Connecting the dots . . .
UN World Government Treaty to be Signed in December via Climate Change
By Mike Kocal
Until recently, many viewed the idea of a New World Order (NWO) or World Government to be only a conspiracy theory, or a plan being pushed by neo-conservatives. Now, it might appear that the NWO and a world government could be set into place very soon.
In recent months and in past years, there has been a great deal of talk about a NWO and globalization, as well as a new International Reserve Currency replacing the dollar. Allegations of talks between mid-east countries and China, Russia, France and others to replace the dollar as the trading currency of oil with a "basket" of currencies, that would exclude the dollar completely, have been dismissed by these nations, but there are some that say this speculation is real.
With such an enormous impact to the US and the world, some still say that the establishment of a NWO is simply not the case, or that discussion of such has only good intention behind it. In December, the United Nations Conference on Climate Change will take place in Denmark, and a treaty or agreement that was prepared in September will be signed. The "good intention" might be based upon solving global climate problems, whereas third world nations would receive payment from the US and the developed world over these scientific issues. Nonetheless, recent remarks and documents have made it apparent that the premise of a World Government superceding US sovereignty is very possible.
At a Minnesota Free Market Institute meeting held in St. Paul on Wednesday, October 14th, British Lord Christopher Monckton, a former adviser to Prime Minister Thatcher, remarked, "At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they're going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubberstamp it. Virtually nobody won't sign it.
"I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word "government" actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, "climate debt" because we've been burning CO2 and they haven't. We've been screwing up the climate and they haven't. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement."
Starting on page 18 of the treaty, it proclaims, "The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following: (a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. (b) The Convention's financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows. (c) The Convention's facilitative mechanism will include..."
As stated, the new "government" will be ruled by the COP. According to http://en.cop15.dk/frontpage/faq, "COP stands for Conference oftheParties. It is the highest body of the United Nations Climate Change Convention and consists of environment ministers who meet once a year to discuss the convention's developments."
To most laymen, the technical terminology might be difficult to understand. In the context of this treaty, redistribution of funds from wealthier nations to poorer nations that have allegedly been impacted by the industrial world's environmental harms will occur, the COP will be given the authority to supercede member governments' actions and decisions, as well as enforce adherence to the treaty's rules, effectively eliminating national sovereignties.
Certainly, a world government being created solely for climate change issues might not make sense, as there could potentially be alternate methods of addressing this controversial issue. So, might there be another reason behind it? In helping the environment and those countries supposedly harmed by pollution, the payments to third world nations will flow through the World Bank, which establishes interest rates on loans it will issue to underdeveloped countries. The treaty discloses the World Bank's role on page 39 and again on pages 67 and 129. With this "front" of climate change, and saving the environment, the World Bank and the small group of the bank's private owners, will profit. Reading between the lines, one can see that it is feasible that the profiting of a small group of "elitists" could logically be a reason. Any nation that signs the treaty will be obligated to adhere to the policies established, no longer leaving room for those nations to make decisions that ultimately affect the environment, their industry, economy, etc. This is the mechanism nations will agree to that cedes their sovereignty by simply signing this "agreement". The ruling government (the COP) will also have great power provided to them, another logical reason why this new government is being created.
On the UN Climate Change Conference web site, http://en.cop15.dk/calendar/show+activity?activityid=1978, a calendar item set to begin on December 7th entitled "Peoples Climate Summit" lists a brief description that does not mention the creating of a new world government, but instead, "Klimaforum09 will actively seek influence on the outcome of COP15 by preparing a truly international declarationand a catalogue of solutions."
Last year, Henry Kissinger, who has held numerous positions in several administrations from Richard Nixon to George H. W. Bush, stated to Charlie Rose in an interview on PBS last year, "There is a need for a new world order. I think that at the end of this administration, with all its turmoil, and at the beginning of the next, we might actually witness the creation of a new order."
Back in January, Kissinger made another comment during an interview on CNBC. He said, "The president-elect is coming into office at a moment when there is upheaval in many parts of the world simultaneously." He added, "You have India, Pakistan; you have the jihadist movement. So he can't really say there is one problem, that it's the most important one. But he can give new impetus to American foreign policy partly because the reception of him is so extraordinary around the world. His task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a new world order can be created. It's a great opportunity, it isn't just a crisis."
President George H. W. Bush said, before a joint session of Congress in 1989, "A new partnership of nations has begun, and we stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment." He continued saying, "Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective a new world order can emerge: A new era in which the nations of the world, east and west, north and south, can prosper and live in harmony." No one realized that what he said could have been a lead-in to where we are today. Then, only several days ago, George H. W. Bush and President Obama stood before a group in Texas with a striking backdrop that proclaimed, "United We Serve" instead of the familiar "United We Stand" a change to a phrase that is at least curious.
Even other nations have been discussing a NWO and globalization. Back in April at the G20 Summit, England's Prime Minster Gordon Brown said, "From today we will together manage the process of globalization." Brown is not the only other international leader that discussed a NWO.
The President of the World Bank, Robert Zoellick, openly admitted the plan to eliminate national sovereignty and impose a global government during a speech on the eve of the G20 summit at the end of March and said, "If leaders are serious about creating new global responsibilities or governance, let them start by modernizing multilateralism to empower the WTO (World Trade Organization), the IMF (International Monetary Fund), and the World Bank Group to monitor national policies." He also said, "It's time we recognize that an inclusive and sustainable globalization depends on encouraging multiple poles of growth."
In addition, some fear that the collapse of the US dollar is right around the cornerweeks to months away. The dollar's value has plunged in recent months, but the mainstream media has failed to report this situation. Could this result in the US being forced to use an international currency, issued by the central banks, in tandem to the UN's proposed climate change treaty?
Professor Willem Buiter, a former Monetary Policy Committee member (England) who is now at the London School of Economics wrote earlier this year, "There will, before long be a global dumping of U. S. dollar assets, including U. S. government assets."
Ron Paul (R- TX) commented on the overspending by our government, which could be tied into the discussions of replacing the dollar and the creation of a world government. "From their spending habits, an economic collapse seems to be the goal of Congress and this administration," he said in his June 22, 2009, weekly address. He commented during another interview in March, "The dollar as a reserve standard is done."
Columnist and former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during the Reagan Administration Paul Craig Roberts wrote, "The US government's budget is 50% in the red. That means half of every dollar the federal government spends must be borrowed or printed. Because of the worldwide debacle caused by Wall Street's financial gangsterism, the world needs its own money and hasn't $2 trillion annually to lend to Washington" and "As dollars are printed, the growing supply adds to the pressure on the dollar's role as reserve currency." He says, "When the over-supplied U. S. dollar loses the reserve currency role, the U. S. will no longer be able to pay for its massive imports of real goods and services with pieces of paper. Overnight, shortages will appear and Americans will be poorer."
Ron Paul and others in the minority believe that this will ultimately lead to a depression that could last for 15 years. Liberals have dismissed the remarks of these conservatives, but with the decline of the dollar and government spending reaching into the trillions of dollars, some that would have never believed the speculation only a few months ago are seeing a "truth" to it. Now, the potential for a new World Government via "saving the environment" ties things together even more so.
The once Mighty Dollar may some day soon cease to exist, as well as our sovereignty as the greatest nation on earth. The question the UN might not have considered completely is, will Americans allow this to happen?
