Monday, July 16, 2007

Council On Foreign Relations - Supporters of the North American Union

The European Union (EU) is a model which is being used to construct the North American Union (NAU). Our government is illegally creating the NAU outside the auspices of Congress by making great changes to business and regulatory laws (euphemistically called harmonizations). Legal regulatory laws are being rewritten to benefit big business. Funding has already been earmarked for huge road projects cutting a swath of highways through our country from Mexico to Canada to accommodate movement of goods through our country. By instituting the NAU , essentially our sovereignty will be lost to a higher order.

This is definitely a video to watch and it includes information about the Council on Foreign relations (CFR) and their involvement. They are seeking to abolish our sovereignty in the name of globalisation.



What Presidential Candidates are part of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)?
What are they trying to accomplish?

Fred Thompson
Rudy Giuliani
John McCain
Mitt Romney
Jim Gilmore
Newt Gingrich
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
John Edwards
Joe Biden
Chris Dodd
Bill Richardson

Who Opposes the CFR?
Ron Paul
Dennis Kucinich
Mike Gravel

Read the article by Richard N. Haass - it is an eye opener for sure.
Sovereignty and globalisation

Author:
Richard N. Haass, President Council of Foreign Relations

February 17, 2006
Project Syndicate

The world’s 190-plus states now co-exist with a larger number of powerful non-sovereign and at least partly (and often largely) independent actors, ranging from corporations to non-government organisations (NGOs), from terrorist groups to drug cartels, from regional and global institutions to banks and private equity funds. The sovereign state is influenced by them (for better and for worse) as much as it is able to influence them. The near monopoly of power once enjoyed by sovereign entities is being eroded.

As a result, new mechanisms are needed for regional 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 United Nations General Assembly, but it does mean including representatives of such organisations 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 World Trade Organisation 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.

Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change. Under one such arrangement, the Kyoto Protocol, which runs through 2012, signatories agree to cap specific emissions. What is needed now is a successor arrangement in which a larger number of governments, including the United States, China and India, accept emission limits or adopt common standards because they recognise that they would be worse off if no country did.

All of this suggests that sovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalisation.

At its core, globalisation entails the increasing volume, velocity and importance of flows within and across borders of people, ideas, greenhouse gases, goods, dollars, drugs, viruses, emails, weapons, and a good deal else, challenging one of sovereignty’s fundamental principles: the ability to control what crosses borders in either direction. Sovereign states increasingly measure their vulnerability not to one another, but to forces beyond their control.

Globalisation thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary.

This was demonstrated by the American and world reaction to terrorism. Afghanistan’s Taliban government, which provided access and support to al-Qaeda, was removed from power. Similarly, America’s preventive war against an Iraq that ignored the UN and was thought to possess weapons of mass destruction showed that sovereignty no longer provides absolute protection. Imagine how the world would react if some government were known to be planning to use or transfer a nuclear device or had already done so. Many would argue correctly that sovereignty provides no protection for that state.

Necessity may also lead to reducing or even eliminating sovereignty when a government, whether from a lack of capacity or conscious policy, is unable to provide for the basic needs of its citizens. This reflects not simply scruples, but a view that state failure and genocide can lead to destabilising refugee flows and create openings for terrorists to take root.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s intervention in Kosovo was an example where a number of governments chose to violate the sovereignty of another government (Serbia) to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide. By contrast, the mass killing in Rwanda a decade ago and now in Darfur, Sudan, demonstrate the high price of judging sovereignty to be supreme and thus doing little to prevent the slaughter of innocents.

Our notion of sovereignty must therefore be conditional, even contractual, rather than absolute. If a state fails to live up to its side of the bargain by sponsoring terrorism, either transferring or using weapons of mass destruction, or conducting genocide, then it forfeits the normal benefits of sovereignty and opens itself up to attack, removal or occupation. The diplomatic challenge for this era is to gain widespread support for principles of state conduct and a procedure for determining remedies when these principles are violated.

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

The basic idea of sovereignty, which still provides a useful constraint on violence between states, needs to be preserved. But the concept needs to be adapted to a world in which the main challenges to order come from what global forces do to states and what governments do to their citizens, rather than from what states do to one another.
It isn't conspiracy theory .. it's real.. The North American Union is coming unless we all do something to stop it. Allowing Illegal Immigration is part of the plan.

There is a meeting planned between President Bush, Mexican President Felipe Calderon, and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper scheduled for August. They will be meeting to further their OPEN BORDER and "North American" INTEGRATION agenda on 8/20 - 8/21.

PROTEST MARCH AGAINST THE SPP SUMMIT
March in Seattle, Saturday August 18th
-OR- Assemble your OWN March Locally

4 comments:

Dy said...

Huh. I'm glad you posted this. Thank you. It caught me off guard, though, and I can't think of anything to say just yet.

I also want to say (on a completely unrelated note) that I'm glad to hear about your windows. We do plan to replace the ones in this house, but not for several more years. We've done so much so far, but still have to build a vent fan for the range, stabilize the balcony, waterproof the foundation, replace the supports... add a den, and then we'll be removing the brick and putting up stucco and stone (there's a collective gasp all across the South every time I say that). We plan to replace all the windows at that time, which is why we're limping the old ones along for now. (I can hardly wait!)

Crimson Wife said...

Hmm, I'll have to ask my DH about this one. His grad school adviser is in the CFR and DH applied last year for term membership. He was not selected this time around but was strongly encouraged to re-apply in a few years (he's currently at the lower age limit for consideration).

From my understanding of it, the CFR is made up of individuals with a range of political viewpoints so just because the president of it wrote this article doesn't necessarily mean it reflects the POV of any other member.

Jennifer said...

Hello,

I am just starting to learn about the NAU, very scary... I was actually trying to find the list of members on the CFR. Where did you find yours at? My US Rep Thelma Drake will be on a blog chat room tonight and have submitted a question on NAU. I love to see if she supports it. Do you have a list of Reps and Senators that support the NAU or is on the CFR?

Thanks so much,
Jen

Jen

Judy Aron said...

Jen - first check this out

www.cfr.org/about/people/board_of_directors.html

The list of names on my blogpost was from the video - but I understand that there are lists on the Internet.