Incredibly, Annan spoke these words just days after
many of these same Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) rioted in
Seattle, protesting the World Trade Organization (WTO). Annan actually
condoned the riots by saying, "I see a United Nations which
recognizes that the NGO revolution, the new ‘global people power,’ or
whatever else you wish to call this explosion of citizens’ concern at
the global level is the best thing that has happened to the organization
in a long time." Annan believes that such a partnership would
create a "just, democratic and peaceful future for all."
It is doubtful the Seattle merchants who were victimized by the riots
would agree.
The December, 1999 WOCSOC meeting was a preparatory
meeting to the May, 2000 UN sponsored "Millennium Forum." The
Forum is ostensibly designed to allow NGOs the opportunity to provide
input into the September 6th UN Millennium Summit, during which all the
heads of state in the world will meet to decide the role the UN will play
in the 21st Century.
The Millennium Forum, however, will likely do far more
than merely provide NGO input to the Millennium Summit. According to the
1995 report of the UN Commission on Global Governance and Kofi Annan’s
Track II UN reform documents, the Millennium Summit was to be the forum in
which the heads of state signed a new UN Charter. That goal was exposed
with the help of Discerning the Times (see February, 1999) and the
UN now denies a new charter will be signed. Yet, no agenda has been
announced for the Summit. Why?
Whether in Seattle or Montreal, it is clear that NGOs
are demanding that the UN be restructured to institute global governance
to correct what they see as the evils of the world. They are also
demanding, as part of this restructuring, a seat at the global policy-
making table in the form of a "Peoples Assembly" as a second
chamber to the UN. The term "Peoples Assembly," however, is an
oxymoron because it will represent only radical special interest NGOs, not
the peoples of the world.
The violence and demands made by NGOs in Seattle were
planned for over a year. Seattle officials were even warned months in
advance by the FBI that there would be riots. Not surprisingly, the
"spontaneous" demands in Seattle are the same as those
"spontaneously" arising during the WOCSOC meeting a week later.
The same NGOs, supposedly representing the people of the world, will make
the same demands during the Millennium Forum in May, 2000. Except the
demands will likely be articulated in a highly sophisticated focused
document called Charter 99, A Charter for Global Democracy.
Charter 99 asserts that the UN has been "sidelined,
while the real business of world government is done elsewhere."
In order to deal with their perception of global problems, Charter 99
draws upon The Commission on Global Governance’s report, The Earth
Summit, Agenda 21, Biodiversity Treaty and the International
Criminal Court, to name only a few, as beacons to light the way to global
governance.
Like the NGO demands at Seattle and the WOCSOC meeting,
Charter 99 outlines as "areas for urgent action":
giving the UN an independent source of revenue, (such as the Tobin Tax
that would increase UN revenue from about $1.3 billion to over $1.5
trillion annually); a permanent standing UN army; "mandatory" UN
registration of small arms; the phasing out of single-country veto and
permanent membership of the Security Council; compulsory jurisdiction of
the International Criminal Court; establishment of an International
Environmental Court; and that the World Trade Organization be brought
formally into the UN system.
The Charter also heralds the causes of
sustainable development, stating they want "all decisions to be
compatible with...environmental sustainability." It also
valiantly holds up the UN’s version of human rights, including
"universal access" to family planning, which inevitably includes
abortion on demand, a real problem for those nations who still hold that
abortion is an abomination. Another tenet of the Charter is one
that would coerce these uncooperative governments by the creation of
"effective mechanisms" to hold every agency of world
government to account. What mechanisms will be implemented to force
adherence to international law remains to be seen. It is likely, however,
the WTO will be one of them.
The violence in Seattle provided a beautifully executed
diversion and an effective smoke screen that will leave the real radicals
promoting Charter 99 looking like self-controlled moderates, deserving of
a seat at the UN and WTO policy making table. Because of the riots, the
enforcement powers of the WTO will likely be greatly expanded. These
powers, which now only include enforcement of International Monetary Fund
judgments over balance of payment, may in the near future be expanded to
enforce environmental, labor and social judgments. These could then be
used to set precedents in the WTO’s trade policy or adjudication
process.
By influencing the WTO, NGOs could dictate economic
policy through their version of environmental and social correctness. If a
nation, industry or corporation is not environmentally or socially
correct, according to their definitions, they can use the WTO to impose
trade or economic sanctions, effectively catapulting the WTO into using
coercion to police global governance.
NGOs already advise the UN in matters of international
policy, and the Seattle riots seem to have provided the extra force needed
to get them a seat on making trade policy as well. But what NGOs want is
"green" trade, not free trade. They want trade rules that
promote only sustainable development and U.S. style labor practices. Yet,
many Third World countries see these trade restrictions as invasive
policies that only exacerbate the plight of people already suffering from
severe poverty and further handicap these struggling nations in their
efforts to compete in a global market. They view President Clinton’s
desire to see sanctions imposed on any country that does not adhere to
U.S. style labor regulations, such as minimum wage laws and labor union
subsidies, as being unworkable ideals thrust upon them by wealthy
developed nations.
Yet, every indication suggests these NGOs intend to put
enormous pressure on the heads of state during the Millennium Summit to
immediately institute their brand of global governance through radical
changes to the UN Charter. The goals of Charter 99 trample on the
sovereignty of every nation on the globe. Rather than representing
"the people", NGOs represent only the special interest money
that keeps them operating, and their own ideologies. Allowing
unaccountable, unrepresentative NGOs to interfere in intergovernmental
discussion undermines true freedom for everyone. Negotiations at this
level must be among national dignitaries representing and accountable to
their collective countrymen. While NGOs cry "Global
Democracy!", they are actually demanding power for themselves
within a centralized global government. V ks
