Wed 2 Dec 2009
World Governance Architects III. WTO Bilderberger Boss Lamy and Bilderberger Chancellor Merkel Want UN World Government
Summary: This is a remarkably detailed speech about the New World Order´s World Government structure - by multiple Bilderberger, Pascal Lamy, and with the approval in principle from the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel. Lamy believes that the reason for the problems he and his elitist colleagues are creating for the world, are due to the fact that at the end of the cold war no efficient world government was established. For global problems require global solutions! As a horror example he produces the climate lie with islands supposedly dissapearing into the sea (where?). The EU is the only example of supranational governance and a model for world government. This must be sustainable (ie. communist). He defines global governance as "the system "we" (the elite) created to help human societies achieve their common purpose" - also England´s communist EU organisation. Our laws, social norms, values and practices must be standardized (by the elite). National state coherence must be transformed into a global one. The EU is under construction, was the effect of a common political will, a common project and common institutions. Thus the world state, too, will come into being. But as the peoples of the EU increasingly turn their backs on the European project it is lacking legitimacy (legality) - world government consequently, too. Fortunately Europeans are said to require more and better European foreign policy!?? Global governance is to be provided by 1) the rule of law (elite law) with feasible commitments on the basis of consent. 2) Subsidiarity, ie. problem solving in the communities - as desired by the very globalist pope. Naturally, with a supranational authority, namely a triangle: The G20 ist to set policies and to report to the UN World Parliamentary Assembly. 3) also un-elected global institutions. The UN must act as one in the UN family. International issues should dominate the domestic debate to allow world government "legitimacy." He mentions world governance or an equivlent 15 times, so he really does have this at heart.
The following may be boring, but it is nothing less than the structure of the New World Order´s global government - presented by multiple Bilderberger and WTO boss, Pascal Lamy - as detailed as probably not seen before.
WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy, 9 Nov. 2009 in a speech at the Bocconi University in Milan: “We are in the midst of the worst ever economic crisis and the first to have a global reach. A crisis which has seen a decimation of employment. We are seeing our planet deteriorate due to global warming(???) With severe droughts and violent floods. With entire islands disappearing under water(???). With nuclear proliferation which poses a serious threat to world peace and security. What went wrong?
The reality is that the end of the cold war caught everyone by surprise. It was the end of a bi-polar world. A new world order was being born. And yet there was not enough thinking and discussion about its governance structures. There was never a Bretton Woods Conference or a San Francisco Conference post 1989. As a result global governance structures did not adjust. And here lies the root of many of today’s problems. Global challenges (which the elite is currently creating itself) need global solutions and these can only come with the right global governance, which today, twenty years later, remains too weak (?!).
And yet there is a place on earth where new forms of global governance have been tried following World War II: in Europe. More than half a century ago Jean Monet said: “the sovereign nations of the past can no longer provide a framework for the resolution of our present problems: And the European Community itself is no more than a step towards the organizational forms of tomorrow’s world”. This was as valid then as it is now.
What do I mean by global governance? For me global governance describes the system we set up to assist human society to achieve its common purpose in a sustainable manner, that is, with equity and justice. Growing interdependence requires that our laws, our social norms and values, our mechanisms for framing human behaviour be examined, debated, understood and operated together as coherently as possible. This is what would provide the basis for effective sustainable development in its economic, social and environmental dimensions.
Whether public or private, governance needs to provide leadership, the incarnation of vision, of political energy, of drive.
Left: EGF, EU´s Gendarm Force to combat citizens who are disobedient to the Lisbon Treaty
A legitimate governance system must also ensure efficiency. It must bring about results for the benefit of the people.
Finally, a governance system must be coherent. Compromises would need to be found over objectives which often may contradict one another. In sum, the specific challenge of legitimacy in global governance is to deal with the perceived too-distant, non-accountable and non-directly challengeable decision-making at the international level.
As with legitimacy, coherence is also proper to the nation state and it is transferred to specialized international organizations whose mandates are limited. In theory there should be no problem. The coherent action by the nation-state in the various remits of international governance would be translated into a coherent global action.
Handling global problems using traditional domestic democracy models has important limitations, as we have just seen. And yet the very credibility of domestic democracies is at risk if global governance does not find its own democratic credentials(???) If citizens feel that the issues which affect them daily cannot be adequately dealt with.
Europe as a new paradigm of global governance
In these troubled times for the European Union it is no easy matter to present it as a new paradigm of global governance. And yet the European construction is the most ambitious experiment to date in supranational governance. It is the story of a desired, defined and organized interdependence between its member states. It is therefore worth examining how Europe has coped with the challenges I have described above.
My starting point is the building of Europe as work in progress. It is not complete in any of its dimensions. Not in that of geography. Not in its depth, that is, in the powers conferred by its member states to the European Union. And certainly not in the sense of identity that provides the glue which holds any human society together.
The creation of the European Coal and Steel Community in the 1950s was the result of the political will to move beyond these two world wars. This political will was to see peace take root in what Robert Schuman called “de facto solidarities”. To the will and the concrete objective they added a third element: the creation of a sui generis supranational institution — the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community.At the heart of this initial venture was the essence of the European project: the creation of a federal space where decisions can be taken which are directly applicable and enforceable on the member states: a space of pooled sovereignty.
The fact that Community law takes precedence over national law. The creation of a supranational body such as the European Commission that has been given the monopoly of initiating legislation. A European Court of Justice whose decisions are binding on national judges. A Parliament composed of a senate of member states (European Council) and a house of representatives elected by the European “demos” and which has gained in competences over the years.
These are just a few of the things that, taken together, make the European Union a radically new economic and political entity on the scene of international governance.
How does the European paradigm score on the elements of governance mentioned above?
I believe European governance can fare well on leadership and I will use two examples to illustrate it. The first one is the campaign for the creation of the internal market in 1992, first launched by Jacques Delors in 1985. A strong political will emerging after a difficult economic and political period. The clear objective of erasing internal barriers to the movement of goods, capital and people, and a major institutional reform which led to the acceptance of majority voting instead of unanimity for the adoption of decisions leading to the creation of the internal market.
The second one is the creation of the euro.
I also believe that Europe scores positively on coherence. Institutionally the fact that the European Commission acts on the principle of collegiality and has the monopoly of initiating legislation on most areas under Community competence and the growing powers of the European Parliament are drivers of greater coherence. The reinforcement of Community competences, including through the Lisbon Treaty, is also a catalyst for greater coherence.
Moving on to effectiveness, I also believe Europe scores rather highly. The role of the European Court of Justice in ensuring respect for the rule of law, the extension of majority voting for decision-making and the capacity of the European Commission to police compliance with European rules have all been drivers of European effectiveness.
No legitimacy for the EU nor for world governance
If there is an area where Europe would get a B minus, it is probably in legitimacy. We are witnessing a growing distance between European public opinions and the European project. One could have expected that the European institutional set up, with growing powers entrusted to the European Parliament would have resulted in greater legitimacy, but this is contradicted by the declining numbers participating in elections to the European Parliament.
The anthropological dimension of supranationality has probably been underestimated. Once the imminence of the menace of a new war has disappeared from our horizon, it is as if the glue that holds Europe together as a community will also disappear. As if there were no common myths, dreams and aspirations.
On the environment, Europe has a leadership role in the world (i.e. the biggest liar) which is a reflection of the large consensus existing within Europe on the protection and preservation of the environment. And yet the institutional set-up within which Europe acts, the mixed competences and different voices, in my view, prevent Europe from fully displaying its effectiveness in this area. This is an area where Europe breaks even.
The good news is that European citizens demand more and better from Europe in foreign policy. But here we touch upon one of the areas where symbolic barriers, those of dreams and nightmares, those of collective identities and myths remain powerful. This is why I believe that building a European foreign and security policy will require a permanent compromise between interests and values. The creation of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign and Security Policy, who will be the Vice-President of the European Commission and who will chair the General Affairs Council, is in my view a step in the right direction. But it will also take a common will to act together and a common concept, a sort of shared project, to get there (A nice little war?).
But even if these three elements are there, there is a risk that a real or perceived legitimacy problem remains, creating a glass ceiling for further integration. Global legitimacy requires long term care and attention.
European integration provides us with many useful lessons for global governance. I would like to focus our attention today on a few of these.
1.The first lesson I would draw is the importance of the rule of law (whose? Nazi Germani also had the rule of law”) and that of enforceable commitments. Global governance must be anchored in commitments adopted by stakeholders, in rules and regulations with mechanisms which foster and promote its respect. This is also at the heart of what the international community is trying to do on climate change: a multilateral deal where nations commit to emissions reduction accompanied by measures to facilitate adaptation and mitigation. This is also what the international community is striving to achieve in the on-going negotiations on non-proliferation. Commitments which are anchored in a multilateral context, which can be monitored and subject to dispute settlement, foster efficiency and greater coherence.
2. The second lesson I would draw for global governance is that of respect for the principle of subsidiarity. It is about performing functions at the level where these are more effectively carried. And here I would like to quote from the recent encyclical letter of Pope Benedict XVI “Caritas in Veritae” when he argues that “the governance of globalization must be marked by subsidiarity, articulated into several layers and involving different levels that can work together. Globalization certainly requires authority, insofar as it poses the problem of a global common good that needs to be pursued. This authority, however, must be organized in a subsidiary and stratified way, if it is not to infringe upon freedom and if it is to yield effective results in practice.” The international system should not be overburdened with issues which are better dealt with at the local, regional or national level.”
3. The third lesson is that “coherence starts at home”. Coherence lies first and foremost with the members of international organizations. Take the United Nations. We can and must have the “UN Delivering as One”, but we also have to see the “UN Members behaving as One” in the different organizations which make up the family of the United Nations.
4. The final lesson I would draw is that since the political “demos” remains essentially national, legitimacy would be greatly enhanced if international issues become part of the domestic political debate. If national governments are held accountable for their behaviour at the international level. The exercise of democracy at the national level needs to integrate an international dimension to foster legitimacy at the global level. The fact that the governments which represent states at international organizations are the result of citizens' choices through domestic elections is, in itself, not sufficient to ensure the legitimacy of the international organizations. National actors — political parties, civil society, parliaments and citizens — need to ensure that issues which are part of the “global level” are discussed at the “domestic level”.
The good news is that many of these issues are already work in progress and that therefore we need not expect a big bang. The global economic crisis we are witnessing has accelerated the move towards a new architecture of global governance the world government, they will see through, anyway!!), in what I have called a “triangle of coherence”
On one side of the triangle lies the G20, replacing the former G8, providing political leadership and policy direction. On another side lie member-driven international organizations providing expertise and specialized inputs, be they rules, policies or programmes. The third side of the triangle is the G-192, the United Nations, providing a forum for accountability.
In the longer term, we should have both the G20 and the international agencies reporting to the “Parliament” of the United Nations (the EU being especially active for this. In this respect, a revamping of the UN Economic and Social Council could lend support to the recent resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly on a UN-system wide coherence. This would constitute a potent mix of leadership, inclusiveness and action to ensure coherent and effective global governance. With time, the G20 could even be a response to the reform of the UN Security Council.
A structure of this type needs to be underpinned by a set of core principles and values. And this is precisely what German Chancellor Angela Merkel has proposed with the creation of a Charter for Sustainable Economic Activity. It is a commendable effort to provide a “new global economic contract”, to anchor economic globalization on a bedrock of ethical principles and values which would renew the trust that citizens need to have that globalization can indeed work for them. It is a signal of our times that this initiative comes from Berlin, Germany, today a re-united country at the heart of Europe.
Among the many regional integration attempts, the European Union remains the laboratory of international governance — the place where the new technological frontier of international governance is being tested.
Lamy is not alone, Bilderberger Chancellor Merkel (2005) is also calling for New World Order
Earth Times 9 Nov. 2009 Berlin - German Chancellor Angela Merkel called Monday for more cooperation between nation states and the transfer of power to multilateral organizations such as the UN, in a speech ahead of anniversary celebrations of the fall of the Berlin Wall. "This world will not be a peaceful one if we do not work for more global order and more multilateral cooperation," said Merkel, who was to great world leaders in Berlin later Monday. Merkel gave the upcoming UN climate summit in Copenhagen as an example of where nation states must put their narrow interests behind the greater good. "The most important thing, when attempting to overcome barriers, is: Are the nation states ready and willing to give competencies over to multilateral organizations, no matter what it costs?" Merkel said.
The WTO boss is obsessed with the thought of world governance. Wikipedia: Martin Khor, Director of the Third World Network, argues that the WTO does not manage the global economy impartially, but in its operation has a systematic bias toward rich countries and multinational corporations, harming smaller countries which have less negotiation power. No wonder. Lamy is Rockefeller´s man, being a multiple Bilderberger (2000, 2001, 2005, 2009.
So his speech expresses the hottest desires of the the New World Order elite: World state and world government. He even has the plan for how to do it: The EU! And he goes public with it. This is not conspiracy theory. It is publicly declared full-fledged high treason! Even the pope is in it. And José Barroso, Sarkozy, Gordon Brown incessantly speak of world governance (see videos on right margin of this blog) – and now Angela Merkel joins in.And we do not protest against it!