May 302009

Font Size » Large | Small

Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haass is a big player in the pursuit of Richard Haass said that new mechanisms are needed for regional and global governance that include actors other than states. global governance. Haass, a foreign policy adviser to presidential candidate Mike Huckabee in 2008, also makes frequent appearances on cable news shows where he discusses foreign policy. But the strange thing is that no news host has ever brought up the topic of global governance or the North American Community (AKA Union), a plan to integrate North America. He is considered an expert on both. In fact, he is directly responsible for the plan to construct this continental “trading area”, a region of the new world order.

For his efforts on behalf of the Council on Foreign Relations Task Force plan for Building a North American Community, Haass received this acknowledgement  on page xx of the plan:

“At the Council on Foreign Relations, we would like to thank Council President Richard N. Haass, who proposed this Task Force and supported it throughout.” Lee Feinstein, Executive Director, Task Force Program.

Haass opened the “first annual conference on global governance” on May 7, 2009 in New York. The topic, ‘American Leadership and Global Governance in an age of Nonpolarity’, featured experts in the field and discussions.

Globalists  have different views on what global governance should look like but the end result would be regional and global institutions taking sovereignty from individual nations in areas that a single state can’t handle in a world without borders. These institutions may be from the United Nations, NGOs (non governmental organizations) and corporations (trade agreements).

Corporate institutions, such as The World Trade Organization (WTO) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have trade tribunals that cover much of what goes on in a member nation. A foreign company operating in the United States, for example, can sue the U.S. government by claiming that some action taken by any level of government, such as an environmental law, prevented it from making a profit.

Under NAFTA, if a member nation loses the suit, it must pay money to the successful corporation. In some cases, Canada, Mexico and the United States have had their laws and policies affected by these tribunals. A NAFTA tribunal has also reviewed a U.S. Court decision and can do the same in cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. These tribunals, in their significant area of competence, are the highest court in the land.

Haass, in a Taipei Times article, said:

“The near monopoly of power once enjoyed by sovereign entities (nations) is being eroded.

“As a result, new mechanisms are needed for regional (North American Community) and global governance that include actors other than states. This is not to argue that Microsoft, Amnesty International, or Goldman Sachs be given seats in the UN General Assembly, but it does mean including representatives of such organizations in regional and global deliberations when they have the capacity to affect whether and how regional and global challenges are met.

“Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function. This is already taking place in the trade realm. Governments agree to accept the rulings of the WTO because on balance they benefit from an international trading order even if a particular decision requires that they alter a practice that is their sovereign right to carry out.”

Haass continues:

“The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalization, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy.”

(World government or global governance will both end in disaster. The evidence so far is clear and  compelling. The mass of humanity below the ruling elites are merely tools of production to be exploited. Americans, in particular, will have a violent, Balkanized nation, no say in how they are governed, no chance of a decent life and nothing left to believe in.)

Having said that, those who want to end the sovereign nation state push on. On May 7, 2009, Haass opened the “first annual conference on global governance“. The topic, “American Leadership and Global Governance in an Age of Nonpolarity’, featured experts in the field of global governance.

(Note: As expected, when documents related to this topic are published on this site, they often disappear within one or two days. I have provided another link to “global governance” above. If this one should be broken, google the CFR conference topic listed above.)

Some comments from the participants:

Haass, opening comments on the global governance project:

“Soon, coming to a site near you, will be the Global Governance Monitor. And what this is is a new multimedia tool that will constantly track and evaluate the status and the quality of international cooperation in various areas. We’re going to begin with the area of proliferation, I believe, and then we’re going to go to finance, and so forth. And gradually we’re going to, one by one, pick up various areas of international cooperation in these functional realms.

“And then we will update it, as necessary; and after six months, a year, essentially, you’ll have a fairly comprehensive guide to the state of global governance. And the idea, again, is to have it as an on-line resource for people here, but also much more broadly, for students, experts around–not simply this country, but around the world.”

Nicholas Burns, former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs:

“I do think that most people are looking for American leadership on this issue of global governance, and of how we structure the world so it can be what we want it to be–more peaceful, more stable, more just. And, in that respect, I think that President Obama has a rare and unique opportunity to lead on this issue, of how we look at the international institutions that have been so important to us and see how we can modernize them.

“What I see in the international reaction to President Obama is a thirst for American leadership, and for positive American leadership. And I think…he’s been able at least to lay out the architecture for an American foreign policy that would have us be more engaged in most of the principal international institutions.”

David F. Gordon, Head of Research and Director, Global Macro Analysis, Eurasia Group, notes the problems that arise when dealing with Congressmen from rural areas filled with ignorant yokels (American citizens);

“I’m concerned about the Congress. I worked for Lee Hamilton back in the ’90s. Lee was a great leader on international issues, but he represented a very rural and, sort of, inward-looking district in Indiana, And it was a great discipline for the staff, because we had to write all these letters back to constituents on why we were doing this, and why we were doing that. And it forced discipline upon us.” (They lied to the people.)

Gordon goes on to say that many new members of Congress, from both parties, tend to be more “skeptical, frankly,… of international engagement more broadly, and multilateralism, specifically.” (He’s concerned they aren’t on board with global governance.)

Haass, the number one supporter of an integrated North America as a region under global governance said this in the foreword to Building a North American Community:

“The Task Force offers a detailed and ambitious set of proposals that build on the recommendations adopted by the three governments at the Texas summit of March 2005. The Task Force’s central recommendation is establishment by 2010 (They are 4 or 5 years behind schedule) of a North American economic and security community, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter.”

The outer security perimeter requires legislation by Congress before our borders can be North America will become a region of the New World Order.changed. This was attempted by inserting the language to mandate this new border in comprehensive immigration bills over the last four years. The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security would be responsible for the project.  None of the legislation passed.

After completion and certification that this common security perimeter is under operational control of  North America, the inner, common borders between Mexico and the United States and between Canada and the United States can be opened to the free flow of people (cheap labor) and commerce. (As in the European Union.) See pp. 3 and 8 in the above link, Building a North American Community.

Obama wants to build a fence along the border with Mexico. It would be a “virtual fence”, consisting of camera towers, radar, motion detectors, drones and response teams. This is the same system that will be utilized for the rest of our international land and sea borders. Canada is working on their perimeter and we passed a bill, The Merida Initiative, which will give billions to Mexico to gain operational control of their borders.

If completed, a new geographical and political entity would be a reality, including governing institutions such as a permanent trade tribunal and, already in place and functioning, a permanent North American Competitiveness Council (NACC), consisting of CEOs from Canada, Mexico and the United States. They provide “advice” and legislation for building and operating this trading area, including foreign policy. The three leaders, their “ministers” and members of the NACC have a yearly summit meeting (no transparency) to continue the process of transformation to this new world order.

The next time you see Richard Haass, ask him about his projects.

Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /homepages/37/d718569407/htdocs/wp-includes/class-wp-comment-query.php on line 405