U.N. global tax & court proposals called ‘frightening’ possibilities
By Cheryl K. Chumley
NEW YORK (BP)–A small group of policy experts will be watching the actions of the United Nations Millennium Summit for further evidence of what one analyst described to CNSNews.com as a “frightening” push for global governance.
The leaders of more than 150 nations converged in New York Sept. 6 to iron out details of their Charter for Global Democracy, also called Charter 99.
The U.N. Internet site indicates the charter includes “12 areas for urgent action” to be discussed, CNSNews.com reported on its Internet news site. Those topics fall under four headings: strengthening international democracy, creating a full-time international security force, furthering human rights causes and promoting higher standards of living for all.
Supporters of the charter want the ability to “monitor and regulate international corporations and financial institutions;” “give UN institutions additional … revenue;” “ratify the international criminal court” proposal; and “create an international environmental court.”
Most alarming to critics are the U.N. recommendations to create a global taxing system, establish an international court and eliminate any allowance for Permanent Member Status and veto power in the Security Council, privileges that the United States and several other countries currently enjoy.
Henry Lamb, executive vice president of the Environmental Conservative Organization and a member of the nonprofit Sovereignty International agency, told CNSNews.com he has studied and analyzed the actions of the United Nations for the past several years — and what impact their policies would have on the United States.
“This is frightening,” Lamb said, referring to the U.N. push to abolish veto power and Permanent Member Status in its Security Council. “It is one of the last means of control that the U.S. has over the U.N.
“When you combine that recommendation with the global taxing proposals … and international criminal courts,” he continued, “we see the U.N. is posturing itself to have not only the authority but the means to implement and enforce national policy.”
The U.N. can create such a system of global governance even without the approval of the U.S., Lamb said, by gaining the support of other “heads of nations and the U.N. Security Council.” The United States, if it fails to comply, would then open itself to sanctions from other countries, he continued.
“Economic seclusion is the current method of sanction,” Lamb explained, trying to simplify and condense what he termed a “very complicated” matter. “If we fail to conform our laws, then we are immediately subject to fines by the World Trade Organization,” and refusing to pay cannot be considered a long-term option.
“The WTO is the only enforcement mechanism the UN has at this time,” Lamb said. “But once the U.N. has real enforcement power through the international court, then we’re talking a different game.”
Any debate over whether the United States would comply willingly with portions or all of the Charter 99 proposals may be a moot point, Lamb and another U.N. analyst said, pointing to U.S. House Resolution 4453.
The bill, introduced by Rep. James P. McGovern, D.-Mass., in May and officially titled the United Nations Rapid Deployment Police and Security Act of 2000, seeks to “establish a UN … police and security force under the authority of the Security Council that is trained to standardized objectives,” recruits force members and provides “reliable funding.”
The security force, as suggested by McGovern and outlined in his bill, would include up to 6,000 volunteers from U.N. nations who would act as rapid deployment peacekeepers and human rights enforcers. Twenty-five congressional members are listed as co-sponsors, from Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, and Cynthia McKinney, D.-Ga., to Tom Lantos, D.-Calif., and Robert Wexler, D.-Fla.
“Let’s just say that the intentions of the U.N. are good,” said Kent Snyder, executive director of the Liberty Study Committee, a group of U.S. representatives and nationwide activists who promote constitutional ideals. “World peace, happiness for all … that’s all good, and let’s say we don’t differ on the ends, but we differ on the means.
“But the consensus is,” Snyder told CNSNews.com, “that centralized power is the enemy of liberty, and history is replete with examples [like] Germany, Soviet Russia, the hierarchy of royal families, Cleopatra, the war lords of Japan.”
Chumley is a staff writer with CNSNews.com. Used by permission.