Error processing SSI file
U.N. “World Summit” Document Expands Power of World Body;
National Sovereignty Undermined and Children’s Rights Treaty Endorsed
A PEEK INSIDE THE UNITED NATIONS BOOKSTORE:
While Ambassador John Bolton managed to water down references to global taxes in the U.N.’s final “2005 World Summit Outcome” document, the completed declaration still runs contrary to U.S. interests and glorifies the United Nations as the solution to humanity’s problems.
The World Summit was a stage for lunatics and enemies of the U.S., including Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Iran’s terrorist President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as well as anti-American non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
At a news conference, Chavez referred to “beloved Cuba” and called Cuban dictator Fidel Castro an expert on hurricanes who linked their intensity to climate change and global warming. He called the U.S. a “terrorist state” and said the war in Iraq was illegal and immoral.
Urging the creation of a “New International Economic Order” and a “New International Political Order,” Chavez said the right to veto by permanent members of the U.N. Security Council should be abolished and that the General Assembly “must have more power” in the world organization.
Chavez supporters distributed a little brown pamphlet to reporters showing the face of Chavez on the cover with the quotation: “We must not let our arms fall or our souls rest until we have saved humanity!”
On the critical matter of the World Summit document and global taxes:
- The “solidarity contribution on airline tickets,” an international tax on airline travel, is still in the document but is said to be an initiative of “some countries” that will implement it “utilizing their national authorities” and not through the U.N. or a global facility. This distances the U.S. from such a proposal. However, the watering down of these provisions will not do anything to stop the push by U.N. agencies, member states such as France and Brazil, and NGOs to continue to press for global taxation schemes to be imposed on the U.S.
- The phrase, “innovative sources of financing,” a euphemism for global taxes, is still in the document but is now described as being based on a possible “public, private, domestic or external basis,” whatever this is supposed to mean.
In an unprecedented and ominous move, the document endorses the so-called “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P), calling for the U.N. Security Council to “help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.” This is a dramatic expansion of U.N. power that gives the world body the right to intervene in the internal affairs of member states. The proposal, which undermines the sovereignty of nations, has been promoted by the government of Canada and the World Federalist Movement.
The pro-world government World Federalists called this provision one of the “few successes” of the World Summit.
In another surprise to conservatives, the document calls upon member states to adopt the Convention on the Rights of the Child, a treaty that justifies U.N. interference in how families raise their children and has been interpreted to prohibit spanking.
At first, the U.S. had objected to references to the “Millennium Development Goals” (MDGs) because they suggested the U.S. had to meet U.N. demands to spend a certain percentage of Gross National Product on foreign aid. But the MDGs stayed in the document. And President Bush, in his U.N. speech, declared that, “We are committed to the Millennium Development goals.” The U.S. position is that it supports “the development goals of the Millennium Declaration” but not the detailed and mandatory “Millennium Development Goals,” which were cooked up by Annan and never formally adopted by member states. This is apparently why, in the president’s speech, the “g” in goals was lower case.
Still, Annan adviser Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, claims the U.S. owes $845 billion in additional foreign aid spending under the MDGs. Sachs runs the U.N.’s “Millennium Project.”
In his speech to the world body, President Bush pleased the U.N. by suggesting that poverty breeds terrorism. This formulation justifies more foreign aid spending. Bush also urged the Security Council “to put the terrorists on notice” by voting for a resolution “that condemns the incitement of terrorist acts.” The Security Council did so but didn’t define the word “incitement.”
The president said, “We must complete the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism that will put every nation on record: The targeting and deliberate killing by terrorists of civilians and non-combatants cannot be justified or legitimized by any cause or grievance.” But the U.N. can’t agree on a definition of terrorism.
Bush endorsed a U.N. “Democracy Fund,” saying, “Through the new U.N. Democracy Fund, the democratic members of the U.N. will work to help others who want to join the democratic world. It is fitting that the world's largest democracy, India, has taken a leadership role in this effort, pledging $10 million to get the fund started. Every free nation has an interest in the success of this fund -- and every free nation has a responsibility in advancing the cause of liberty.”
Citizens for Global Solutions, the U.S. arm of the World Federalist Movement, strongly endorses the proposal. But the notion that the fund will support or promote U.S.-style democracy has been shot down by the U.N. itself. The U.N. says the Democracy Fund “will not support any single model of democracy” and that Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said that “democracy does not belong to any single country or region.”
In one of its sillier provisions, the World Summit document claims that “sports can foster peace and development” and urges “discussions in the General Assembly for proposals leading to a plan of action on sport and development.” The document also recommends adoption of the U.N. Convention against Corruption, despite the corruption problems at the U.N. itself.
Some other odious provisions include:
- Numerous references to “strengthening” the U.N., including in the peacekeeping area and “for the prevention of armed conflict.”
- Endorsing creation of “an initial operating capability for a standing police capacity” to assist U.N, peacekeeping operations.
- Encouraging the European Union “and other regional entities” to develop “capacities for rapid deployment, standby and bridging arrangements” to assist U.N. peacekeeping.
- Supporting implementation of the 2001 Program of Action to Prevent Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, which could evolve into a threat to the U.S. 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms
- Endorsing a “Peacebuilding Commission” at the U.N. to further interfere in the affairs of U.N. member states but is unclear about how it will work or who it reports to.
- Encouraging the integration of a “gender perspective” into peacekeeping efforts.
- Affirming “the authority of the Security Council to mandate coercive action to maintain and restore international peace and security,” despite its obvious failures in this area.
- Reaffirming that the Security Council has “primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.”
- Urging “a comprehensive convention on international terrorism,” while U.N. member states cannot agree on how to define the term “terrorism,” and acknowledging “the important role played by the United Nations in combating terrorism.”
- Promoting adoption of the “International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism,” even though terrorism is not defined, and urging countries to adopt 12 international conventions and protocols against terrorism.
- Several positive references to “sustainable development,” a term regarded as a euphemism for government-run or managed economies.
- Numerous references to increasing foreign aid and debt relief for Third World countries, despite the lack of evidence that it benefits the poor.
- Encouraging the involvement of radical non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the affairs of the U.N.
- Affirming without proof that there is evidence of human “interference” in the climate system.
- Committing the U.S. to the stabilization of “greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere,” despite the lack of evidence that the U.S. can do anything about the phenomenon.
- Promoting the “transfer of technologies” to the Third World on “clean energy and climate change.”
- Acknowledging the “invaluable role of the Global Environment Facility,” a controversial U.N. body whose projects have included helping Enron develop China’s coal resources.
- Advocating “equal access to reproductive health,” a euphemism for abortion rights, and calling for “Achieving universal access to reproductive health by 2015.”
- Urging implementation of the recommendations of the World Summit on the Information Society, where some have advocated U.N. control of the Internet.
On other matters:
- The document advocates creation of a U.N. Human Rights Council that would presumably exclude the human rights violators that make up the U.N. Human Rights Commission. But it does not explain how this will be accomplished.
- Urges improved U.N. anti-corruption measures. But the document leaves the details and implementation to the U.N. General Assembly, a corrupt body.
- Condemns sexual exploitation and abuse by U.N. peacekeeping personnel. But it admits that measures to combat the problem have not yet been implemented.
- Welcomes Secretary-General Annan’s “efforts to ensure ethical conduct” and “more extensive financial disclosure for United Nations officials” and protection for U.N. whistleblowers. The details and follow-up, however, are unclear.
- Calls for progress against such diseases such as malaria. But it does not recommend the use of a proven insecticide, DDT, to combat the problem.