about to claim 90,000
lives. Former Senator Edmund Muskie (D-ME) made this public announcement in 1970:
"The air is getting dirtier rapidly...protection of public health can no longer be subservient to
considerations of economic and technical feasibility, particularly when those factors are
controlled by industry."
But, while statements like this were being made, all available data on airborne pollutants showed
something quite different. The National Air Pollution Control Administration, the predecessor of
the Environmental Protection Agency, established air monitoring stations in six cities during the
1960s. The national air sampling network had established several other stations earlier. Called
the Continuous Air Monitoring Project, it revealed some interesting facts about the period when
our nation's skies were supposed to be dangerously polluted:
The history of our nation's air pollution control regulations demonstrate how science can be
intentionally misused and twisted. Activists, journalists, and elected officials fanned public fears
of worsening air quality, even when studies proved that air quality was showing significant
improvement. Throughout the nation, human-influenced ozone levels have dropped by 74
percent since 1985. California is the only state with an ozone regulatory problem. But -- even
though most of California's ozone is produced by trees and other vegetation -- U.S. taxpayers
continue to shell out as much as $15 billion every year for fractional ozone reductions.
The Clean Air Act -- which costs taxpayers and industry billions of dollars every year -- is the
single most expensive piece of legislation ever enacted in the United States. The Environmental
Protection Agency has admitted that science was misused and disregarded when the original air
pollution standards were adopted in 1970. But the flawed statutes still exist, even though
existing standards are appropriate for only a few cities. And, even though air quality will
continue to improve without these standards.
I am sure that almost all of us believe that science has been our friend. Science helped solve the
problems confronting us, science helped us to improve our lives and our careers, and science
gave us the freedom to do what we wanted when we wanted to do it. Today, many Americans
have lost faith in science. They have lost faith in science because science has been misapplied,
misinterpreted, and misconstrued to advance the covetous cravings of those pious prophets who
would dictate our lives and lifestyles because -- as human beings -- we are considered
perpetrators of portentious evil.
The one thought that bothers me most about this treatise concerns our grandchildren's
inheritance. Will they be cheated of the colleague we had in science? Will their lives and
careers be bettered -- as our lives and careers have been -- by science? And, perhaps most
important, I wonder if the freedoms we enjoyed because of science will be vested upon our
grandchildren?
By Joan Veon
(Joan Veon is a Certified Financial Planner and the owner of Veon Financial Services. She has
attended numerous United Nations' conferences, G-7 meetings, and other international
gatherings. Her report here provides a comprehensive view of the inter-relationships that exist
in the global financial community. To get a copy of her regular newsletter, write to Veon
Financial Services, Inc., P.O. Box 1323, Olney, MD 20830-1323, or call (301) 924-2056.)
For two years, I have been piecing together a gigantic global puzzle--one with enormous
reach and power. My ability to understand the various pieces has been enhanced by
attending more than fourteen national and international conferences. Globalization and
all that it entails is at the heart of this puzzle. Globalization as I define it -- the blending together
of economies, people, laws, politics, monies and social ethics into one -- appears to be at a
crucial cross roads. In order to fully integrate the world economically, all remaining legislation
pertaining to banks and investment firms, specifically the Glass-Steagall Act, must be torn
down.
Representative Jim Leach, Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, told
the American Bar Association in May, "the reform of the Glass-Steagall Act is the most exciting
comprehensive banking bill of the century and more consequential than any prior legislation
excepting perhaps the Federal Reserve Act in 1913."
Is he correct? What in the world does this mean? What are the repercussions of this action?
What will be the impact on Americans?
There are many players in the economic globalization game. Some are known, while others
operate in anonymity -- which suits their purposes. As identified, they are: the
Dollar/Mark/Yen; the Federal Reserve Bank; the Glass-Steagall Act; the Group of Seven and the
Group of Ten; the Bank for International Settlements and two of their committees -- the Basel
Committee on Banking Supervision and the Tripartite; the International Organization of Security
Commissions (IOSCO); the GATT/World Trade Organization; the World Bank/International
Monetary Fund; the United Nations; and the stock market. Has the stock market performed well
two years in a row because the US economy is expanding or is it as a result of the globalization
process?
The Dollar/Mark/Yen - The Currency of Globalization
When I started to track the drop in the dollar against the German mark and Japanese yen in 1989
and 1990, there was no comprehension as to the magnitude and scope of what it entailed. In
1992, the book Euroquake, by Daniel Burstein, pointed out that the dollar, yen and mark would
be equal in value to one at some point in time. Today, they are equal within a ten percent
differential. It does not make any difference how you convert from dollars to marks or yen, using
that combination or any other combination, you get the same value within ten percent. In
essence, a global currency has been birthed. The sperm was the passage of the Emergency
Banking Act by Roosevelt and the egg was the severing of any relationship the dollar had to gold
August 12, 1971, when Richard Nixon closed the "gold window." It is the dollar which bore the
brunt of the birth pains as it has dropped anywhere from 57.7% to 63% against the mark and
anywhere from 68.1% to 77% against the yen from its original value in 1973. It is this
equalization of currencies that basically is the currency of globalization.
The Federal Reserve
The paper money in your wallet contains these words: "Federal Reserve Note - This note is legal
tender for all debts, public and private." Why does paper money not state that it is a note from
the Treasury of the United States? The Federal Reserve is not the Treasury; so what is it? The
Federal Reserve is a "central bank." To put it in every day terms, it is a private corporation
which claims to provide a service to the people of the United States by furnishing the money
which is used in our banking system.
Another way to look at it is that the monetary system of the United States is in the hands of a few
very wealthy and powerful individuals who control virtually every aspect of our economy. What
this means is that the power of the Federal Reserve exceeds and supersedes that of our President
and Congress. The Federal Reserve is not accountable to them. They have never published an
annual report and their meetings are not reported to the press until six months after they have
made a monetary decision.
Consider why Americans cannot forgive themselves the interest on the federal debt: it is because
they do not owe it to themselves, they owe it to a private corporation that demands interest.
How did we get a central bank? Here are three fine books on the subject: The Secrets of the
Federal Reserve, Eustace Mullins, Bankers Research Institute, 1993; The Federal Reserve-An
International Mystery, Thibaut deSaint Phalle, Praeger Press, 1984; and Tragedy and Hope,
Carroll Quigley, originally published by MacMillian, 1965. Dr. Carroll Quigley was Bill
Clinton's mentor from Georgetown University and the one to whom he paid special tribute at his
first Inaugural address.
To help understand how the Federal Reserve evolved "This Act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this bill, the
invisible government by the Monetary Power will be legalized...The worst legislative crime of
the ages is perpetrated by this banking bill." Congressman Charles A. Lindberg, Sr., page 28,
The Secrets of the Federal Reserve. (Quoted from his statement on the floor of the House on
12/22/13.)
"In this long overdue study of the Federal Reserve System in the United States, the author
carefully traces the historical development of the U.S. central banking system...He points out the
recurring efforts to substitute monetary policy for fiscal policy, which has resulted in inflation not
only in the United States but throughout the world...." Dr. Fritz Leutwiler, Chairman of the
Governing Board of the Swiss National Bank and former President of the Bank for International
Settlements, p. xi, The Federal Reserve.
In looking to define central banks, Dr. Quigley says:
"Notes were issued by....'banks of issue' and were secured by reserves of gold or certificates held
in their own coffers or in some central reserve...There were formerly many banks of issue, but
this function is now generally restricted to a few or even to a single 'central bank' in each country.
Such banks, even central banks, were private institutions, owned by the shareholders who
profited by their operations." (pp.54-55)
With regard to the evolution of central banks, the following were founded long before the
Federal Reserve: Bank of Sweden, the oldest , in 1668; the Bank of England in 1694; the Bank
of France in 1803; the Bank of Italy in 1861; the German Bundesbank in 1870; the Bank of
Japan in 1882; and the Bank of Canada in the 1930s. (The Central Banks, Marjorie Deane and
Robert Pringle, Viking Press, 1994).
The Federal Reserve has been amended more than 195 times since its founding. One of those
amendments, Section 25 (a), set up the Edge Act. It is this bill that allowed national banks to
establish foreign branches in order to conduct "international or foreign banking" activities.
Lastly, those who passed the original Act in 1913, would not recognize it today. Its power and
domain far surpass what was ever intended. The Fed is a very important member of the Band
for International Settlements (BIS).
The Group of Seven/Group of Ten
The Group of Seven (G-7) which comprises the top seven industrialized countries of the world
(the U.S., Canada, France, Germany, England, Italy and Japan), represent 65% of the world's
Gross Domestic Product and the majority of votes in the United Nations Security Council. They
have been meeting since 1973. President Nixon called a number of world leaders together to
help manage the international monetary affairs of the world. The G-7 has been behind every
phase of the globalization process. The G-7 have their own global structure as they review and
oversee the areas of finance, trade, justice, labor, employment, transportation and finance on a
worldwide basis. The UN agenda is driven by the G-7 countries as a result of their economic
strength and power in the Security Council.
The Information Super Highway was created and fostered by the G-7. It is the G-7 who are also
structuring the world police system to combat terrorism. At the last G-7 meeting in Lyon,
France, the G-7 renewed their determination to work together in partnership with leaders of other
countries in our "increasingly inter-dependent and inter-active world with rapid globalization."
(G-7 Final Communique from Lyon).
The Group of Ten (G-10) is an expansion of the Group of Seven as it includes Switzerland,
Holland, Sweden, Belgium and Luxembourg, the countries where five of the major money
centers of the world are located. (Although they control the wealth of the world, they can't add
very well as seven plus five equals twelve.) The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision
which is part of the Bank for International Settlements is comprised of the central banks from the
Group of Ten countries.
The Bank for International Settlements
Until recently, the name Bank for International Settlements (BIS) seldom made the newspapers.
Operating in great obscurity in Basel, Switzerland, this institution wields even greater power
than the Federal Reserve as it is considered the "central banks' bank." The BIS, operating on the
global level, coordinates with the "local central bank" in each country, the material changes in
domestic law necessary to bring the world monetary system into harmony or one. Over the years,
it has, like the Federal Reserve, amassed greater and greater control over more aspects of the
global monetary system.
According to Dr. Quigley:
Ten times a year, the heads of the world's major central banks -- the G10 countries -- meet "at
their supranational second home, the BIS at Basel....They [are] 'international freemasons,'
possessing a natural second allegiance to the often lonely interest of international monetary
order..." (The Confidence Game, Steve Solomon, Simon & Schuster, 1995, p. 28)
It was the Bank for International Settlements which designed the present borderless flow of
monies between countries when it pushed for the de-regulation of monetary laws of the major
North American, European, and Asian countries around the world, creating the monetary flow of
more than $1.2T (trillion) on a daily basis. It was the BIS which also designed a number of very
sophisticated investment instruments being used today, such as derivatives, futures and options.
It also paved the way for trading treasury bonds on a global basis.
Remember the Stock Market Crash of 1987? That event empowered the BIS to find support for
its "Basel Capital Accord" which extended the "Basel guidelines into comprehensive harmonized
global rules and oversight for all financial firms," according to The Confidence Game (p. 437).
Solomon writes that this Accord includes foreign exchanges, securities, derivatives trading and
interest rate fluctuations.
According to BIS report, "Changes in the Organization and Regulation of Capital Markets,"
published in March, 1987, any of the needed changes in national laws have been effected in
most countries to facilitate the BIS agenda. Since every country is different, the final
completion date for each country will vary. Some of the innovations encouraged by the BIS
include the issuance of new issues of bonds, Treasury bills and stocks, stock exchanges, new
auction procedures for bonds and the development of financial futures and/or options market.
In the U.S., these changes have come in the form of de-regulation and the tearing down of any
national law which would prohibit the free flow of money in or out of the country, as embodied
in the 1980 Monetary Control Act. This Act is the chief cornerstone that removed ALL of the
restraints in the U.S. banking system, such as the interest rate ceiling -- Regulation Q -- the
amount of interest a bank could pay on deposits. It also created NOW accounts for all depository
institutions and hence changed the definition of money which in turn changed the definition of a
bank, i.e. Merrill Lynch, a brokerage firm could now offer money market fund accounts. (The
Federal Reserve, p. 138)
The 1980 Monetary Control Act also erased Regulation D which set a minimum required
amount of reserves to be held by commercial banks. Because of how these laws are applied to
foreign branches of U.S. banks, it led the way for capital to leave the U.S. which opened the
door to the globalized world we see today.
The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision
This important and powerful committee is comprised of the central banks from the G-10
countries. This committee also works very closely with the International Organization for
Security Commissions (IOSCO) in harmonizing world security exchange regulations. It has been
said of The Basel Committee, as it is called, "Although the Committee focus is on supervision of
internationally active banks within the G-10 countries, its conclusions are generally applicable
for all banks no matter where they are...." (1995 IOSCO Annual Report) It might be noted that
the G10 represents the highest concentration of money, power and wealth that there is in the
world.
The Tripartite
In 1993, the Basel Committee created the
"Tripartite" which is comprised of bank
securities and insurance regulators from
around the world, "acting in a personal
capacity but drawing on their experience of
supervising different types of financial
institutions. The purpose...is to identify
problems which financial conglomerates
pose for supervisors and to consider ways in
which these problems might be overcome."
The term `financial conglomerate' means any
group of companies which offer more than
one financial services such as banking,
securities and insurance.
However, in Switzerland, Italy, Germany, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, all banks
consider securities, the ability to earn income and the syndication of stocks and bonds "as a
natural part of banking activity." The three organizations which make up this Tripartite are:
IOSCO, the BIS and a newly formed organization, the International Association of Insurance
Supervisors-IAIS. Note the combination of financial services (IOSCO), banks (BIS), and
insurance (IAIS). As you will see, the Tripartite is "paving the way for the World Trade
Organization's full passage and implementation of the Financial Services Agreement."
Financial Conglomerate Activities
Financial conglomerates have a different meaning in each country. For example, in Switzerland,
some conglomerates also carry out "leasing, factoring, foreign exchange and precious metal
trading with some large universal banks holding majority or minority participation in industry,
engineering, travel, hotels and other non-financial activities. In England, the majority of
financial conglomerates are predominately banking or insurance. In Canada, several large life
insurance companies own subsidiaries that are banks or in their terms, `near-banks.'" ("Changes
in the Organisation and Regulation of Capital Markets," March, 1987, BIS, p.xii)
In Holland, financial conglomerates developed rapidly following the liberalization of the so-called structural policy, which took place on January 1, 1990. In Italy, they have a law
separating banking and commerce, however, since 1990, their credit institutions have been able
to buy stock in insurance companies which in turn can own banks. In Canada, the government
revised its 1992 financial laws to allow financial institutions to buy insurance and investment
firms.
International Organization of Security Commissions-IOSCO
This international group of security commissioners has been meeting in obscurity since 1975.
The only place a person will hear of IOSCO is in global economic power circles and in industry
publications such as the World Securities Law Report. In describing itself, IOSCO says its
members are the "Securities and futures regulators, responsible to ensure in their own
jurisdictions high standards of transparency, integrity and investor protection, needed to
continuously adapt their regulatory framework and procedures to this changing environment.
The IOSCO is at the heart of this global cooperative effort. IOSCO is today the most relevant
technical cooperative forum for securities and future regulators and self-regulatory organizations
worldwide." (1995 IOSCO Annual Report, p. 2). It works very, very closely with a number of
BIS related groups. Its Technical Committee deals with (1) Standardizing Accounting Methods
on a global level, (2) the Regulation of Secondary (stock) markets and derivatives, (3) Regulation
of Market Intermediaries such as the Tripartite Group and the Enforcement and Exchange of
Information between all its 187 members.
General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs
At the United Nations Bretton Woods Monetary Conference back in 1944, the three-pronged
economic framework for a fully integrated world was established. The U.S. Senate confirmed
two of the three: the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The U.S. did not ratify
the International Trade Commission, the precursor to the World Trade Organization. In its place,
23 countries ratified the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs. Between 1948 and December,
1994 when GATT/WTO was finally passed by a lameduck Congress, fourteen GATT "Rounds"
had been held, including the Dillion, Kennedy, Tokyo, and Uruguay Rounds. At each of these
meetings further concessions were made in the negotiations of trade tariffs. Major categories for
trade include telecommunications, maritime transport services, Intellectual Property Rights
(TRIPS), Financial Services, the environment, competition policies, government procurement,
technology, labour, agricultural reform, and textiles. The GATT is more than 26,000 pages
long and no single article could ever explain or comprehend what this global agreement really
does or means. This massive Agreement whose intent it is to break down all of the trading
barriers in the world, will change everything. Given the above negotiations and the length of the
GATT document, it should be noted that trade is not "free." GATT/WTO represents a complete
dismantling of commerce and manufacturing as presently known. (WTO Press Release on
Financial Services, December 9-13, 1996).
The WTO Financial Services Agreement
The financial services sector is one of the three service sectors whose market-opening
negotiations were not completed during the Uruguay Rounds where basic principles for
implementing liberalization of services were agreed to. Currently only 29 countries are
participating in a second agreement made after the Uruguay Rounds. There are three more
meetings set for 1997 to complete the tearing down of the borders in the financial services
sector. According to the Uruguay Round, the following activities are considered financial
services: "insurance and related services -- life and non-life, reinsurance, insurance
intermediation such as broking and agency services, banking and other services -- acceptance of
deposits, lending of all kinds--consumer mortgage, commercial, financial leasing, all payments
and money transmissions services, trading in money market instruments, foreign exchange,
derivatives, exchange rate and interest rates instruments such as swaps and forward rate
agreements, securities and other negotiable instruments, gold, participation in new issues of
securities, money broking, asset management such as portfolio management or pension fund
management, settlement and clearing services for financial assets.... Because the commitments
vary so widely [among countries], it is difficult to summarize in precise terms what they mean.
There are common trends. In many countries, more foreign banks, securities firms and insurance
companies are being allowed to operate...with various conditions...attached. More asset
management and other financial services can be provided by wholly or partly foreign owned
companies..." (Emphasis added).
The World Bank/International Monetary Fund
Both of these institutions, comprising the key economic cornerstones for the global
infrastructure, were birthed at the UN Bretton Woods Conference in 1944. The World Bank has
evolved from its original mandate of making developmental loans to one of epic magnitude in
scope. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development-IBRD (the first piece of the
World Bank empire) and the International Development Association-IDA make loans to
developed and developing countries of the world. The International Finance Corporation-IFC,
established in 1956, promotes the development of capital markets or stock exchanges, brings new
stock to market through the privatization process and creates new financial instruments. The
"country" closed-end mutual funds were one of their ideas. Country funds became very popular
as a way to invest in specific countries. IFC is a major mover and shaker in the globalization
process as it works with 150 country funds and has leveraged $19 billion or 2000 companies in
125 countries. Then there is MIGA - the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency that provides
guarantees to foreign investors against losses caused by non-commercial risks. In 1996, they
issued 68 contracts covering $2.3 billion. ( Note: Non-commercial could include third world
governments and/or the kitchen-sink. A form of transfer of wealth with regard to those who end
up "holding the bag").
World Bank President James A. Wolfensohn, in his annual address in October said, "...We have
expanded our links with the UN and its agencies, the World Trade Organization and the
European Union...The Bank is working with governments to help them improve the policies and
legal, tax and judicial systems that are crucial for encouraging investment."
The International Monetary Fund is currently being restructured by the Group of Seven, the
World Bank, and the United Nations, to fulfill the functions of a "world central bank." In an
interview at the annual IMF/World Bank meeting in October, he referred to the IMF as just that.
As greater economic powers are conferred to the IMF, it has basically orchestrated the transfer
of growth from the north to the south (terms used to describe developed countries and developing
countries) through their economic policies. For example, the US has a growth rate of 2% while
China has a growth rate of 6%.
The United Nations
The United Nations holds more than 5,000 conferences a year in order to change the global
infrastructure in all areas of life so that it can fulfill its Charter which calls for "harmonization"
between all countries of the world. In essence, the UN and its fifteen plus agencies and
fourteen plus commissions act as a "global octopus," bringing all of the different commercial,
legal, economic, trade and social aspects of life under its sphere of influence. The World
Bank/IMF, World Trade Organization, World Postal Union, etc. all come under the auspices of
the UN.
The Glass-Steagall Act
As a result of the 1929 banking crash, Congress instituted two laws, the McFadden Act of 1927
which prevented interstate banking and the Glass-Steagall Act in 1933. With regard to the
McFadden Act, it was torn down several years ago with the ability of banks to cross state lines,
the merger activity in the banking industry is a direct result of this reversal of policy.
Glass-Steagall adopted five key changes to the Federal Reserve Act: (1) It created the FDIC to
protect bank depositors through insurance, (2) It restricts investment banking activities to acting
only for its own account, (3) It prohibits the affiliation of any bank to engage principally in
investment banking activities, (4) It makes it illegal for any depository institution to engage in
investment banking and receive deposits at the same time and (5) It prohibits interlocking
directorates and certain other links between member banks and firms or individuals primarily
engaged in investment banking. In short, it separated the functions of a bank from that of an
investment firm which underwrote stocks and bonds.
Currently the only way an American financial institution can own a foreign subsidiary is through
a foreign subsidiary, as in the case of Merrill-Lynch buying a British brokerage firm, Smith New
Court. The repeal of Glass-Steagall would allow foreign banks and brokerage firms to own
American banks and brokerage firms directly. It is conceivable that the largest bank in
American may one day be Mitsubishi Bank!
The statement by Congressman Jim Leach testifies to the concerted drive by a number of
globalists in Congress to break the Glass-Steagall Act. This action would in essence bring U.S.
banking institutions into conformity with other banks around the world. The BIS defines mega-banks -- banks that can offer insurance and underwrite and sell securities and other services -- as
"financial conglomerates." In essence, breaking Glass-Steagall would standardize our banking
system with the global banking system that is emerging as a result of the BIS orchestrated
changes in the national laws of all countries. For example, all banks could sell insurance, own
stock brokerage firms and syndicate stocks and bonds. Lastly, it would open the door to the
"Cashless Society" or "E-money" as many countries outside of the U.S. are further along in the
conversion of paper money to E-money than the U.S. is. The American banking system would
be in a position to facilitate this global change over. Without the repeal of Glass-Steagall, this
cannot happen. The FDIC is spearheading the E-money conversion.
Mr. Leach said that repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act "would make banks more meaningful...and
they would not be crippled by a regulatory environment in terms of their powers." He also
called for a National Insurance Commission, as other countries around the world have. Currently
each state, as protection against too much central power, have their own State Insurance
Commission. This may be part of the reason for the Federal Reserve approving the purchase of
Mitsubishi Bank's plan to buy the U.S. units of the Bank of Tokyo which will create the world's
largest bank with $826 billion in assets. (Washington Times, 3/9/96, A11).
Lastly, there is an old rule which says if you want to know who controls what, "follow the
money." According to the BIS, the world's banking assets are valued at more than $20T,
insurance premiums at $2T, stock market capitalization at over $10T and the market value of
listed bonds at $10T.
The 1996 Stock Market
The Dow Jones opened at 5117, and to the thinking of most experts, after 1995's gain of more
than 33%, it could not happen again. The only way 1996 could top 1995 is through
globalization and that is the only reason for its continued strength. As part of the globalization
process, there was an unprecedented $502B in mergers and acquisitions in 1995. That trend
continued in 1996. The Dow provides a wonderful example of the effects of globalization on the
market. It took the Dow ten years to close above 1000 on a permanent basis which it did in
1982, five years to break 2000 (1987) and four years to cross 3000 (4/17/91). By 1995, four
years later, the Dow crossed both 4000 (2/23/95) and 5000 (10/21/95). In 1996, 6000 arrived on
10/15/96. Today the Dow stands at another incredible high of 6550 possibly on its way to
7000 or 8000 or higher!
It has moved up and down like a roller coaster -- up anywhere from five points to as much as
127 points in one day (12/20/96), with the lows moving in the treacherous zone, falling
anywhere from 9 to 53 to 76 to 115 and 161 points on one day. Not to mention deadman's curve
on July 17 when it broke all barriers and plunged 212 points before climbing back 219 while
trading 877 million shares. Whew! (At the IOSCO Conference, the global security commissions
were quite smug in their belief that they have installed all of the regulation necessary to prevent
an economic collapse.)
Between November and December 12, 1996, the Dow gained 541 points or 9% in just one
month. Timothy R. Stives, a 20 year veteran who manages $760M in growth stocks, put it
correctly when he said, "We're on uncharted ground" (Business Week, 12/9/96). All this without
even a ten percent correction. The value of U.S. stocks has grown from $4.5 trillion to $7.3
trillion, as investors have pumped about $660 billion of new cash into stock mutual funds -- three
times the total assets in stocks funds in October, 1990. The real reason for this growth can be
summed up in one word -- globalization.
Adding to the picture is the fact that the Federal Reserve has not raised interest rates this year.
Interestingly enough, there has been tremendous press about the actions or inactions of the
Federal Reserve and the Dow. Perhaps, this is a way of adding to the Fed's already incredible
corporate powers. Out of all of the above stock market moves, the 127 point rise on December
20 merits very close consideration for it basically signals the next wave of mergers and
acquisitions. Only once did the radio announce that the reason for the rise was due to financial
stocks. The next morning, however, The Washington Times attributed the rise to "irrational
exuberance, or perhaps, Christmas spirit." Considering that this 127 point rise was the second
largest gain ever on the Dow, one has to wonder at such an explanation.
Then on December 21, there was an obscure article two sentences long which was the tenth item
in the business column of The Washington Times which read, "Fed Reduces Banking Barriers -
The Federal Reserve took another step yesterday toward eliminating the barriers between banking
and other financial services industries. The Fed Board of Governors voted unanimously to
increase the percentage of revenues bank subsidiaries may earn from underwriting and dealing in
securities to 25% from 10%." There it was. The action which could lead to the complete
dismantling of the Glass-Steagall Act. If a person were not watching carefully, he would not see
it. This was the real reason for the 127 point rise in the Dow, it was not "irrational exuberance."
In this regard, there was a pertinent article in Business Week, November 4, p.184, entitled,
"Crashing Through Glass-Steagall." It said, "With Congress safely out of town, federal
regulators are poised to enact new rules that will smash gaping holes in Glass-Steagall --separating commercial banks from investment banks. The Fed is expected to boost the share of
revenue that banks' securities affiliates can derive from underwriting corporate stocks and bonds
from 10% to 25%. In addition the Comptroller of the Currency plans to issue new rules by year
end to give banks broader entree into a range of financial services through new operating
subsidiaries. Those changes could enable the biggest commercial banks to acquire large Wall
Street Investment firms. In addition, he might also give banks more freedom to sell life and auto
insurance and create travel and real estate agencies. The Comptroller of the Currency's gambit is
an end run around lawmakers authority. Four U.S. Supreme Court verdicts have upheld his
authority to grant new bank powers. Wall street analysts predict that the one-two combo from
the Fed and Comptroller could set the stage for a spate of merges with U.S. and foreign banks
bidding for smaller brokers such as Lehman Brothers and Oppenheimer...."
When Congressman Leach said "the reform of the Glass-Steagall Act is the most exciting
comprehensive banking bill of the century and more consequential," do you now see the vast
global implications of his seemingly innocent statement? Behind the Fed's move is the Bank for
International Settlements in Basle, the Triparte --comprised of the Bank's Committee on
Banking, IOSCO and the International Insurance Association, the Group of Ten, the World Bank
and IMF who are orchestrating the financial economies of the countries of the world and the
World Trade Organization and the Financial Services Agreement. All of these groups and
organizations are pushing to harmonize banking laws in all the countries of the world which will
result in mergers and acquisitions on a global basis in banking, insurance and securities.
Recommended reading:
January / February 1997
Table of Contents
The New Guy in Your Future
Economic Globalization, Glass-Steagall and the Dow
About this edition...
Commentary
Maurice Strong
The new guy in your future!
According to Elaine Dewar, author of Cloak of Green. Strong is a Socialist. He was born into a
family who worked to get out the vote for Prime Minister Mackenzie King, who in 1943 was
promoting the National Council for Soviet-Canadian Friendship. Strong's cousin, Anna Louise
Strong, was a Marxist, and a member of the Comintern, who spent two years with Mao and Chou
En-lai. Her burial in China in 1970 was organized personally by Chou En-lai. Maurice is well
received in China, partly because of his cousin's connections.1
Endnotes
The UN and Property Rights
By 1992, the UN had learned to tone down its language and strengthen its arguments. The UN,
working in collaboration with its incredible NGO structure, operating at the behest of the
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN); the World Wide Fund for Nature
(WWF); and the World Resources Institute (WRI), made sure that the decade of the 1980s was
awash with propaganda about the loss of biodiversity and the threat of global warming.
Between 1976 and 1992 a new strategy for land use control
was devised. It is subtle, sinister, and successful. Reread
10.6(e) above: "Encourage the principle of delegating
policy-making to the lowest level of public authority consistent with effective action and a
locally driven approach." The reference to "public authority" here is not to elected city councils
or county commissions. The reference is to newly constituted "stakeholder councils" or other
bodies of "civil society" that consist primarily of professionals functioning as representatives of
NGOs affiliated with national and international NGOs accredited by the United Nations. This
strategy is becoming increasingly effective.
The election process and representative government created
by the U.S. Constitution is clearly unacceptable to the
PCSD, which wants "civil society" (read: NGO dominated
stakeholder councils) to become the local authority for not
only land use decisions, but for a variety of other policy
decisions as well.
Endnotes
How NGOs are Changing the World
There are two levels of accreditation. Accreditation by ECOSOC confers what is called
"consultative status." Accreditation by a subsidiary organization of ECOSOC authorizes
"observer status" at a specific UN conference or event. At the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de
Janiero, 1,400 NGOs were accredited as "observers," while more than 8,000 NGOs were
represented at the NGO Forum, held the week before the Earth Summit. Without question, these
NGOs are responsibile for the development of the global agenda, for the enactment of the
policies at the international level, for converting international policy into national laws and
regulations, and for the implementation of the new policies, laws, and regulations on the ground.
How have NGOs achieved such power? Why are they so effective in manipulating policy?
What role will they play in the future?
NGO activity is not spontaneous involvement of "civil society" as the agenda promoters would
have it appear. NGO activity is carefully organized and meticulously coordinated by the
triumvirate. NGOs are organizaed into coalitions. Three of the more important coalitions are the
Climate Action Network (CAN), which concentrates on climate change issues; BIONET, which
concentratates on biodiversity issues; and CITNET (Citizens' Information Network), which
concentrates on sustainable development issues. Each of these coalitions consist of hundreds of
NGOs scattered around the world. They are connected by the Internet.
Sovereignty International formed
1. UN Restructuring
2. Court of Criminal Justice
3. Global taxation
4. NGO integration (civil society)
1. Education
2. Telecommunications
3. Religion
1. Climate Change
2. Biodiversity protection
1. Population control
2. Food security
3. Sustainable development
4. International Trade (WTO)
5. Finance (IMF/WB/GEF)
6. Human settlements (Habitat II)
1. Disarmament
2. Convention of Status of UN Personnel
3. Convention on Chemical Weapons
Sovereignty International, Incorporated
Lubec, ME 04652
(207) 733-5593
(207) 733-2014 (fax)
Contributor $500
Sponsor $2000
Patron $5000
Chemical Weapons Convention before the Senate
International treaties frequently use language that is deliberately ambiguous, designed to present
objectives with which few can argue. The details are left to be negotiated by unelected
bureaucrats long after the treaty has been ratified. The Vienna Convention on Ozone Depleting
Substances serves as an excellent example. The treaty itself required only that the ozone layer
would be monitored. Who could argue against such a bland requirement. Unelected bureaucrats,
however, subsequently developed the Montreal Protocol to the treaty which resulted in the
banning of freon -- long after the treaty had been ratified. The Framework Convention on
Climate Change (FCCC), which the U.S. has ratified, requires only voluntary measures to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. Unelected bureaucrats are now negotiating another legally-binding
protocol which will require a reduction in the use of fossil fuels. The Chemical Weapons
Convention is another treaty that leaves the details to be developed by unelected bureaucrats.
Many Americans believe there is a devil somewhere in those details.
Congressman Henry Hyde, Chairman of the House
Judiciary Committee is also concerned about the Chemical
Weapons Convention. In an August letter to Senator
Hatch, Hyde said:
Good Science: Our Grandchildren's Inheritance
Here is a presentation he gave to
the
Society of American Foresters at its national convention in Albuquerque, New Mexico,
November 12, 1996
Perhaps our best hope at this point is to expect that the half-truths and untruths of the doomsayers
will eventually sour the public on radical environmentalism. After all, we once had scares about
red dye, cyclamates, cranberries and mercury in fish. Science made those scares go away.
Ignored by the doomsayers is a sky-high marvel named
Tiros II. Tiros is a temperature-measuring satellite. It
orbits, pole-to-pole, over oceans and land, and it makes
continuous temperature reports, 24-hours a day. This data -- which is voluminous -- shows absolutely no significant
temperature trends, either up or down, at any time. The
actual maximum increase measured by Tiros from space
was 0.065 degrees centigrade. That figure represents a
natural variation. Here are a few pertinent -- and proven --
scientific facts that the doomsayers are more than pleased to overlook:
Now, we know that a shortage of Vitamin D causes rickets
-- soft and deformed bones -- in children. And we know
that Vitamin D deficiency, coupled with the normal bone
loss that accompanies aging, causes osteomalacia, or
softening of the bones. About 25 percent of American
women suffer from this condition. And there are twice as many bone fractures every year,
usually of the femur, as there are new cases of skin cancer. Recent studies show a positive
relationship between the effects of UV radiation and a suppression of osteomalacia. There has
been lots of bad science applied to contemporary physical phenomena. But what about our
grandchildren? How will bad science affect their inheritance? Ellsaesser says:
Who Controls the Money?
Economic Globalization, Glass-Steagall and the Dow
and
the magnitude of the impact of our whole monetary system
being outside of the control of the U.S. Treasury, the
following quotes are provided:
"...the powers of financial capitalism had another far-
reaching aim, nothing less than to create a
world system of financial control in private
hands able to dominate the political system
of each country and the economy of the
world as a whole....The apex of the system
was to be the Bank for International
Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private
bank owned and controlled by the worlds'
central banks which were themselves private
corporations. Each central bank in the hands
of men like Montagu Norman of The Bank
of England, Benjamin Strong of the New
York Federal Reserve Bank, Charles Rist of
the Bank of France, and Hjalmar Schacht of
the Reichsbanks (Bundesbank-Germany) sought to dominate its government by its ability to
control.... The BIS is generally regarded as the apex of the structure of financial capitalism
whose remote origins go back to the creation of the Bank of England in 1694 and the Bank of
France in 1803.... It was set up rather to remedy the decline in London as the worlds' financial
center by providing a mechanism by which a world with three chief financial centers in London,
New York, and Paris could still operate as one." (Tragedy and Hope, p. 324)
They note in their report, "The Supervision of Financial Conglomerates," that "as the
deregulation of domestic financial markets has progressed over the past decade in tandem with
the growing internationalisation of markets, a notable development has been the emergence of
corporate groups which provide a wide range of financial services" including: insurance,
financial services and banking. Interestingly enough, the US does not have "financial
conglomerates" because the Glass-Steagall Act prohibits it.
In an interview with the Assistant Secretary-General of IOSCO, he called his organization, "The
UN of Securities Regulators." Arthur Levitt, the SEC Commissioner calls IOSCO, "The single
organization that brings securities regulators from around the world." He further states that,
"There has never been a greater need for us to work together. We regulate one of the most
innovative industries on the face of the earth, whose main commodity -- capital -- has little
regard for national borders. We must expand our
cooperation to cover regulatory issues beyond
enforcement." The activities of IOSCO basically make it a
"global Security and Exchange Commission," i.e. a global
regulatory body which is bringing together national laws to
conform to an international jurisdiction over the whole
global marketplace.
It is important to point out some of the World Bank's major
programs, such as their Environmentally Sustainable
Development Division. Established in 1993, the World
Bank mandate states "development could be achieved and
sustained only through the integration of economic, social, technical and ecological dimensions.
The Environmentally Sustainable Development division is concerned with water management,
agriculture and forestry, urban and industrial management, social issues, biodiversity and the
Global Environment Facility." The World Bank, as a whole, is involved in much more and
basically wants to be your bank!
published by
Bankers Research Institute, P. O. Box 1105, Staunton, VA 24401;
Praeger Press,
1984; and
This book is available today because Dr. Quigley gave the rights to the
American Opinion Press after it was banned by MacMillian.
To order this 1300 page
masterpiece, Call 1-408-475-6651.