This is an archived site. Phone numbers, addresses, e-mail links, etc are INVALID. DO NOT PLACE ANY ORDERS.

Frames No Frame


By Joan Veon

The Women's International Media Group, Inc.


In 1998 and 1999, we were inundated constantly with Y2K and the fear of not updating our computers globally. People started to stock up on food, move to the country, buy generators, etc. In 1998 when this global propaganda phenomenon began, I covered a number of international meetings where the Y2K message was the same as what was being delivered on the national level. Then in 1999 something unusual happened, I heard nothing about the consequences of Y2K at the international level while Joe Average continued to be inundated on the national level. On January 1 2000 when Y2K was a non-event, I sat in front of the television for three days listening to what really took place. I concluded that the Y2K scare was to get the world wired and interconnected globally. To do so, a cover-up excuse was needed.

With regard to Iraq and the big bad boogeyman, what is the real agenda? Is it oil? Is it the economic stimulus that America and the rest of the world needs in order to re-ignite the economic growth machine, is it power or could it be the "New World Order" in operation?

For the first time in our history, America is going to war by provoking another country. Before you jump to conclusions, I am not trying to defend Sadaam Hussein. But take a look at the precedence that is occurring here.

We have a country that has not outwardly provoked anyone. There are rumors of his dictatorial powers but he has not done anything to America. Yes, they may have weapons of mass destruction but they are not the only country that does. I am sure there are more sophisticated countries other than Iraq that have these weapons. So why are we picking on them?

I believe that the answer is found in Henry Kissinger's book Does America need a Foreign Policy? Toward a Diplomacy for the 21st Century. In the book, Dr. Kissinger lays out the "rationale" for a new foreign policy. Basically he says that the UN is a system of collective security, "A system of collective security is juridically neutral; far from defining the threat, and it is obliged to wait for it to emerge before action can be considered. In a system such as the United Nations, the aggressor cannot be named in advance and has a right to participate in the deliberations regarding its actions; to do otherwise would be to abandon the impartial and quasi-judicial character of the organization."

The UN Security Council, which has veto power, has declined to give full consent to Bushes actions. Instead there is talk about how the UN needs to be changed. I believe that the next major step will be to change the function of the UN from preventative action to one of humanitarian intervention.

Written in 2001, Mr. Kissinger explains that a "new Interventionism" which is humanitarian in scope has evolved. Beginning in 1974 when the Nixon administration increased Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union from less than 1000 to nearly 35,000 to Bill Clinton who turned away from traditional notions of security and geopolitics to one of humanitarian intervention which asserts that "humane convictions are so integral a part of the American tradition" [that we have the right to defend others].

Using the Gulf War as an example, Kissinger explains how America could no longer stand by when Iraq invaded Kuwait because it was a threat to one of our allies, "all whom are indispensable suppliers of oil for the industrial democracies." Three months later, "NATO, under American prodding, bombed Yugoslavia for seventy-eight days around the clock to end Serbia's human rights violations in Kosovo, even though Kosovo represented no threat to American security in any traditional sense." After Kosovo, there was Somalia to help distribute food, then Haiti in order to free a country from a military government, then Bosnia to end the civil war.

Therefore Clinton used "humanitarian" reasons to justify his entering sovereign countries. What this really says is that national sovereignty as we have known it no longer exists. It is not recognized any longer on the international level! This new philosophy is called "universal jurisdiction." Kissinger says that the 1990 sixth edition of Black's Law Dictionary does not even contain the term.

Besides humanitarian reasons--there is another evolving reason to invade a country: if it is a failed state. A failed state is supposedly a state in which the president or prime minister is not providing for his people in all of the basic ways. East Timor was the first failed state that we "saved".

All of the above are setting precedence so that humanitarian intervention becomes universally accepted and practiced. For the most powerful, it is legal license to go after countries with large deposits of natural resources. For the less powerful, it will be no different than the rebirth of Attila the Hun.

In doing further research, I found that a group calling themselves the "New World Order Forum" is advocating exactly what Henry Kissinger advocates.

Located in St. George' House, Windsor Castle and using the logo of the Order of the Garter (the Order of the Garter is the inner most powerful circle advising the Queen begun in 1348 by Edward III), this group has put together several forums in which they have concluded that the world needs a new governance structure that "isn't Pax Americana," one that is based on principles not power.

These principles "need to command a very wide base of support if the international community is to be able to carry out the major 'restructuring of the global political and financial architecture' that is now necessary to create a more multi-lateral World Order."

With regard to the UN, they say it needs a new "global political architecture" based on some sort of new World Constitution, enshrining the principle of the sovereignty of the people at a global level. Notice they are not advocating sovereignty of nations.

Furthermore the New World Order Forum says the UN has to have a "more modular structure"--where it can get the involvement of community, business, faith organizations and voluntary organizations--SHADES OF THE UN People's Parliament and the UN Millennium Summit. The UN was given the "right" to add a "People's Parliament" at the September 2000 Millennium Summit in New York.

In addition, this forum states that the Security Council should be reformed with regard to the veto and the need for action to deter members from pursuing their own national interests.

Lastly, the New World Order Forum spent a fair amount of space discussing the new role of the UN. In doing so, some of their participants felt that the nation states are "an independent agent" and the "biggest threat to civil liberties and freedom"! This, along with UN humanitarian intervention, will be the topic of discussion for their June conference. At that time, they will partner with the New Atlantic Initiative based at the American Enterprise Institute-AEI to convene a joint Windsor Forum on the theme of "The UN and Global Security: do we need to 're-invent' the UN, and if so, how?" It was reported in the March 22-23 edition of the Financial Times that AEI is the "Bush Administration's ideological vanguard. Over a "black coffee briefing on the war on Iraq" on Friday, they presented their vision of the postwar agenda that includes "radical reform of the United Nations, regime change in Iran and Syria and "containment" of France and Germany."

How do you eat an elephant? One step at a time. It appears that all of the steps have been taken to bring us to a point in time where the nation-state concept is obsolete, the U.S. Constitution is an outdated document and that the role, structure and position of the UN is evolving to save us from us.

Interestingly enough, the action of the U.S. and the veto of the Security Council as well as our attack of Iraq appear to have set the stage for debates on the role of the Security Council and the need for another new phase of global governance. This indeed is a New Age as a New World Order is about to take over.

President Bush has continued in the globalist steps of Clinton who took up from the globalist steps of Bush I and Reagan, as well as all of the previous presidents to Wilson who fought hard to get Congress to agree to the League of Nations, the UN's predecessor. What we are now witnessing are the finishing touches. This was recently verified by Sir Brian Urquhart.

He has advocated global governance and the evolving role of the UN in global democracy for years. Recently he observed, "No one foresaw the ideological approach of the Bush administration. It has introduced principles that do not exist in the charter--the idea of the right to change the regime of another country, the idea of talking military action to pre-empt a possible future threat. What's under threat is the concept of world order as written in the charter that was largely drafted by the US. At present the US seems to want to change the rules."

Now that all of the barriers between the nation-states have been torn down, the thinking of the globalists is that it is time to have the sovereignty of people replace the nation-state. In our case, that would include Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Written on the walls of the Town Hall Center in Basle Switzerland that dates back to the 1500s, "Freedom is greater than silver and gold." Once our freedoms are lost through the above evolution to global democratic governance based on people, not governments, we will never get them back.