Andrew Gavin Marshall - February 2, 2011

Capitalism has always changed and morphed; it has adapted to changes in the world and has forced the world to adapt to its changes. Capitalism has never, and never will be, entirely consistent in its structure and institutions. The global economic crisis has sped up developments that have been underway for a long time, specifically within the last century. In the midst of a global crisis, these changes, which have been slow and evolutionary, are being rapidly sped up and accelerated.

Introduction

The global political economy is being transformed into a global government structure at the crossroads of a major financial crisis. However, far from the assumptions of many students of Capitalism and the global political economy, these changes are not natural and inevitable; these changes are planned, organized, socialized and institutionalized. The process towards creating a global government is not a new one; several institutions and organizations throughout the world have slowly been directing the world down this path.

This chapter examines the process of constructing a global government, with a particular focus on the major organizations that have and are currently shaping this transformation. What is being undertaken is the deconstruction of the global economy and national polity in order to rebuild the global political economy into a singular governance structure. Thus, destruction becomes a form of creation; the global economic crisis must be viewed in this context.

Full story

Andrew Gavin Marshall - January 14, 2011

Defining the Imperial Stratagem

In the late 1990s Brzezinski wrote up the design for America’s imperial project in the 21st century in his book, “The Grand Chessboard.” He stated bluntly that, “it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America,” and then made clear the imperial nature of his strategy:

To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together.[1]

He further explained that the Central Asian nations (or “Eurasian Balkans” as he refers to them):

are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold.[2]

Brzezinski emphasizes “that America’s primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it.”[3]

Full story

William Jasper - Feb 16 2010

World government and world socialism. Those are the explicit goals of the Socialist International (SI), one of the planet’s most influential organizations, but one that is virtually unknown to the vast majority of Americans, since it is rarely mentioned in the major U.S. media.

For the last two weeks of December 2009 and throughout all of January 2010 the headline story at the top of the home page of the Socialist International’s website boasted of the organization’s prominent influence and clout at the recently concluded United Nations Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen, Denmark. However, the brief article, entitled “SI at COP15 in Copenhagen: reaffirming social democratic priorities,” does not begin to do justice to the Socialist International’s central role, not only in pushing the current alarmism over global warming, but also in building a global militant environmental lobby from 1970 to the present.

The SI was most notably represented in Copenhagen by its president, George Papandreou, who is also the current Prime Minister of Greece.

“At this time, we are observing the birth of global governance,” Papandreou said while addressing the UN summit on December 18. “We must, however, agree to an obligation and be committed to carrying this out,” he stressed.

Full story

Hillary Clinton and Walter Cronkite at World Federalist Association meeting (1999). Cronkite receives award from the World Federalist Association, for advocating World Government - the “Norman Cousins Global Governance Award.”

Marc Morano - July 10, 2009

Former Vice President Al Gore declared that the Congressional climate bill will help bring about “global governance.”

“I bring you good news from the U.S., “Gore said on July 7, 2009 in Oxford at the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment, sponsored by UK Times.

“Just two weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey climate bill,” Gore said, noting it was “very much a step in the right direction.” President Obama has pushed for the passage of the bill in the Senate and attended a G8 summit this week where he agreed to attempt to keep the Earth’s temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees C.

Gore touted the Congressional climate bill, claiming it “will dramatically increase the prospects for success” in combating what he sees as the “crisis” of man-made global warming.

“But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.” (Editor’s Note: Gore makes the “global governance” comment at the 1min. 10 sec. mark in this UK Times video.)

Gore’s call for “global governance” echoes former French President Jacques Chirac’s call in 2000.

Full story

Parts 1 and 2

—

Trichet: Financial Stability Board Crucial To New Global Governance

European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet said Sunday the Financial Stability Board should be the cornerstone of governance in the global economy.
“The G20 [Group of 20] is an essential element, but there is an entity which is very important, the FSB, because one can find there the global point of reference for regulation,” Trichet told an economist conference in southern France. “That’s where the true coordination of regulation takes place.”

Trichet said the current economic crisis has proved the global market economy is “fragile,” and a global form of governance is necessary.

William F. Jasper - 09 June 2009

United Nations General Assembly President Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann intends to leave his mark on the United Nations and the global economic-political picture before his one-year term ends in September. D’Escoto, a longtime top official in the communist Sandinista government of Nicaragua, has chosen as his primary vehicle for making this mark the UN Conference on the World’s Financial and Economic Crisis to be held June 24-26 at the UN headquarters in New York.

The D’Escoto-UN plan, which has received scant media coverage, is nothing short of s full-blown call for world government administered through the UN. The Draft Outcome Document issued by D’Escoto on May 8, 2009 on behalf of the “G-192″ (the representatives of the 192 Member States of the UN), decries the evils of “a profit centered economy” and the current “prevailing socio-economic system” and declares: “The anti-values of greed, individualism, and exclusion should be replaced by solidarity, common good and inclusion.”

How do D’Escoto and his UN comrades propose to accomplish this? The 19-page document lays out a Sandinista-style Marxist-Leninist program for the entire planet that involves global government, with a huge new global bureaucracy exercising vast powers over all human activity.

Full story

Hakan Altinay and Andre Wilkens - 14.04.2009

Could a global emissions-trading system serve as the European Coal and Steel Community of our times?

Extraordinary times call for extraordinary ideas, like the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community, which later became the European Union. That idea transformed a continent of conflict and hatred into a haven of peace, stability and prosperity.

Jean Monnet conceived of it becoming even more. In his memoirs, he wrote that “the Community we have created is not an end in itself. The sovereign nations of the past can no longer solve the problems of the present; they cannot control their own future.” The European Community should only be a stage on the way to the organised world of tomorrow, he wrote.

(more…)

Henry Lamb - April 04, 2009

Sovereignty means “supreme, independent authority. …” National sovereignty means “supreme, independent authority in government.” The United States bought its sovereignty with the blood of sovereign individuals who laid down their lives so this nation could be free from the dictates and demands of another nation.

The United States joined the community of nations as a sovereign nation. Over time, however, little by little, this sovereignty has been stolen.

Full story

Old-Thinker News | March 31, 2009
By Daniel Taylor

The Council on Foreign Relations, often described as the “real state department”, has launched an initiative to promote and implement a system of effective world governance.

The program, titled “The International Institutions and Global Governance Program,” utilizes the resources of the “…David Rockefeller Studies Program to assess existing regional and global governance mechanisms…” The initial funding for the program came with a $6 million grant from the Robina Foundation, which claims that the grant is “…one of the largest operating grants ever received in Council history.”

Full story

Joan Veon - April 3, 2009

In the book of Jeremiah, the prophet tells of the pending invasion of Judah by the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar. He records, “the snorting of horses was heard in Dan.” Can you imagine an invasion of that kind? You have been warned by reports that there is an invading army on the way. As they get closer you can feel the ground move as the multitude of well-trained soldiers and galloping horses get closer to your city. You are strangely aware that your world is going to change forever as you hear the snorting get louder.

That is how I felt fourteen years ago when I read the 1994 United Nations Development Report. I was absolutely shocked to read the Special Contribution entitled “Global Governance for the 21st Century” by the 1969 Nobel Prize for Economics, Jan Tinbergen. He wrote,

Mankind’s problems can no longer be solved by national governments. What is needed is a World Government. This can best be achieved by strengthening the United Nations system. In some cases, this would mean changing the role of UN agencies from advice-giving to implementation. But some of the most important new institutions would be financial—a World Treasury and a World Central Bank. Just as each nation has a system of income redistribution, so there should be a corresponding ‘World Financial Policy’ to be implemented by the World Bank and the World Central Bank. Some of these proposals are, no doubt, far-fetched and beyond the horizon of today’s political possibilities. But the idealist of today often turns out to be the realists of tomorrow.

Full story

Click for full view

February 9, 2009
By Cliff Kincaid

urprise and even shock were among the reactions to my recent column about how elite members of the World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting in Davos, Switzerland, were considering a proposal for a new global television network to usher in a state of “global governance.” It sounded authoritarian, even totalitarian, to some.

Here are more of the troubling details.

The media proposal, which was included in “The Global Agenda 2009″ report, is to create “a new global network” with “the capacity to connect the world, bridging cultures and peoples, and telling us who we are and what we mean to each other.” Several prominent U.S. media figures signed on to the alarming and controversial proposal.

Isn’t it nice that we might have a TV network telling us “who we are?” And “what we mean to each other?” Perhaps we will learn that we are global citizens. Perhaps a global leader of some sort will tell us that. Who might that be?

This outlandish and frightening proposal doesn’t come from a fringe organization. The WEF is an exclusive club of very rich and powerful people from around the world. It describes itself as “an independent international organization committed to improving the state of the world by engaging leaders in partnerships to shape global, regional and industry agendas.”

This year’s conference featured speeches by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Chinese Premier We Jiabao. Many U.S. corporations, including some getting Wall Street bailout money, were sponsors. News Corporation, the parent of Fox News, was a “strategic partner” of the event.

Full story

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

I was in the room in The Hague in November 2000 when then-French President Jacques Chirac hailed the Kyoto Protocol, or “global warming” treaty, as “the first component of an authentic global governance.” Then-European Union Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom seconded the sentiment when she told London’s Independent that Kyoto was “not about whether scientists agree” but instead “about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide.”

In truth, and as Europe is proving, its rhetorical bluster notwithstanding, no free society would do to itself what the Kyoto agenda requires. Hence the increased claims that this issue “is too important to be left to democracy.” Once a group of our betters is empowered to determine our energy - and therefore economic, sovereignty and national security - concerns, this crowd get its way.

Kyoto, of course, was negotiated while Carol M. Browner led the Environmental Protection Agency - and with her participation despite unanimous Senate instruction against doing so. Her position with Socialist International reminds us precisely why a radical like Mrs. Browner has had a position created for her, so as to avoid disclosure and Senate scrutiny, to lord over actual, Senate-confirmed Cabinet officials. Taxpayer representatives should not approve funds for such a position unless and until they receive an honest accounting of the agenda and its champions’ activities.

CHRIS HORNER

Senior fellow

Competitive Enterprise

Institute

Washington

US Intelligence: A Review of Global Trends 2025

Andrew G. Marshall - Global Research, December 19, 2008

Introduction
The United States’ National Intelligence Council has released a report, entitled “Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World“. This declassified document is the fourth report of  the Global Trends 2025: The National Intelligence Council’s 2025 Project.

The report outlines the paths that current geopolitical and economic trends may reach by the year 2025, in order to guide strategic thinking over the next few decades. The National Intelligence Council describes itself as the US Intelligence Community’s “center for midterm and long-term strategic thinking,” with the tasks of supporting the Director of National Intelligence, reaching out to non-governmental experts in academia and the private sector and it leads in the effort of providing National Intelligence Estimates.

The report was written with the active participation of not only the US intelligence community, but also numerous think tanks, consulting firms, academic institutions and hundreds of other experts. Among the participating organizations were the Atlantic Council of the United States, the Wilson Center, RAND Corporation, the Brookings Institution, American Enterprise Institute, Texas A&M University, the Council on Foreign Relations and Chatham House in London, which is the British equivalent of the CFR.[1]

Among the many things envisioned in this report to either be completed or under way by 2025 are the formation of a global multipolar international system, the possibility of a return of mercantilism by great powers in which they go to war over dwindling resources, the growth of China as a great world power, the position of India as a strong pole in the new multipolar system, a decline of capitalism in the form of more state-capitalism, exponential population growth in the developing world, continuing instability in Africa, a decline in food availability, partly due to climate change, continued terrorism, the possibility of nuclear war, the emergence of regionalism in the form of strong regional blocks in North America, Europe, and Asia, and the decline of US power and with that, the superiority of the dollar.

Full story