Response to the term "global governance"
engenders either hope or fear among
Americans. Many people -- including
billion-dollar donor Ted Turner -- see global
governance as a new opportunity for peace
and prosperity around the world; others see
the loss of individual freedom, property
rights, national sovereignty -- and ultimately,
inescapable oppression. Few, however,
understand what global governance is, how it
operates, or what its ultimate impact may be.
Global governance differs from previous attempts to establish world government: there is no marauding military force marching behind a modern day Hitler, nor will the question be put to a vote by a "league" of nations. Global governance is simply being constructed by an incredibly small number of people who have developed an ingenious strategy and structure to achieve objectives that have been pursued for centuries.
There is no conspiracy. Throughout most of the 20th century, the strategy evolved in secrecy among individuals and organizations that are now readily identifiable. The "conspiracy theories" advanced in the past are now all put to rest by the publication of dozens of official United Nations documents which lay bare both the argument for global governance, and the plan by which it is to be achieved. Indeed, many people of the world can draw hope from the emergence of global governance because its primary objective is to provide "security" for all people of the world. Global governance aspires to provide -- to every person on earth -- security from the threat of war, environmental degradation, and from the injustice of poverty, intolerance, and disease. The oppressed people of the world surely take great hope from such noble aspirations. The central theme of global governance is embodied in the concept of "sustainable development:" the integration of economic activity with social justice and environmental protection.
The United Nations is neither the instigator of the strategy nor the architect of the structure. Those honors fall to three international NGOs (non-governmental organizations): the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN); the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF); and the World Resources Institute (WRI). A part of the structure is a system of accreditation by the UN for consultation with NGOs. Of course, these three NGOs are fully accredited by the UN, and, in fact, operate programs jointly with the UN and publish major documents under joint authorship. Membership of the IUCN includes more than 100 government agencies (the U.S. State Department contributes mores than $1 million annually to the IUCN), as many sovereign nations, and 550 other NGOs, such as the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Federation, The Nature Conservancy, and most of the other mainstream environmental organizations, many of which have independent UN accreditation or are granted benefits of accreditation by virtue of their affiliation with accredited NGOs.
The concept of accreditation was pioneered by the IUCN, which successfully lobbied the UN to
adopt ECOSOC Resolution 1296, May 23, 1968, authorizing the participation of accredited
NGOs. Maurice Strong defined the role NGOs play, originally in preparation for the first Earth
Summit in 1972, of which he served as
Secretary General. Strong, more than any
other individual, shaped the role of NGOs in
UN activity by serving on the boards of the
IUCN, the WWF and currently as Chairman
of the WRI. While concurrently serving on
the board of the Rockefeller, and other
foundations, and serving several
administrative capacities with the UN --
including the position of Executive Director
of the United Nations Environment
Programme -- Strong maximized the
influence of NGOs, both in policy
development and policy implementation. By
coordinating the lobbying, litigation, and public relations act ivities of the local 
affiliates of
accredited NGOs, policies developed by the UN were readily adopted by national governments.
The growth in influence of environmental organizations between 1970 and 1990 was
phenomenal -- and no accident. It was the result of carefully crafted strategies, coordinated
tactics, and targeted funding by private foundations and the federal government. Accredited
NGOs are the principal instrument of both the development and implementation of global
governance.
Proponents need no marauding armies, nor do they need to risk rejection of their policies by the U.S. Congress or other elected bodies of government. They have learned how to achieve their objectives without armies while by-passing those people who were elected to make public policy. The great dangers of global governance lie in both the policies, and in the process by which those policies are implemented. The policies of the United Nations are, in fact, the policies of the NGOs that drive the UN agenda. The UN is the mechanism through which those policies are given official status through international treaties and "soft law" documents such as Agenda 21, the UN Declaration on Human Rights, the Earth Charter, and dozens of "Plans of Action" adopted by various UN conferences, commissions, and working groups.
The process of global governance is transforming the social structure of the world. In many countries where public policies are established by the current dictator, the process of global governance may be a welcome alternative. In a Constitutional Republic such as America, the process is a repudiation of the proven principles of self governance which produced the greatest advance in social progress in the history of the world. The U.S. government should be working to influence the international community to adopt the principles of self government which produced America; instead, the U.S. government is working to influence American citizens to adopt principles of governance that have consistently failed -- under a variety of names -- throughout history.
The first principle of global governance is the centralization of power -- while claiming to decentralize power. The power to develop global social policies is already centralized in the partnership between accredited NGOs and the United Nations. Evolving between the two Earth Summits -- in only two decades -- the power to pronounce global social policy is abundantly demonstrated in Agenda 21, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Framework Convention on Climate Change, all products of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.
The centralization of power to implement global policies is also largely established through the coordinating capabilities of the accredited NGO community and the various governments and governmental agencies that hold IUCN membership. The rapid implementation of Agenda 21 could not have occurred without substantial coordination among the NGO community and government agencies. The Earth Council, an international NGO created and chaired by Maurice Strong shortly after the Rio Conference, has promoted and coordinated the creation of National Councils on Sustainable Development in 180 nations. In the United States, the President's Council on Sustainable Development, is working hand-in-glove with accredited NGOs and federal agencies affiliated with the IUCN to implement Agenda 21.
Centralization of the power to enforce global policies is not yet fully developed. The World Trade Organization (WTO) is the most significant step toward concentrating enforcement power in the United Nations. The WTO has the power to enforce trade sanctions against nations and against individual industries within nations. The WTO Charter implies a power to enforce environmental treaties and has been actively discussed by climate change negotiators as a possible mechanism for enforcing greenhouse gas emissions reductions on the United States and other developed countries.
New enforcement mechanisms are being created, including an International Criminal Court, supported by a panel of prosecutors who will be authorized to investigate within the sovereign borders of any member nation -- without interference from national governments. Disarmament negotiations continue, with the ultimate objective being to place control of manufacture and distribution of all munitions under the authority of the UN. A world army, under the command of the UN Secretary General, is the final step in centralizing the enforcement power. Until enforcement power is centralized, national laws and enforcement mechanism are utilized through the third-party law suit provisions of environmental legislation enacted since the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act -- a technique introduced by NGOs.
Another principle of global governance is to limit participation in the policy process -- while claiming to expand democratic participation. For those people who live under the rule of a dictator, and have no participation in policy development, the UN process may be, again, a welcome alternative. In America, the process -- euphemistically called a collaborative consensus process -- is a major step backward. It is a process that has been adopted by the President's Council on Sustainable Development, the federal government, and the accredited NGOs selected to participate in the policy process.
Agenda 21 is a non-binding "soft law"
document developed by the three primary
international NGOs, and their affiliates, under
the auspices of United Nations resolutions. It
is a massive collection of policy
recommendations that encompass virtually
every aspect of human life. The President's
Council on Sustainable Development,
consisting of carefully selected
representatives from accredited NGOs,
federal agencies, and a few individuals who
are described as representing industry, spent three years Americanizing Agenda 21's policies and
is now in the process of implementing those policies at the local level through a nationwide
campaign, funded to a large extent by the federal agencies that helped develop the policies. The
PCSD's own very generous estimate is that about 5000 people have followed its work. A much
smaller number of people actually produced the work. As few as 100 people, most of whom are
either PCSD staff or liaisons with accredited NGOs produced the work proudly entitled
Sustainable America: A New Consensus. Congress has played no role in the development of
national policies that are being implemented across the land.
The American government was designed to maximize individual freedom and to protect individual, inalienable rights. Government was charged with performing those specific, enumerated functions that individuals could not perform for themselves. In addition to national defense, a system of fair and impartial courts, the new American government created a new process for the development of public policy. Public policy, in America, should rise from the wishes of the people through elected representatives. Conflicting ideas should be resolved through free and open debate and ultimately resolved by a public, recorded vote of the officials who are responsible to the electorate. The process is open to all who wish to participate. The process is inefficient. It is boisterous, noisy, and subject to political pressures. Public policy advances at a snail's pace. But the process eliminates much imprudence and produces the best policies human minds are capable of producing at the time. Most importantly, the process provides the electorate with direct accountability and recourse to their elected officials if they wish to change a public policy.
The new policy development process -- collaborative consensus building -- is far more efficient. It is far more orderly. But the new process fails the two most critical tests required by our Constitution: policies do not rise from the people governed through their elected representatives; nor are the policy makers accountable to the electorate. The new policy development process begins with policies developed by the international community of accredited NGOs. The PCSD began with Agenda 21 and simply Americanized its language. As the agencies of the federal government move across the land to implement the policies, elected government bodies are systematically bypassed and implementation is effected in spite of elected officials, rather than because of the elected officials' response to constituent wishes.
The process by which elected government bodies is bypassed is ingenious. Agencies of the federal government, working in collaboration with selected NGOs will target a community or a region for the implementation of Agenda 21 policies. The NGO may be recognizable as an affiliate of a mainstream environmental organization, or it may be a new organization created specifically for the purpose of working on a single project. The NGO gives the appearance of a local citizens' initiative. The NGO, which often is nothing more than a few professionals masquerading as a grassroots organization, typically will recruit officials from local, or state government agencies who are induced to participate by the promise of federal grants. Other NGOs and influential civic leaders are privately recruited to support the convening of a "visioning, or stakeholders" council to begin the process of developing a vision of a better -- sustainable -- community. If there happens to be a local elected official who has demonstrated sympathy with the aims of the NGO, he or she is recruited to give the appearance of government support. Often, elected officials are totally ignored until the very end of the process.
Using the consensus process, the convener will engage a trained facilitator to lead the carefully selected group of invited participants through a series of exercises designed to reveal the agenda and eliminate dissent. This phase of the process is called "capacity building." The immediate objective of this phase is to develop a planning document that can be said to represent the consensus of the stakeholders within the community. In reality, the plan represents only the interests of those chosen to participate, usually on the basis of known, or suspected agreement with the aims of the convener. The geographic area of the plan almost always encompasses more than one political jurisdiction. This is a necessary element to justify the activity of the selected group rather than to take policy proposals to a governmental body. Agenda 21 and Sustainable America: A New Consensus, specifically call for the creation of "transboundary" councils.
As the first phase of the process nears completion, the media is courted to begin building public support for the objectives expressed in the planning document. It is at this point that the general public first becomes aware that public policies are being formulated for them by self-appointed individuals who are not accountable to the electorate. As the process unfolds, federal grants are promised and frequently, dignitaries are called upon to endorse the work of the council. The idea is to generate so much public support through the media that elected officials are afraid to question or oppose the initiative. A few courageous elected officials have resisted the process only to be ridiculed publicly by powerful NGOs, and the media.
Through memoranda of agreement, and other devices, the council secures authority to "coordinate" the activities addressed in the plan among the government agencies operating within the plan area. Somewhere along the way, the council itself usually incorporates as a not-for-profit NGO in order to become eligible for federal and foundation grants. Once the process has reached this point, implementation of the UN's Agenda 21 is well underway.
All the while the federal government and the accredited NGOs are busily implementing Agenda 21, they can -- and often do -- say that the policies have nothing to do with the United Nations. They can say, factually, that the United Nations has no authority over national policies, that national sovereignty has not been infringed, and moreover, they can point to a series of public meetings and identify a variety of "public interest groups" that participated in what is called a transparent democratic process. The result is the implementation of UN policies that effectively bypass elected governmental bodies.
Global governance advocates envision a world in which all people are free from the threat of war, are guaranteed to have at least their basic nutritional needs met, and adequate housing. UN policy documents assert that all people have a "right" to this "security," and a "right" to a clean and healthy environment, and a "right" to be free from intolerance and discrimination. But these "rights," granted by government, come with the "responsibility" to behave as the government dictates. The result is a managed society.
Given the condition in which most of the world lives, it is easy to understand why most of the world eagerly awaits the arrival of global governance. Many people who have little or nothing welcome the idea of being managed in order to have the security of food and shelter.
Throughout Europe and the Scandinavian countries, governments are providing their citizens with more security against job loss, hunger, and homelessness. CBS's 60 Minutes recently featured Norway, and their system of social justice. Norway -- never a part of the Communist bloc -- is considered to be a democratic nation. But its form of government is vastly different from democracy in America.
In Norway, workers have the option of taking off work for 42 weeks for child birth -- and receive full salary. Or, they may choose to take 52 weeks off at 80 percent of their salary. All medical expenses are paid by the state. Education is free. Subsidies are available from the government for everything from housing to custom-made car seats -- and for automobiles and the money to operate them. The crime rate is almost non-existent -- no one needs to steal anything, they simply apply to the government for whatever they want. People in other countries, including America, who have less than they need
look longingly for a system of governance that will supply those needs. Global governance seeks to provide those needs to every person on earth.
How does Norway do it? If Norway, and other social democracies in Europe can do it, why should we not transform the world into a social democracy under the benevolent auspices of the United Nations?
Analysis of Agenda 21, and related UN documents, demonstrate that the concept of Sustainable Development is, in fact, nothing more than a new name for the form of government in effect in Norway -- a social democracy. Gro Harlem Brundtland, Prime Minister of Norway during the 1980s, Chair of the 1987 Brundtland Commission which introduced the concept of global sustainable development, and Vice Chair of the 1992 UNCED, at which the concept was adopted in Agenda 21, strongly influenced the direction that global governance is taking the world.
Norway's taxes are among the highest in the world -- between 60 and 70 percent of income, depending on whose data is accepted. Industry works, not for shareholders, but to provide revenue to the state to equalize the wealth. In UN language, this is called "sharing equitably in the benefits of resources." The recipients of this equity strongly support the idea of redistributing wealth; the providers, in Norway and other social democracies, have no choice. So what's wrong with a system that provides everyone with what they need?
A lot. Such a system is not sustainable. The Soviet Union offers abundant proof. Socialist purists, such as Brundtland, and Maurice Strong, counter that the Russian leadership got greedy and became corrupt. Duh..... That is the point, or one of them.. What happens to citizens who become addicted to government handouts, when the government can not, or will not continue to hand out? To whom do the citizens turn for redress?
And the time will come when government cannot continue to hand out. More likely, the time will come first when the government will not, continue to hand out. But the can not is inevitable. Historically, in such systems, the government simply prints more money to meet the increasing demands of its addicted citizenry. Each new infusion of manufactured money devalues the entire money supply. Collapse is inevitable -- demonstrated time and time again.
In a global system, however, it will take decades, if not a century or more, to drain America and other capitalist nations of their wealth. The developing nations of the world will have a hey-day, and worship the wonderful United Nations redistribution machine. Under the expanding system of global governance, the developing nations will develop, and the developed nations will un-develop. As the dream of global governance is realized, America will diminish as the rest of the world rises -- until there is an economic equilibrium. In UN-speak, it is called "social equity."
The integration of economic, environmental, and social justice activity is "sustainable development," which is no more than government control of economic activity to assure equal distribution of wealth -- once called socialism.
- eco-logic staff