What World Government?

By Graham Strachan 11/9/00

Graham Strachan is a lawyer, political commentator and author of several books. His website is http://www.overflow.net.au/~bizbrief.

Where was the declaration of world government that was widely predicted to take place at the UN Millennium Summit? It was there all right, though many people may not have recognised it. It was made in globospeak—a speech code which will be resorted to increasingly from now on by the globalist 'elites' as they try to tighten their grip on the world.

At the Summit, the world 'leaders' signed a Millennium Declaration, a 32-point document which describes the United Nations as "the indispensable common house of the entire human family" [The Age, September 9, 2000].

Indispensible common house? Entire human family? If that isn't another way of saying 'world parliament', what is? The document also calls for that indispensible common house to be 'strengthened and made more effective'.

While the Declaration reasserts "the sovereign equality of states", don't be fooled by what appears to be a recognition of national sovereignty. The "sovereign equality of states" means what it says: all states have equal sovereignty—with each other. But in the new global order, as in that other Animal Farm, some animals are more equal. In this case the Big Pig—the UN—is 'more sovereign' than all the rest. The rest can enjoy equally whatever sovereignty is left after Big Pig gorges itself at the sovereignty trough. In other words, virtually none.

And where did the 32-point Declaration come from? It certainly wasn't a composite of the views expressed by the world 'leaders' in their allocated five-minute declarations of subservience to the Big Pig. The Declaration was prepared in advance, ready for signing. So who drew it up? Not Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, who is just a figurehead. Was it some committee of UN bureaucrats? Under whose direction? On the advice of UN-approved ('accredited') Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs)? Who is really pulling the strings behind this 'indispensable common house of the entire human family'?

According to The Age, the Millennium Declaration is divided into seven operative sections, two of which give specific dates for action. By signing it, 'national' governments undertake to, by the year 2015, halve the 20 per cent of the world's population currently without access to safe drinking water, and the 22 per cent living on less than $US1 ($A1.80) a day; ensure that all children complete primary education; reduce maternal mortality by three-quarters and infant mortality by two-thirds; halt and begin to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS, malaria and other major diseases; to provide special assistance to AIDS orphans; and by 2020, achieve "a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers".

This is not just a wish list; it is a list of things 'to do'. Orders from Global Central. By signing the Declaration, Prime Minister Howard has committed his government—and the taxpayers of Australia—to the achievement of these goals. What have any of them to do with Australia, and where is his 'mandate' to commit the Australian nation to their achievement? If this is not proof that the Australian government is willingly acting as a subsidiary government of the UN world government, what is it? If this is not evidence that Australia—a country which lectures countries like Fiji on the virtues of 'democracy'—is no longer itself a democracy in the proper meaning of the term, what is it then?

It is no defence to argue—as globalists invariably try to—that since all these are laudable goals it doesn't matter how they are achieved—how much democracy, how many Constitutions, or how much of the rule of law is/are ignored in their pursuit. It does matter. In properly conducted human affairs, 'means' are just as important as 'ends.' Treachery, deceit and contempt for real democracy and legality are no bases for any sort of government—national or global.

On the environment, the Declaration resolves that by 2002 the Australian government has "to make every effort to ensure the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol", which sets limits on greenhouse gas emissions (to stop the 'global warming' for which there is still no creditable scientific evidence). It also resolves to intensify collective efforts to preserve forests, and to "stop the unsustainable exploitation of water resources". All of which are part of Agenda 21, the world government agenda for the twenty-first century, to which the Australian government committed this country at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, and about which no politician has had the decency to inform the Australian people.

The Declaration commits national governments to support radical structural and policy reforms in 'peacekeeping'. What are they? They involve the creation of a permanent UN standing army, starting with a 6000-strong 'rapid reaction force'. Rapid reaction to what? Well, among other things, 'rogue states'—states which get sick of doing the global dance and actually try to exert some of their 'sovereign equality'. And despite the claims of some journalists, the 'peacekeeping' role envisaged for the UN at its formation was not that of a body with its own army that would get itself embroiled in the very conflicts it was supposedly trying to resolve, it was that of impartial referee in disputes between nations. The 'world army' idea is one of the many add-ons, as the UN 'evolved' into a world government, as if by magic.

By signing the Declaration, the Howard government has agreed to "take concerted action against international terrorism" and small arms trafficking (goodbye to the rest of Australia's guns), intensify the fight against transnational crime and to redouble efforts to counter the global drug problem; "keep all options open" for eliminating nuclear weapons, and "spare no effort to promote democracy and the strengthen the rule of law" ('democracy' meaning 'globalism', and 'rule of law' meaning 'people control by government'—the army shooting civilians), combat all forms of violence and discrimination against women, "take measures to ensure respect" for the human rights of migrants (never mind the locals), and to "eliminate increasing acts of racism and xenophobia in many societies" (meaning crush attempts to preserve national culture against the destructive effects of the forced global immigration programme called 'multiculturalism').

One section pledges to protect the vulnerable, notably children, refugees and people displaced by conflict and natural disasters (come in, boat people). Another resolves to meet the special needs of Africa, by supporting 'emerging democracies' (those cooperating with 'American interests abroad') and helping regional organisations to 'prevent conflict' (meaning 'crush resurgent nationalism'). It promises "a reliable flow of resources for peacekeeping on the continent." Paid for by whom? No prizes for guessing that.

The final section says the UN must be made "a more effective instrument for pursuing all of these priorities." Specifically, it resolves to "intensify our efforts to achieve a comprehensive reform of the Security Council in all its aspects", and to strengthen the International Court of Justice, which arbitrates in disputes between states.

So there it is: world government in practice -- and nobody even mentioned the words. what.htm