Globalism - Ecumenism
Tuesday, December 07, 2004
Jack Kinsella - Omega Letter Editor
Undaunted by the Oil for Food scandal that exposed it for the power-hungry global mafia that it is, the United Nations is proposing a sweeping series of 'reforms' that will expand the Security Council from fifteen to twenty-four members.
 

Led by what are called the UN's sixteen 'wise men', the UN High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change is proposing the changes, hoping to 'reign in' the United States.

The panel issued a report in which it challenged America's claim to have a right unilaterally to take "preventive" military action against looming threats.

"There is little evident international acceptance of the idea of security being best preserved by a balance of power or by any single – even benignly motivated - superpower," said the panel.

"The yearning for an international system governed by the rule of law has grown. No state, no matter how powerful, can by its own efforts alone make itself invulnerable to today's threats."

Allow that to sink in for a second. "An international system governed by the rule of law." Apart from the sublimely ridiculous fact the UN is itself mired in what is easily the biggest act of international piracy the world has ever known, there is no such thing as an 'international rule of law'.

"International law" is whatever the UN says it is, and it changes to suit the whims of the majority. There is NO 'rule of law' since there are no rules for the creation of international law. The UN's 'reformation' would result in nothing less than the creation of a global tyranny.

The members of the High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change include the former United States national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft, the former British ambassador to the UN, Sir David Hannay, and Yevgeny Primakov, the former Russian prime minister.

They said that countries already had the right to take "pre-emptive" action against an "imminent" threat. But they insisted that only the Security Council should authorize "preventive" force to deal with more distant threats, such as the risk of a country obtaining a nuclear weapon. You know, like Iran.

Having decided the United States has no authority to defend itself without the UN's permission, the panel recommended the UN take a more 'robust' approach to stop threats from emerging, rather than, in the panel's words, "trying to merely manage crises" -- as the UN's Charter demands.

To accomplish this more 'robust' approach, the panel recommended adopting the interventionist doctrine that the world has a "responsibility to protect" populations if threatened with genocide, mass killings or ethnic cleansing.

The authors identified five dangers: poverty, diseases and environmental degradation; conflicts between and within states; weapons of mass destruction; terrorism; and international organized crime.

The report set out five criteria for authorizing military action:

These include considering the seriousness of the threat, making sure the purpose of military action is really to avert the threat, ensuring that force is used as a last resort, using only "proportional means", and weighing up the "balance of consequences" of military action.

In other words, doing nothing until it is too late.

The UN is the least qualified body on the face of the earth to claim the role of global policeman or arbiter of international 'justice'.

If that hasn't been adequately demonstrated in Iraq, then there is Rwanda, the Sudan, Somalia and the current crisis in Iran to consider.

The UN is shot through with unaccountable and unscrupulous diplomats who were more than willing to condemn Iraqis to twelve years of deprivation and suffering while they lined their own pockets with Saddam's blood money.

More than a million Rwandans were murdered while the UN stood by and idly watched. Sudan's genocidal purge of its southern Christian population is ongoing at the moment. As the UN dithers, thousands are dying every day.

Iran just pulled off a transparent subterfuge to avoid being referred to the UN Security Council, even as it openly admitted the agreement it signed with the EU to halt its nuclear program was neither legally binding or permanent.

The UN knows Iran has no intention of halting its nuclear program, but the IAEA blindly accepted the agreement as a way out of having to take any action.

The idea of the United Nations taking the lead in combating 'international organized crime' doesn't even begin to pass the laugh test. It is itself the world's largest international criminal organization.

Its corruption reaches all the way up to the very top of its organizational food chain, and its open conspiracies with "Old Europe" to both topple the United States and eliminate the State of Israel are obvious to even the most casual observers.

In any case, the expansion of the Security Council to twenty-four members requires amending the UN Charter, as would any role for the UN as a global enforcer.

The Charter specifically forbids the UN from interfering in the domestic affairs of any member state unless it is to prevent genocide.

The UN has pretty much discarded that provision, meddling in the internal affairs of both Israel and the United States on a regular basis, while systematically AVOIDING any efforts to prevent genocide among its Islamic members. (Somalia, Rwanda, the Sudan, Iraq, etc.)

To amend the Charter requires a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly. The UN wants to add nine permanent seats to the Security Council, meaning that there will be a competition between the 186 members who don't have permanent seats now.

Already, Italy is resisting Germany's bid for a permanent seat on the council, Pakistan objects to India becoming a permanent member, Mexico and Argentina object of Brazil's ambitions, while China is suspicious of Japan's possible entry.

The UN's efforts to reform itself as the world's supreme global government are doomed to fail. The call from within the United States to withdraw itself from the UN is growing while the UN itself continues to add fuel to the fire by its actions.

On the day the US invaded Iraq, Richard Perle, former chairman of the Pentagon Defense Policy Board, wrote a column in The London Guardian that celebrated the death of "the fantasy of the UN as the foundation of a new world order".

Relying on the Security Council to ensure world order and international law, Perle wrote, was a "dangerously wrong idea that leads inexorably to handing great moral and even existential politico-military decisions to the likes of Syria, Cameroon, Angola, Russia, China and France".

The following day, the Wall Street Journal published an editorial in which it called for a "league of democratic nations" to replace the UN, published a column titled "Au revoir, Security Council" that called for the US to leave the body in order to "strip [it] of the pretense of legality and seriousness and remove it as an obstacle to genuine collective security".

The UN's planned reformation is nothing less than an effort to install itself as a true global government. It won't work because the UN has soiled itself beyond redemption. But, as its own report accurately noted; "The yearning for an international system governed by the rule of law has grown."

And the creation of a 'league of democratic nations' to replace the UN fits neatly with the signs of the times.

No 'league of democratic nations' could exist with the inclusion of Europe -- and Europe is already uniquely qualified, as we've noted before, to absorb the UN's complicated international infrastructure.

"So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled." (Luke 21:31-32)

Excerpted from the Omega Letter Daily Intelligence Digest, Volume:39, Issue: 1