The UN Myth

Many on Capitol Hill believe the United Nations' only image problem is that of a bloated bureaucracy. Most Congressmen who express opposition to the UN do so because they say it spends beyond its means, it's arrogant, and is an ungrateful tenant on the East River. Many Republicans object to the use of American soldiers for peacekeeping missions, particularly when those soldiers are placed under the command of foreign officers. Other express concern about the UN World Court.

As we are witnessing in Afghanistan, the US military works best when it is under the direction of its own officers and not subject to the self-serving views of other nations. Typically, the real fighting is being left to the United States with support from Great Britain and the token presence of others.

This year alone, the United Nations has dropped the US from a position on its Human Rights Commission; a chair it has held since its inception. It has voted to include Syria on its Security Council, despite the fact this nation sponsors terrorist groups. It continues to pursue international treaties the US Congress has rejected.

Largely unnoticed by the American public and unreported by its press, is a much more dangerous agenda. America is at risk of finding itself merged into the international community in the same way independent European nations are being melded into one union on the Continent.

Using spurious environmental threats, in 1987 the United Nations began its final drive to restructure the world's nations into one global village. That year the UN issued a report focusing on global warming, ozone holes, poverty of third world nations and over-population. The solution, said the UN report, could only be "a worldwide political transformation that supported sustainable development."

That transformation, according to UN documents, would include the downsizing of cities and towns into new "urban clusters" where workplaces, housing and nature are blended together." America's elected form of government would be changed to include appointed federal agents and unelected members of private organizations, called "non-governmental organizations" (NGO's) dictating policy at the local level. Provisions granting NGO's such power are actually written into the treaties coming out of UN conferences and, once signed by the United States, become international law.

To promote that agenda the UN has held a series of these conferences around the world, each focusing on specific aspects for worldwide restructuring.

In Vienna the focus was on human rights, particularly the rights of children over their parents. In Cairo, forced abortion and sterilization were put forth as solutions for population control. In Copenhagen, the United Nations revealed its daring plan for global taxes that would finance the international restructuring scheme called for in the environmental agenda. The payment of such taxes would also help finance the UN's own independent army for enforcement purposes.

In June 1992 the UN sponsored the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the largest and most ambitious international conference of all time. There, five major documents to define and implement the sustainable development agenda were negotiated.

The first was the "Convention on Climate Change" that was to address the issue of global warming. Final draft of that Convention, or treaty, is to be signed this coming December. Regardless of the fact that the theory of global warming has yet to be proven by peer-reviewed science, this treaty will force the industrial nations to pull back emissions output to 1990 levels. Such strict regulations will force industry out of business, cut back on American power output by as much as 60 percent, and place massive consumption taxes on energy. This will drastically increase the price of every item in your home that is powered through the use of energy. It will ruin the American economy that is already in a recession. In doing so, it will drive the global economy into a depression.

The real purpose of the Climate Change Treaty is to redistribute technology and production to undeveloped third world nations because, incredibly, those nations won't have to sign the treaty or be forced to obey its dictates. The treaty has nothing to do with protecting the environment; only sixteen industrial nations will be bound by the treaty. The Climate Change Treaty will bankrupt the United States.

The second treaty negotiated in Rio was the "Biodiversity Treaty." As yet unratified by the United States Senate, this treaty would declare 50 percent of all the land in every state as wilderness. American cities would be downsized, technology and industry would be reduced and strict zoning laws would curtail development of our cities.

The third paper from the Summit was the "Rio Declaration" which calls for the eradication of poverty throughout the world. What it really provides is a plan for more redistribution of the world's wealth, particularly away from the United States.

The fourth document from Rio was the "Convention on Forest Principles" calling for international management of the world's forests which would essentially shut down the timber industry.

The fifth document coming out of Rio was "Agenda 21." This one contained the full agenda for implementing worldwide "sustainable" development. That plan was later elaborated upon in Istanbul, Turkey at the UN conference called Habitat II, last June. In a document produced by the United States department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), at the request of the UN for Habitat II, the blueprint was set for how American cities and towns would be restructured for sustainable development. To achieve rapid transition, the document said, all citizens will be trained to think of "ecology, or the diverse systems of earth's biosphere, as the basis" for every human activity.

Do any of these programs sound compatible with the Constitution of the United States? Does the UN agenda sound like something the United States should be helping to impose around the world? Do you support the patterns of redistribution and restructuring that drives the UN agenda?

The UN is a direct threat to the sovereignty and constitutional rights of all Americans. The UN has transformed itself from an international debating society and is in hot pursuit of total global power. If for no other reason this is why the United States must take drastic and forceful action by getting completely out of the UN, a world body out of control.

Without U.S. participation, there will be no United Nations to attack and loot the U.S. treasury. The United States doesn't need the UN to conduct foreign policy or rule or regulate international trade. Ironically, the United Nations needs the United States for its survival, but the UN threatens the survival of the United States.

Congressman Don Young of Alaska has addressed the threat with his "American Sovereignty Protection Act." That bill will take the teeth out of the UN treaties by requiring congressional oversight before the federal bureaucracy can implement their provisions.

Congressman Ron Paul of Texas has introduced the bill to take the U.S. completely out of the UN. His bill, "The American Sovereignty Restoration Act," (H.R.1146) pulls no punches as it calls for repeal of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, ending U.S. participation in the UN. It would close the UN headquarters in New York. And H.R.1146 will end all U.S. participation in the UN's environmental agenda, repeal American participation in UNESCO, repeal diplomatic immunity for UN personnel, will pay no U.S. funds to the UN, and includes stopping funds or U.S. participation in UN peacekeeping operations.

Most importantly, Congressman Paul's bill will force intense debate and shine a much needed light on the UN's real agenda; one that will result in the restructuring of the entire world. Americans are still mostly in the dark about the UN's true agenda and its dangers to American freedom. America desperately needs that debate.

Tom DeWeese is the publisher/editor of The DeWeese Report and president of the American Policy Center, an activist think tank headquartered in Herdon, VA. The Center maintains an Internet site at www.americanpolicy.org.

Published by permission.