Yes, there is an effort to bring about a new world order and it is succeeding. This is a goal that has been pursued by the ruling elites for a good part of the last century but there has been a definite increase in their progress over the past two decades. Regardless of the form this global governance takes, every sovereign, democratic nation will cease to exist because above the sovereign nation state there is no democracy.
Kenneth Anderson, in a review of the scholarly work, ‘A New World Order’, by Anne-Marie Slaughter, concludes that attempts to establish global governance will mean the end of the sovereign, democratic nation state:
“Yet in the end, I cannot see that the system of ‘A New World Order’ will preserve democracy and democratic accountability. It fails to balance the three horns of the trilemma: global governance, democracy, and democratic accountability. Slaughter’s argument produces an unstable system and fails to square its descriptions of what global governance will come to mean if fully undertaken as against the weaker, and ever weakening, legitimate value of democracy. Sovereignty is important because it can shelter within its embrace of power the weaker, yet more important, value of democracy. The value of robust democratic sovereignty is not that it must do so, but that it can.
“A New World Order offers a system in which, for all its good intentions, democracy gradually gives way because the system finally erodes sovereignty to the point at which it serves as no shelter for democracy at all.” Harvard Law Review (Because the intent of those supporting global governance is to do just that.)
A number of global institutions are already in place, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The WTO has trade tribunals that decide disputes over trade and related areas among the member nations and impose penalties on the loser.
The New World Order is being constructed by harmonized trade agreements between nations, regions and globally (WTO). The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between Canada, Mexico and the United States is a regional agreement for North America which has now been expanded through the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), also known as NAFTA Plus. It will include a common security perimeter around the continent and open borders, following in the steps of the European Union.
Robert Pastor, a leader in developing the Council on Foreign Relations plan for Building a North American Community, known as the road map for the SPP, has said that “NAFTA was merely the first draft of an economic constitution for North America.”
NAFTA has a section called Chapter 11, which allows a foreign investor or corporation to sue the government of a NAFTA nation (United States) if it, or any level of government passes “any law, regulation, procedure, requirement or practice” that prevents a foreign investor from making a profit.
“Corporate investors…have used NAFTA’s investor-state enforcement system to challenge court rulings, local and state environmental policies, municipal contracts, tax policy, federal controlled substances regulations, federal and state anti-gambling policies, a federal government’s alleged failure to provide water rights, and even the provision of public postal services. In most instances, challengers have sought millions of dollars in damages, claiming that regulatory measures and government actions negatively affected their profitability. If an investor prevails in its NAFTA claim, the losing nation is obliged to compensate the firm from the national treasury.” (That’s the American taxpayer.)
Under Chapter 11, the foreign investor can choose to have a NAFTA tribunal hear the case or go through the member nation’s court system. If an investor is dissatisfied with the verdict of that court, he can take his claim to the NAFTA tribunal.
The tribunal can, and has, reviewed decisions by an American court. That review process means all courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Trade tribunals are unconstitutional and a number of legal experts have commented on them:
Peter Spiro, Hofstra University law professor, stated, “…it points to a fundamental reorientation of our constitutional system. You have an international tribunal essentially reviewing American court judgements.”
John D. Echevarria, a law professor at Georgetown University: “This is the biggest threat to United States judicial independence.”
Echeverria noted that since the executive branch of both Republican and Democratic administrations supported Chapter 11, a state “…would appear to have standing to seek a declaration in federal court that the investor-state litigation process (Chapter 11) violates Article III (of the U.S. Constitution). When and if a state takes up this challenge, the conclusion will almost certainly be that the investor-state process is unconstitutional.” (Remember, the plan is for the sovereign nation-state to be eliminated and replaced with global governance so that’s not going to happen.)
Now Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Great Britain sees “the current worldwide economic downturn as an opportunity to reform international financial institutions and create a new ‘truly global society’…”
“He also wants an agreement on a world trade deal and reform of the international financial system based on principles of ‘transparency, integrity, responsibility, sound banking practice and global governance with coordination across borders.'”
“The alliance between Britain and the US, and more broadly between Europe and the US (Transatlantic Partnership), can and must provide leadership, not in order to make the rules ourselves, but to lead the global effort to build a stronger and more just international order. See ‘A Single Political Framework for U.S.-European Union by 2015?’, this blog, archives, July 22, 2008.
“My message is that we must be internationalist not protectionist, interventionist not neutral, progressive not reactive and forward-looking not frozen by events. We can seize the moment and in doing so build a truly global society.” November 2008
The merger of North America, followed by the integration of the Western Hemisphere plus similar regional trading areas across the world, the African Union, for example, and the growing number of global institutions governing everything that affects our lives means that citizens of the United States will eventually have no say in their government. And this harmonized and integrated world will be based, according to George Bush, “on international laws.”
Congress will still exist but have little authority. This is the direction in which member nations of the EU are heading. Members of the British Parliament complain that most of their laws are now initiated and passed by the European Union Parliament. Elected members of the EU Parliament have an oath to the EU and not to their nation. Legislation is enacted from this perspective.
You can look forward to drastic changes in our financial system in the near future as those in charge are seriously considering topics like a global banking system and a single currency. Those constructing a North American Community are also planning a common currency for the continent. Click on currency link above, then One World, One Money.
Globalization is the cause of our disintegrating economy and out of control immigration. The rulers (corporations) of our nation plan to continue shipping jobs overseas and bringing in millions of cheap temporary workers to replace Americans. So their answer to the problem that they caused is more globalization.
Professor Philip Bom:
“There is the determination to institutionalize interdependence: a new global order through regional, bilateral and multilateral regulations…[hence] individual freedoms and national constitutional authority are sacrificed on the alter of the new global commonism.” Re-zoning the World: The Merging of the Americas in a New Global Order. (1992)
It’s clear that each American stands alone. The ruling elite have not considered you in their plans, except as a source of cheap labor and a consumer. So your future plans are simple. They should be based on simply surviving the future.