The Rise of Global Governance Part I
The desire to rule the world has been a part of the human experience throughout recorded history. Alexander the Great led Greece to dominance of the known world, only to become the victim of Rome’s quest for world dominance. The Roman Empire, built on bloody battlefields across the land, was swallowed up by the Holy Roman Empire, built on the fear and hopes of helpless people. History is a record of the competition for global dominance. In every age, there has always been a force somewhere, conniving to conquer the world with ideas clothed in promises imposed by military might. The 20th century is no different from any other: Marx, Lenin, and Hitler reflect some of the ideas which competed for world dominance in the 1900s. The competition is still underway. The key players change from time to time, as do the words that describe the various battlefields, but the competing ideas remain the same.
One of the competitors is the idea that people are born free, “totally free and sovereign,” and choose to surrender specified freedoms to a limited government to achieve mutual benefits. The other competitor is the idea that government must be sovereign in order to distribute benefits equitably and to manage the activities of people to protect them from one another. The first idea, the idea of free people, is the idea that compelled the pilgrims to migrate to America. The U.S. Constitution represents humanity’s best effort to organize and codify the idea of free people sovereign over limited government. It is a relatively new idea in the historic competition for world dominance.
The other idea, the idea of sovereign government, is not new. Historically, the conqueror was the government. The Emperor, the King, the conqueror by whatever name, established his government by appointment and established laws by decree. Variations of this idea emerged over time to give the perception that the people had some say in the development of law. The Soviet Union, for example, held elections to choose its leaders; but the system assured the outcome of the elections as well as the ultimate sovereignty of the government. During the 1700s, the first idea was ascendant as evidenced by the creation of America. During the 1900s, the second idea has again become ascendant as evidenced by the emergence of global governance. This report identifies and traces some of the major forces, events, and personalities that are responsible for the rise of global governance in the 20th century.
The League of Nations (1900-1924)
Competition for world dominance was fierce in the first quarter of the 20th century. New, dynamic ideas emerged to fill the vacuum created by the crumbling British Empire and the end of the colonial era. At the turn of the century, America, though hardly a world leader, was expanding rapidly. Economic and technological advances attracted worldwide interest. Halfway around the world, another idea was taking hold. The oppression of Nicholas II in Russia, combined with the influence of Karl Marx, gave rise to the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (Bolsheviks) which became the Socialist Revolutionary Party. Under the leadership of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, the party platform called for the “establishment of nurseries for infants and children in all shops, factories, and other enterprises that employ women”1 and for the “nationalization and re- distribution of land.”2 What began as a rebellion against the oppression of government sovereignty as imposed by Czar Nicholas was hijacked by Lenin who, with his colleagues Stalin and Trotsky, promptly replaced the Czar’s oppression with their own. Within weeks after Nicholas’ assassination, Lenin nationalized all private, ecclesiastical and czarist land without compensation. He introduced press censorship, nationalized big industry, outlawed strikes, nationalized the banks, built up a police force and ordered the requisition of grain from the peasants to feed the Red Army.3 By the time Lenin died in 1924, Stalin had consolidated his power and organized his government to become the world’s most dominant example of the idea of government sovereignty.
Americans were far too busy earning a living to pay much attention to the tumult in Russia. While Lenin’s party was forging the Principles of Communism in 1903, Orville Wright made his historic flight. The first automobile trip across the United States was completed, and the U.S. government ratified the Panama Canal Treaty. Congress created the Federal Reserve System in 1913, and Ford Motor Company shocked the industrialized world by raising wages from $2.40 for a nine-hour day to $5 for an eight-hour day in 1914. Americans were divided about entering the First World War, but did in 1917, and had a million troops in Europe when the war ended in 1918 when the warring parties accepted Woodrow Wilson’s “Fourteen Points” which became the basis for the League of Nations.
Edward Mandell House was Wilson’s chief advisor. He persuaded Wilson to sign the Federal Reserve Act and he was the real architect of the League of Nations.4 House was no ordinary advisor. He was Wilson’s “alter ego,” and he was an “unabashed and unapologetic” socialist.5 House published a novel in 1912 entitled Philip Dru: Administrator. The story is a recitation of socialist thinking enacted by Dru, whose purpose was “to pursue Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx,” and who, in the story, replaced Constitutional government with “omnicompetent” government in which “the property and lives of all were now in the keeping of one man.”6 In the story, Dru created a “League of Nations” much like the League of Nations he fashioned for Woodrow Wilson.
More importantly, House came to his position with Woodrow Wilson from an elite circle of friends known as the “Inquiry”: Paul Warburg, J. P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, John W. Davis, among others, all of whom had direct interest in the Federal Reserve System and great interest in the League of Nations. House was well on his way to transforming Woodrow Wilson into his fictional Philip Dru — until the Senate refused to ratify the League of Nations in 1920. Embarrassed and defeated, Wilson died four years later, ironically, the same year Lenin died.
The dream of world domination, however, did not die. House and his friends realized that public opinion in America had to be changed before any form of world government could succeed. While shuttling to Europe on post-war peace negotiations, House arranged an assembly of dignitaries from which was created the Institute of International Affairs which had two branches. In London, it was called the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA); in New York, it was called the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), formed officially July 29, 1921.
The founding President of the CFR was John W. Davis, personal attorney to J. P. Morgan. Paul Cravath and Russell Leffingwell, both Morgan associates, were also among the founding officers.7 Money for the new organizations was provided by J. P. Morgan, Bernard Baruch, Otto Kahn, Jacob Schiff, Paul Warburg, and John D. Rockefeller, the same people involved in the forming of the Federal Reserve.8 The purpose of the CFR was to create a stream of scholarly literature to promote the benefits of world government, and attract a membership of rich intellectuals who could influence the direction of foreign policy in America. The CFR, supported by the world’s wealthiest foundations and individuals, has been extremely successful. Its flagship publication, Foreign Affairs, is the port-of-entry for many ideas that become public policy. The U.S. delegation to the founding conference of the United Nations included 47 members of the CFR. The Secretary-General of the conference, Alger Hiss, was a member of the CFR. Hiss was later convicted of perjury for lying about having provided government documents to a Communist espionage ring.9
The first quarter of the 20th century forced America into a world war where the strength of its economy and effectiveness of its technology were displayed to the world. On the other side of the Atlantic, Russia gave birth to Stalin’s version of Communism. At the time, both nations were primarily concerned about domestic issues with little thought of dominating the world. The Soviet Union exemplified the idea of government sovereignty; America exemplified the idea of free people sovereign over its government. Sooner or later, the two ideas had to collide. Other competitors were also at work. The CFR began to rebuild its plans for a world government, and a new competitor arose on Russia’s eastern border.
The United Nations (1925 – 1950)
While Stalin reigned over “The Great Terror,” in which an estimated 20 million Russians were executed, and instituted the first of a series of “five-year plans,”10 America struggled through some of its hardest years. Prohibition brought organized crime, Federal Reserve policies brought a stock market crash, drought brought a dust bowl to the bread basket, and a nation-wide depression brought crushing poverty to most Americans.
Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to the White House in 1932. The CFR was to Roosevelt what Edward House was to Woodrow Wilson. “The organization [CFR] essentially ran FDR’s State Department.”11 Henry Wallace, a committed Marxist, was FDR’s Secretary of Agriculture.12 The “New Deal” delivered by Roosevelt resembled the performance of Philip Dru in Edward House’s novel.
By 1941, Hitler had invaded Russia and Japan had bombed Pearl Harbor. For the next five years the world tried to commit suicide. Those not caught up in the war, the CFR, realized that the war provided an excellent reason for the nations of the world to try once again to create a global institution that could prevent war. Two weeks after Pearl Harbor, Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, recommended the creation of a Presidential Advisory Committee on Post War Foreign Policy. The committee was the planning commission for the United Nations. Ten of the committee’s 14 members were members of the CFR.13
The process of creating the United Nations lasted throughout the war. The first public step was the Atlantic Charter (August 14, 1941), signed by Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, which committed the two nations to a “permanent system of general security.” Because Stalin was under attack by Germany, Russia was forced to join the allies in the Moscow Declaration (October 30, 1943) which declared the necessity of establishing an international organization to maintain peace and security. The Dumbarton Oaks Conversations (August, 1944) which produced the World Bank, also settled political and legal issues that were drafted into the UN Charter. The Yalta Summit (February, 1945) produced a compromise which gave the Soviets three votes (USSR, Byelorussia, and the Ukraine) in exchange for voting procedures demanded by the U.S.14 Edward Stettinius made another extremely significant concession. He agreed that the UN official in charge of military affairs would be designated by the Russians. Fourteen individuals have held the position since the UN was created; all were Russians.15 The committee designed and FDR sold the United Nations to the 50 nations that came to the San Francisco conference in 1945. Among the 47 CFR members in the official U.S. delegation were: Edward Stettinius, the new Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, Adlai Stevenson, Nelson Rockefeller, and Alger Hiss. To ensure that the new organization would be located in America, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., donated the land for the UN headquarters.16
In his 1962 book, Why Not Victory, former Senator Barry Goldwater recalls that the UN was approved by the Senate largely because of the representations of the State Department which assured the Senate that:
” . . . it [UN] in no sense constituted a form of World Government and that neither the Senate nor the American people need be concerned that the United Nations or any of its agencies would interfere with the sovereignty of the United States or with the domestic affairs of the American People.”17
Five years later, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, CFR member James Warburg said: “We shall have world government whether or not you like it –by conquest or consent.”18
The ink on the UN Charter had not yet dried when the Charter for UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization) was presented in London, November, 1945. UNESCO swallowed and expanded the Paris-based International Institute for Intellectual Cooperation which was a holdover from the League of Nations. Julian Huxley was the prime mover of UNESCO and served as its first Director-General. Huxley had served on Britain’s Population Investigation Commission before World War II and was vice president of the Eugenics Society from 1937 to 1944. In a 1947 document entitled UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy, Huxley wrote:
“Thus even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”19
UNESCO’s primary function is set forth in its Charter:
“Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed.”
UNESCO was created to construct a world-wide education program to prepare the world for global governance. UNESCO advisor, Bertrand Russell, writing for the UNESCO Journal, The Impact of Science on Society, said:
“Every government that has been in control of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen . . . .”20
The National Education Association was a major advocate for UNESCO. In a 1942 article in the NEA Journal, written by Joy Elmer Morgan, the NEA called for ” . . . certain world agencies of administration such as: a police force; a board of education . . . .”
A year later in London, the Conference of Allied Ministers of Education called for a United Nations Bureau of Education. UNESCO became the Board of Education for the world.
Huxley believed the world needed a single, global government. He saw UNESCO as an instrument to “help in the speedy and satisfactory realization of the process.” He described UNESCO’s philosophy as global, scientific humanism. He said: “Political unification in some sort of world government will be required for the definitive attainment” of the next stage of social development.21 From the beginning, UNESCO has designed programs to capture children at the earliest possible age to begin the educational process.
William Benton, Assistant U.S. Secretary of State, told a UNESCO meeting in 1946:
“As long as the child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism, education in world-mindedness can produce only precarious results. As we have pointed out, it is frequently the family that infects the child with extreme nationalism. The school should therefore use the means described earlier to combat family attitudes that favor jingoism . . . . We shall presently recognize in nationalism the major obstacle to development of world-mindedness. We are at the beginning of a long process of breaking down the walls of national sovereignty. UNESCO must be the pioneer.”22
The UN and UNESCO were created in the wake of the worst war carnage the world had ever witnessed. Conditioned by a constant stream of propaganda produced by the CFR in America, and by the Royal Institute of International Affairs in Europe, the move toward global governance was accepted and allowed to go forward. Julian Huxley realized, however, that to be successful over the long haul, a world-wide constituency would have to be developed. In 1948, Huxley and his long-time friend and colleague, Max Nicholson, both of whom were involved with the Royal Institute of International Affairs, created the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
The IUCN drew heavily from the 50-year-old British Fauna and Flora Preservation Society (FFPS) for its leadership, funding and its members. Sir Peter Scott, FFPS Chairman, drafted the IUCN Charter and headed one of its important Commissions. This important non-governmental organization (NGO) was instrumental in the formation of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in 1961 and the World Resources Institute (WRI) in 1982. These three NGOs are to the United Nations System what the CFR was to Franklin Roosevelt, or what Edward House was to Woodrow Wilson. These three NGOs have become the driving force behind the rise of global governance.
The Cold War (1950-1970)
The dream of world dominance is not, nor has it ever been, the pursuit by an exclusive cadre of conspirators. The dream has been held by many different factions — often simultaneously — always in competition with one another. By 1950, at least three major forces — all competing for world dominance — were clearly identified. Each of the three major forces worked overtly and covertly to achieve their objectives.
The Soviet Union had clearly defined its Marx/Lenin/Stalin version of Communism. Its systematic program of expansionism — including an active organization in the United States — fully intended to bring all the world under its control. So confident were the Soviets of their eventual success that, on his 1959 tour of the U.S., Nikita Kruschchev pounded his shoe on a podium before the television cameras and declared to America: “We will bury you!”
America would have no part of a world under Communist rule. Senator Joseph McCarthy led a crusade against Communists in America. His campaign tarnished many non-communists but was successful in rooting out Alger Hiss, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, and Morton Sobell, all convicted of espionage-related crimes. (Because of the statute of limitations, Hiss could not be tried for espionage but was convicted of perjury for lying about his espionage activities.)23
More importantly, the televised McCarthy hearings awakened America to the “Communist threat,” and when U.S. troops entered Korea to fight the communists, support for the Communist Party USA diminished steadily from a high of more than 100,000 members to its current low of about 1000 members.24 American leaders did not pound their shoes, nor proclaim a program of world dominance. American foreign and economic policy, however, left no doubt that at the very least, America intended to prevent the Soviets from achieving world dominance.
The third force competing for world dominance was not the United Nations, but the people whose dreams of a world government were frustrated by what the United Nations turned out to be. The annihilation of the League of Nations by the U.S. Senate left the advocates of world government with a large dose of reality. They realized that the UN could exist only by the grace of the U.S. and the Soviets, and that the UN itself could have no authority or power over the major powers. But it was a real start toward global governance which provided an official, if impotent, mechanism for the incremental implementation of their global aspirations.
During the 1950s and 1960s, the UN was little more than a debating society that occasionally attempted to referee disputes among the major world powers. Public attention was riveted on domestic issues and the deepening cold war. Russia’s Sputnik launch was a catalyst for the launch of the U.S. space program. Fidel Castro’s embrace of Communism in Cuba stiffened America’s policy of “containment” — first articulated in the CFR Journal, Foreign Affairs.25
The 1954 Supreme Court desegregation decision pushed McCarthy, Communism, and the UN completely off the domestic radar screen. Rosa Park’s refusal to give up her seat on a Birmingham bus to a white man was the fuse that ignited an explosion of racial riots. Federal troops confronted Alabama National Guardsmen over Governor Orville Faubus’ refusal to let nine black children enter Little Rock Central High School. Dr. Martin Luther King delivered his “I have a dream” speech to a quarter-million people on the Mall in Washington, and tanks rolled on the streets of Chicago and Detroit.
Domestic events also obscured American awareness of the creation of the World Wildlife Fund. The same Julian Huxley who founded UNESCO and the IUCN, along with his friend, Max Nicholson, formed the organization primarily as a way to fund the work of the IUCN. Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, served as President. An auxiliary organization called the “1001 Club” charged an initiation fee of $10,000 which went into a trust fund to provide ongoing revenues to WWF. The WWF and the IUCN share an office building in Gland, Switzerland. (In 1987, the name was changed to the World Wide Fund for Nature, but the acronym remained the same).26
Behind the scenes, America developed and launched the Nautilus, the first of a new generation of atomic powered submarines. Both Russia and America tested nuclear devices with ever increasing payloads. Bomb shelters were the mainstay of civil defense, and school children were taught to “duck-and-cover.” The official defense policy was MAD — Mutually Assured Destruction.
Much, much further behind the scenes, plans were being developed to defuse the MAD policy. The UN had no authority or power in its own right to do anything about the spiraling arms race between the world’s two super-powers. It became the stage, however, on which the advocates of global governance performed their strategic play, using the U.S. and the Soviet Union in the starring roles. In 1961, newly elected President John F. Kennedy presented a disarmament plan: Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World, also known as the Department of State Publication 7277. The plan called for three phases which would ultimately result in the gradual transfer of U.S. military power to the United Nations. The plan called for all nations to follow the U.S. lead and disarm themselves to “a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened UN Peace Force.”27 A new and improved version of the same idea was presented in May, 1962, called: Blueprint for the Peace Race: Outline of Basic Provisions of a Treaty on General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World released by the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (Publication 4, General Series 3, May 3, 1962) headed by John McCloy.
It is neither fair, nor accurate, to say that these documents were the product of the CFR. It is accurate, and instructive, to realize that these documents were developed by men who were members of the CFR. John McCloy and Robert Lovett were described as “distinguished individuals” in an article by John F. Kennedy which appeared in Foreign Affairs in 1957. Lovett was offered his choice of cabinet positions in the Kennedy administration but declined, choosing instead to make recommendations all of which were accepted by Kennedy. Lovett recommended Dean Rusk as Secretary of State. Rusk had been a member of the CFR since 1952 and had published an article in Foreign Affairs in 1960 on how the new President should conduct foreign policy. The New York Times reported that of the first 82 names submitted to Kennedy for State Department positions, 63 were members of the CFR.28 Like FDR and every President since, JFK filled his State Department and surrounded himself with individuals who were, perhaps coincidentally, members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Lovett, John McCloy, Dean Rusk, McGeorge Bundy, and Adlai Stevenson (JFK’s Ambassador to the UN), all members of the CFR, guided Kennedy through the disastrous “Bay of Pigs” operation and the Cuban missile crisis.
That members of the CFR have exercised extraordinary influence on foreign policy cannot be denied. Whether that influence is the result of organizational strategies, or the result of individuals who simply happen to be members of the same organization, is an endlessly debated question. Richard Harwood, of the Washington Post, observes that members of the Council on Foreign Relations
“. . . are the closest thing we have to a ruling Establishment in the United States. The President is a member. So is his Secretary of State, the Deputy Secretary of State, all five of the Undersecretaries, several of the Assistant Secretaries and the department’s legal adviser. The President’s National Security Adviser and his Deputy are members. The Director of Central Intelligence (like all previous directors) and the Chairman of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board are members. The Secretary of Defense, three Undersecretaries and at least four Assistant Secretaries are members. The Secretaries of the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Health and Human Services and the Chief White House Public Relations man . . . along with the Speaker of the House [are members] . . . . This is not a retinue of people who ‘look like America,’ as the President once put it, but they very definitely look like the people who, for more than half a century, have managed our international affairs and our military-industrial complex.”29
Article 11 of the UN Charter gives the General Assembly authority to “consider” and “recommend” principles governing disarmament and the regulation of armaments, but virtually no authority to enforce disarmament. Kennedy’s proposal was a bold first step toward giving the UN the power which early, necessary compromises had stripped from the original vision of a world government.
The Kennedy plan has never been revoked. Though modified and delayed by political necessity, the essential principle of relinquishing arms, as well as control of the production and distribution of arms, to the UN has guided the disarmament policy of every American President since JFK. Prior to the Kennedy Disarmament Plan, the UN sponsored a Truce Supervision Operation in 1948, and a Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan in 1949. Since the Kennedy Disarmament Plan, the number of UN Peace-keeping operations has steadily increased.30
Still further behind the scenes, the fledgling United Nations was beginning to take shape. UNICEF (United Nations International Emergency Children’s Fund) was created in 1946 to provide emergency relief to the child victims of WWII. It was reauthorized in 1950 to shift its emphasis to programs of long-term benefit to children in underdeveloped countries. It became a permanent UN entity in 1953. UNESCO’s purpose was to “educate” the world. UNICEF was created to provide the mechanism through which that education could be delivered to children.
UN Article 55 provides for the UN to “promote higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development.” To fulfill this charge, the UN Expanded Program of Technical Assistance (UNEPTA) was created in 1949, and expanded with a Special Fund in 1957. By 1959, the program had been transformed into the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (now headed by James Gustave Speth, former President of the World Resources Institute) which spends more than $1 trillion annually, mostly in developing countries.
The UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) was created in 1949. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) was created in 1951. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) brought together existing international food programs in 1946 and began its World Food Program in 1963. The UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was created in 1953. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) was created in 1947. The International Labor Organization (ILO) created in 1919 as an instrument of the failed League of Nations was reconstituted and folded into the United Nations in 1948. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) was authorized in 1947. Founded in 1863, the Universal Postal Union (UPU) became an entity of the UN in 1948. The World Health Organization (WHO) was created in 1948. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) which had existed since 1865 was folded into the UN system in 1949. The United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) was created in 1966. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) was established in 1967. These are only a few of the 130 UN agencies and organizations that proliferated during and since the Cold War.
While the UN organization was expanding exponentially, out of the media spotlight which was focused on race riots and the arms race, UNESCO plodded forward with its mission to educate the world. Robert Muller, long-time Secretary-General of the UN’s Economic and Social Council under which the UNESCO operates, delivered a speech at the University of Denver in 1995. His musings and recollections provide valuable insights into the kind of education UNESCO was preparing for the world. From Muller’s comments:
“I had written an essay which was circulated by UNESCO, and which earned me the title of ‘Father of Global Education.’ I was educated badly in France. I’ve come to the conclusion that the only correct education that I have received in my life was from the United Nations. We should replace the word politics by planetics. We need planetary management, planetary caretakers. We need global sciences. We need a science of a global psychology, a global sociology, a global anthropology. Then I made my proposal for a World Core Curriculum.”31
The first goal of Muller’s World Core Curriculum, is:
“Assisting the child in becoming an integrated individual who can deal with personal experience while seeing himself as a part of ‘the greater whole.’ In other words, promote growth of the group idea, so that group good, group understanding, group interrelations and group goodwill replace all limited, self-centered objectives, leading to group consciousness.”32
The World Core Curriculum Manual says:
“The underlying philosophy upon which the Robert Muller School is based will be found in the teachings set forth in the books of Alice A. Bailey, by the Tibetan teacher, Djwhal Khul (published by Lucis Publishing Company, 113 University Place, 11th floor, New York, NY 10083) and the teachings of M. Morya as given in the Agni Yoga Series books (published by Agni Yoga Society, Inc., 319 West 107th Street, New York, NY 10025).”33
Alice Bailey established the Lucifer Publishing Company, which was renamed Lucis Press in 1924, expressly to publish and distribute her own writings and those of Djwhal Khul, which consisted of some 20 books written by Bailey as the “channeling” agent for the disembodied Tibetan she called Djwhal Khu1.34 Until recently, the Lucis Trust, parent organization of the Lucis Press, was headquartered at the United Nations Plaza in New York.35 Bailey assumed the leadership of the Theosophical Society upon the death of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. The Society’s 6,000 members include Robert McNamara, Donald Regan, Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller, Paul Volker, George Shultz, and the names that also appear on the membership roster of the CFR.36
Hindsight reveals that — while the United States was performing on the UN stage, sparring with the Soviet Union, keeping score with nuclear warheads — the forces which heavily influenced the official policies of both the United States and the United Nations were actually outside both governments: non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Three distinct NGO influences were clear by the end of the 1960s: the CFR and its assortment of affiliated spin-off organizations; the mystic, occult, or “new-age” spiritual movement; and the growing number of organizations affiliated with the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). In 1968, the IUCN led a lobbying effort with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (headed by Robert Muller) to adopt Resolution 1296 which grants “consultative” status to certain NGOs. This resolution paved the highway for global governance. The Lucis Trust was one of the first NGOs to be granted “consultative” status with the UN.
The Environmental Movement (1970s)
Not a single vote was cast against the Wilderness Act of 1964 when it finally reached the Senate. Congress thought it was setting aside nine million acres of wilderness so posterity could see a sample of what their forefathers had to conquer in order to create America. The new law was the crowning achievement of the Wilderness Society, to which its Director, Howard Zahniser had devoted five years of constant lobbying. Though unnoticed at the time, the new law signaled an end to the traditional “conservation” movement and the beginning of a new environmental “preservation” movement. The conservation movement might be characterized by the idea that private land owners should voluntarily conserve natural resources; the environmental preservation movement is characterized by the notion that the government should enforce conservation measures through extensive regulations. By this distinction, the Wilderness Society brought the environmental movement to Congress. Robert Marshall, Benton MacKaye, and Aldo Leopold – all avowed socialists – organized the Society in the early 1930s and proclaimed their socialist ideas loudly. Marshall’s 1933 book, The People’s Forests, says:
“Public ownership is the only basis on which we can hope to protect the incalculable values of the forests for wood resources, for soil and water conservation, and for recreation . . . . Regardless of whether it might be desirable, it is impossible under our existing form of government to confiscate the private forests into public ownership. We cannot afford to delay their nationalization until the form of government changes.”37
This significant event failed to register a blip on the radar screen of public awareness. Instead, public attention focused on the racial strife, the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago, and the Viet Nam War which tore apart the convention, the party, and the nation. The First “Earth Day” in 1970, which perhaps coincidentally was celebrated on Lenin’s birthday, April 22, was viewed as little more than a festival for flower children. The anti-war fervor, again, brought a quarter-million protesters to the Mall, and Watergate brought down the Nixon Presidency. The Clean Water Act of 1972 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 served as beacons to attract the energies and idealism of a generation of young people who had successfully forced the world’s most powerful government to abandon a war they saw to be unjust. The 1970s witnessed an unprecedented explosion in the number of environmental organizations and in the number of people who joined and supported these organizations.
Among the more important but lesser known organizations formed during this period are the Club of Rome (COR – 1968) and the Trilateral Commission (TC – 1973). The COR is a small group of international industrialists educators, economists, national and international civil servants. Among them were various Rockefellers and approximately 25 CFR members. Maurice Strong was one of the “international” civil servants.38 Their first book, The Limits to Growth, published in 1972 unabashedly describes the world as they believe it should be:
“We believe in fact that the need will quickly become evident for social innovation to match technical change, for radical reform of the institutions and political processes at all levels, including the highest, that of world polity. And since intellectual enlightenment is without effect if it is not also political, The Club of Rome also will encourage the creation of a world forum where statesmen, policy-makers, and scientists can discuss the dangers and hopes for the future global system without the constraints of formal intergovernmental negotiation.”39
That “world forum” was authorized in 1972 by UN Resolution 2997 (XXVII) as the UN Conference on the Human Environment. Maurice Strong was designated Secretary-General of the Conference which, among other things, recommended the creation of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), which came into being January 1, 1973, with Maurice Strong as its first Executive Director.40 The Conference held in Stockholm produced 26 principles and 109 specific recommendations which parroted much of the language in the COR publications. The difference is, of course, that the Conference Report carries the weight of the United Nations and has profound policy implications for the entire world.41
Another COR publication, Mankind at the Turning Point, provides further insight into the thinking that underlies global governance:
“The solution of these crises can be developed only in a global context with full and explicit recognition of the emerging world system and on a long-term basis. This would necessitate, among other changes, a new world economic order and a global resources allocation system . . . . A ‘world consciousness’ must be developed through which every individual realizes his role as a member of the world community . . . . It must become part of the consciousness of every individual that the basic unit of human cooperation and hence survival is moving from the national to the global level.”42
A companion work by the same authors, Mihajlo Mesarovic and Eduard Pestel, entitled Regionalized and Adaptive Model of the Global World System, introduced and described a system of regionalization which divided the globe into 10 regions, each with its own hierarchical system of sub-regions.43
The Trilateral Commission published a book entitled Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the World’s Economy and the Earth’s Ecology, by Jim MacNeil. David Rockefeller wrote the foreword; Maurice Strong wrote the introduction. Strong said:
“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.”44
In retrospect, it is clear that the early work of the United Nations was an effort to achieve global consensus on the philosophy upon which its programmatic work would be built. It is also clear that, despite the disproportionate share of the cost borne by capitalist nations, the prevailing philosophy at the UN is essentially socialist. The fundamental idea upon which America was founded – that men are born totally free and choose to give up specified freedoms to a limited government – is not the prevailing philosophy at the UN, nor at the CFR, the COR, the TC, or the IUCN. Instead, the prevailing philosophy held by these organizations and institutions is that government is sovereign and may dispense or withhold freedoms and privileges, or impose restrictions and penalties, in order to manage its citizens to achieve peace and prosperity for all. In his book, Freedom at the Altar, William Grigg says it this way:
“Under the American concept of rights, the individual possesses God-given rights which the state must protect. However, the UN embraces a collectivist worldview in which ‘rights’ are highly conditional concessions made by an all-powerful government.”45
Another description of the difference between the two ideas is offered by Philip Bom, in The Coming Century of Commonism:
“In the western Constitutional concept, limited government is established to protect the fundamental natural human rights of the free individuals in a free society. In a radical socialist concept of the state, the citizen has a duty to the state to help the state promote the socialization or communization of the man.”46
These fundamentally different, conflicting ideas have been described differently by different people at different times. In 1842, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels preached their gospel through an organization known as the “Federation of the Just.” In 1845 it was the International Democratic Association of Brussels that promoted their ideas. By 1903 the organization that championed Marxism was the Russian Social Democratic Workers’ Party before Lenin transformed it into the Communist Party. The names used to describe the prevailing philosophy at the UN are confusing to Americans. Regardless of the name attached, the underlying philosophy has several common characteristics that readily identify it as different from the philosophy upon which America was founded. Chief among those characteristics is the abhorrence of private property. As Philip Bom points out:
“In the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels identified communism with democracy. ‘The communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations . . . to win the battle of democracy’. They also pointed out that, ‘The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism . . . . The distinctive feature of communism is . . . abolition of private property.'”47
Another tell-tale characteristic of socialist/communist philosophy is the assumption of omnipotent government. Philip Bom addresses the semantics problems as well as the omnipotent government issue this way:
“The war of words and world views of democracy continues but with greater confusion of priorities. President Reagan professed that ‘freedom and democracy are the best guarantors for peace.’ President Gorbachev confessed that peace and maximum democracy are the guarantors of freedom. ‘Our aim is to grant maximum freedom to people, to the individual, to society.'”48
In the Gorbachev statement, it is assumed that ‘freedom’ is the government’s to give. The U.S. Constitution clearly views ‘freedom’ to be the natural condition of man and assigns the protection of freedom as government’s first responsibility. International equality, equity, social justice, security of the people, democratic society all are terms used in UN documents that have a completely different meaning in a socialist context from the meaning understood in America.
These differences become exceedingly important in the context of official UN documents. Consider the language in the UN’s Covenant on Human Rights, a document that bears approximately the same relationship to the UN Charter that the Bill of Rights bears to the U.S. Constitution.
Article 13 says:
“Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law . . . .”
By contrast, the Bill of Rights says:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .”
Article 14 of the Covenant says:
“The right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas carries with it special duties and responsibilities and may therefore be subject to certain penalties, liabilities, and restrictions, but these shall be only such, as are provided by law.”
The Bill of Rights says:
“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . . . ” Period.
The philosophy of omnipotent government permeates virtually all of the documents that have flowed from the UN since its inception. Consider the preamble to the report of the first World Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I) held in 1976 under the auspices of Maurice Strong’s newly formed United Nations Environmental Programme: “Private land ownership is a principal instrument of accumulating wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable.” Their recommendation: “Public ownership of land is justified in favor of the common good, rather than to protect the interest of the already privileged.”49 Morris Udall and others tried unsuccessfully to implement the Federal Land Use Planning Act in the early 1970s influenced by those seeking to impose global governance.
In the early 1970s the UN created a Commission to Study the Organization of Peace. As if singing in the same choir, the U.S. created a Commission to Study the Organization of Peace. On May Day, 1974, a proposal was submitted to the UN General Assembly calling for a New International Economic Order (NIEO); it was adopted as a Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States on December 12, 1974. It called for the redistribution of wealth and political power, and the promotion of international justice based on the ‘duties’ of developed countries and the ‘rights’ of developing countries.
Throughout the 1970s, college students and others joined environmental organizations in droves. They protested, carried placards, picked up litter, preached recycling and organic gardening, mostly unaware that their leaders were attending conferences and promoting agendas based on the same philosophy that America had opposed in Viet Nam, Cuba, and the Soviet Union. Carefully crafted documents, magnified by a cooperative media, elevated the environment to a most noble cause. The object of near-worship for an army of energetic activists, “the environment” as an international issue was ripe for the picking by the advocates of global governance.
The Environmental Movement (1980s)
“Bait-and-switch” is a time-tested technique used by unscrupulous merchants to offer one thing and then provide another. The environmental movement of the 1970s was the unwitting victim of its leadership which offered a cleaner environment but, in the 1980s, delivered instead a massive program to achieve global governance. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) had already launched a Regional Seas Program (1973); conducted a UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD 1974); developed a Global Frame-work for Environmental Education (1975); established the International Environmental Education Program (IEEP); set up a Global Environmental Monitoring System (GEMS); set up a World Conservation Monitoring Center at Cambridge, England (1975 as a joint project with the IUCN and the WWF); implemented the Human Exposure Assessment Location Program (HEAL – 1976); conducted a UN Conference on Desertification (1977); organized the Designated Officials for Environmental Matters (DOEM); and in 1980, published World Conservation Strategy jointly with the IUCN and the WWF. The DOEM is an organizational structure that requires every UN agency and organization to designate an official to UNEP in order to coordinate all UN activity with the UNEP agenda. UNEP was well positioned to interject the environment into the argument for global governance.50 Recognizing that communications was the key to global education, UNESCO adopted in 1978 a “Declaration on Fundamental Principles Concerning the Contribution of the Mass Media to Strengthen Peace and International Understanding, to the Promotion of Human Rights and to Countering Racialism, Apartheid and Incitement of War.” To figure out what the declaration meant, UNESCO Director General, Dr. A. M. McBow, appointed Sean MacBride to chair the International Commission for the Study of Communication Problems. Their report was released in 1980 entitled Many Voices, One World: Towards a new more just and more efficient world information and communication order. The head of TASS, the official news agency of the Soviet Union, was one of fifteen chosen to serve on the Commission.
Not surprisingly, the report said that the “media should contribute to promoting the just cause of peoples struggling for freedom and independence and their right to live in peace and equality without foreign interference.” It expressed concern about independent news monopolies, such as the Associated Press and Reuters, but was not at all concerned about state controlled news monopolies such as TASS. It recommended a transnational political communication superstructure “within the framework of UNESCO,” an International Centre for the Study and Planning of Information and Communication.51 The Commission believed that a “new World Information Order” was prerequisite to a new world economic order. The report reflected the same “sovereign government” philosophy demonstrated in Article 14 of the Covenant on Human Rights: government, UNESCO in particular, should have the authority to regulate the flow of information to “promote” its agenda, and minimize public awareness of conflicting ideas. A proposal to require international journalists to be licensed brought swift and dramatic negative re-action which pushed this proposal to the back burner. The idea of controlling the media continues to simmer, even though an alternative plan was developed through NGOs.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) allocated funding to establish computer network services for NGOs and academics in Latin America. The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) linked together networks in Brazil, Russia, Canada, Australia, Sweden, England, Nicaragua, Ecuador, South Africa, Ukraine, Mexico, Siovenj, and then entered into a partnership with the Institute for Global Communications (IGC). Known simply as igc.apc.org, this gigantic computer network now boasts 17,000 users in 94 countries. It has exclusive contracts with several UN agencies to coordinate, facilitate, and disseminate information about and from UN conferences. This NGO has arrangements with at least the following UN agencies: UN Association International Service (UNAIS); UN Centre for Human Rights; UNICEF; UNDP; UN Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW); UNESCO; UNEP; UN Information Centre (UNIC); UN International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD); UN International Emergency Network (UNIENET); UN Non-Government Liaison Service (NGLS); UN Population Fund (UNFPA); UN Secretariat for the Fourth World Conference on Women (UNWCW); UN University (UNU); and UN Volunteers (UNV).52
West German Chancellor, Willy Brandt, was tapped to chair another International Commission in 1980: the Independent Commission on International Development. The Commission report, entitled North-South: A Program for Survival, stated:
“World development is not merely an economic process, [it] involves a profound transformation of the entire economic and social structure . . . not only the idea of economic betterment, but also of greater human dignity, security, justice and equity . . . . The Commission realizes that mankind has to develop a concept of a ‘single community’ to develop a global order.”
The report says that the choice is either development or destruction; either “a just and humane society” or a move towards [the world’s] own destruction.”53
For 50 years, Sweden was a socialist country. In 1976, the socialists were dumped and conservatives took over – until 1982. Olof Palme restored socialism to Sweden and was promptly rewarded with the chairmanship of the Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security (ICDST). In their report, entitled A Common Security: Blueprint For Survival, the Commission built on Kennedy’s 1962 Blueprint for the Peace Race, and on the 1974 Charter for a New International Economic Order, which linked disarmament with development.
The Charter’s Article 13 says:
“All States have the duty to promote the achievement of general and complete disarmament under effective international control and to utilize the resources released by effective disarmament measures for the economic and social development of countries, allocating a substantial portion of such resources as additional means for the development needs of developing countries.” (Emphasis added).
The Brandt Commission report had concluded that security meant not only the military defense of a nation, but also required solving the non-military problems – such as poverty – to improve the basic conditions necessary for peaceful relations among nations. Their conclusion was bolstered by the report of a UN advisor, Inga Thorsson, a Swedish Under-Secretary of State, who wrote:
“It is important that we do not content ourselves only with the actual disarmament efforts. World disarmament is needed for world development – but equally, world development is a prerequisite for world disarmament. Not until we have arrived at a situation of reasonable equity and economic balance in the world, will it be possible to develop conditions for a lasting disarmament.”54
The United States and the Soviet Union had hammered out a policy generally known as “peaceful coexistence,” to avoid MAD – Mutually Assured Destruction. The Palme Commission proposed a strategic shift from collective security, insured by the superpowers for the constellation of affiliated nations, to the concept of common security through the United Nations. The concept also linked the transfer of money saved by the disarming superpowers to the development of underdeveloped nations, transferred through and redistributed by the United Nations.55
A work that began in 1973 was completed in 1981 – the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The U.S. and the USSR wanted the Convention limited to navigational questions. But a group of 77 developing nations, known as G-77, hijacked the conference and the subsequent negotiations and wrote into the treaty the principles of the New International Economic Order (NIEO) – a UN taxing authority. The treaty created the International Seabed Authority (ISA) which would have jurisdiction over all non-territorial waters and the seabed. No seabed activity, mining, salvaging, and so forth, can occur without a permit from the ISA.
Application fees begin at $250,000 and a schedule of royalties is set forth in the Convention. The Convention is the first to give direct taxing authority to the UN. It is a legal mechanism for the redistribution of wealth from developed nations to developing nations. The U.S. had avoided the Convention until 1994 when President Clinton signed the Treaty. Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, has announced that ratification of the treaty will be a priority for the Clinton Administration in 1997.56
The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) had grown dramatically by 1982, with organizations in several countries, including the United States. Russell Train, the President of WWF-usA, secured more than $25 million in grants from MacArthur Foundation, Andrew K. Mellon Foundation, and from “US and Foreign governments, international agencies, and individual gifts,” to launch a new NGO – the World Resources Institute (WRI) headquartered in Washington, D.C. James Gustave Speth was chosen as President. Speth, a Rhodes Scholar, turned to the environment after the Viet Nam war and co-founded the Natural Resources Defense Council. He became a Rockefeller protégé and is described as “one of the most effective environmentalists alive today.” He served as President of WRI for 11 years, then as a member of President Clinton’s transition team, then moved to the UNDP as its head.57 The WRI joined the WWF and the IUCN to become the three-cornered NGO foundation for the global environmental agenda.
A World Charter for Nature was the chief product of a 1982 World Conference on Environment and Development, at which Maurice Strong said:
“I believe we are seeing the convergence of the physical and social worlds with the moral and spiritual. The concepts of loving, caring and sharing . . . for a saner, more cooperative world . . . are the indispensable foundations on which the future security system for a small planet must now be based.”58
In 1984, there was a World Conference on environmental management. But a Conference in Vienna, Austria, in 1985 established UNEP as a major player in world affairs when it produced the Vienna Convention on Ozone Depleting Substances. The ascendancy of Mikhail Gorbachev to the Soviet throne received far more media attention than did the Ozone Treaty. Most Americans did not hear about the Treaty until the Montreal Protocol in 1987 which banned certain refrigerants and fire-fighting materials.
Another World Conference on Environment and Development was held in 1987. Gro Harlem Brundtland, Vice President of the World Socialist Party, was named as Chair. The Brundtland Commission Report, entitled Our Common Future, embraced most of the ideas contained in the UNEP/IUCN/WWF publication World Conservation Strategy, including the concept of “sustainable development.” It is the Brundtland Commission that links the environment to development and development to poverty. The Report says:
“Poverty is a major cause and effect of global environmental problems. It is therefore futile to attempt to deal with environmental problems without a broader perspective that encompasses the factors underlying world poverty and international inequality.”59
Brundtland was a member of the Brandt Commission. Maurice Strong (who chaired the first world Conference on Environment and Development in 1972) was a member of the Brundtland Commission. Shirdath Ramphal was a member of the Brandt, Palme, and Brundtland Commissions, and later co-chaired the UN-funded Commission of Global Governance. Ramphal is a past President of the IUCN. The Brundtland Commission succeeded in two break-through accomplishments: (1) it linked poverty, equity, and security to environmental issues and (2) it recognized that the environment was a popular issue around which individuals, NGOs, and governments could rally. The environment was firmly established as the battle-cry to mobilize the world to create the New Economic World Order.
While UNEP was convening the first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1988, the UNDP was funding a Global Forum of Spiritual and Parliamentary Leaders for Human Survival, sponsored jointly by the UNDP’s Global Committee of Parliamentarians on Population and Development (created in 1982) and the Temple of Understanding. The Temple of Understanding is an NGO accredited to the UN, and one of several projects of the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City. The featured speaker at the Forum was James Lovelock, author of The Ages of Gaia. Lovelock said: “On Earth, she [gaia] is the source of life, everlasting and is alive now, she gave birth to humankind and we are a part of her.”60 The Gaia Institute is also housed at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, as is the Lindisfarne Association which published G-A-I-A, A Way of Knowing: Political Implications of the New Biology. Maurice Strong is a member of Lindisfarne and often speaks at the Cathedral, as do Robert Muller and Vice President Al Gore.61
The Forum produced what was called the “Joint Appeal” which grew into the National Religious Partnership for the Environment (NRPE). The project is endorsed by eleven major environmental organizations, has received grants of more than $5 million, and is currently engaged in mailing “education and action kits” to 53,000 congregations. Amy Fox, Associate Director of the NRPE, says:
“We are required by our religious principles to look for the links between equity and ecology. The fundamental emphasis is on issues of environmental justice, including air pollution and global warming; water, food and agriculture; population and consumption; hunger, trade and industrial policy; community economic development; toxic pollution and hazardous waste; and corporate responsibility.”62
The decade had begun with an eruption of Mt. St. Helens, and perhaps a more spectacular political eruption: arch-conservative Ronald Reagan captured the White House from arch-liberal, Jimmy Carter. Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), more popularly known as “star wars,” is cited as a major factor in the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union. The USSR, which Reagan dubbed “the evil empire,” did assume a new attitude about arms reduction and disarmament. Gorbachev announced “glasnost,” a new policy of openness, and “perestroika” a restructuring program which featured measured “free market” opportunities. Gorbachev, who was infinitely closer to the socialist dominated inner-circle of the UN-global-governance cabal than was the Reagan Administration, may well have been preparing to shift the seat of socialist leadership from the Soviet Union to the United Nations. The newly formulated strategy of common security, rather than collective security could not accommodate the notion of a single state, even the Soviet Union, as the seat of global authority. And it is now clear that, even though it appeared to the west that Gorbachev was moving his country toward capitalism, he never had any such intention.
Gorbachev told his Politburo in November, 1987:
“Gentlemen, comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about Glasnost and Perestroika and democracy in the coming years. They are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal changes in the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep.”
He later wrote:
“Those who hope that we shall move away from the socialist path will be greatly disappointed. Every part of our program of perestroika – and the program as a whole, for that matter – is fully based on the principle of more socialism and more democracy . . . . We will proceed toward better socialism rather than away from it. We are saying this honestly, without trying to fool our own people or the world. Any hopes that we will begin to build a different, non-socialist society and go over to the other camp are unrealistic and futile. We, the Soviet people, are for socialism. We want more socialism and therefore more democracy.”63
By November 9, 1989, when the Berlin Wall collapsed, it became clear to the world that events had out-run Gorbachev’s intentions. The Soviet Union, along with 70 years of utopian-communist dreams, collapsed as thoroughly as did the wall. The vacuum thus created in the global political balance was seen as an invitation to usher in a new, permanent balancing force – global governance.
The role and capacity of NGOs was greatly enhanced in the mid 1980s when Donald Ross of the Rockefeller Family Fund – the same Rockefeller money pot that launched the Council on Foreign Relations – invited the leaders of five other Foundations to meet informally in Washington. From that meeting grew the Environmental Grantmakers Association, a nearly invisible group of more than 100 major Foundations and corporations. They meet annually to discuss projects and grant proposals and decide which NGOs will be funded.64
Having gained a measure of national prominence in his failed bid for the White House in 1988, then Senator Al Gore, as chair of the Senate Science and Technology Committee, assumed the responsibility of advancing the global environmental agenda in America. It was Gore, and then-Senator Timothy Wirth, who arranged special “prayer breakfasts” with selected congressmen for James Parks Morton, Dean of the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, to promote the National Religious Partnership for the Environment.65 It was Gore who led the Senate to approve the Montreal Protocol which banned refrigerants. It was Gore who brought James E. Hansen, head of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, to the Senate chambers to testify that he was “99% certain that greenhouse warming had begun.”66
The decade of the 1980s was a pivotal period for the advocates of global governance. The MacBride Commission had established the principle of information management as a legitimate responsibility of the United Nations, though only partially implemented through participating NGOs: IGC/APC. The Brandt Commission had linked development with peace, and the Palme Commission had linked development with peace and disarmament as a way to shift military power to the UN and money to the third world. The Brundtland Commission linked development to the environment and introduced the concept of “sustainability.” The NGOs, coordinated by the IUCN/WWF/WRI triumvirate, and funded by the Rockefeller-coordinated Environmental Grantmakers Association, launched a world-wide campaign to convince the world that the planet stood at the brink of environmental disaster. It could be averted only by a massive transformation of human societies which would require all people to accept their spiritual and moral responsibility to embrace their common global heritage and conform to a system of international law that integrates environmental, economic, and equity issues under the watchful, regulatory authority of a new system of global governance.
Click Here to Read and Post Feedback
Send this page to a friend
Distributed by http://www.ChristianWorldviewNetwork.com
Disclaimer: Worldview Weekend, Christian Worldview Network and its columnists do not necessarily endorse or agree with every opinion expressed in every article posted on this site. We do however, encourage a healthy and friendly debate on the issues of our day. Whether you agree or disagree, we encourage you to post your feedback by using the feedback button.