The Politics of Global Governance

The road to global governance has been neither straight, nor free of potholes and detours. Contrary to the beliefs of many, the “New World Order” is not being fashioned by a secret, mysterious, shadowy force, that can set in place the structure it wants, whenever it wants to act.

The fact is that there are many shadowy forces, some are mysterious, and some even operate in secret; they are not, however, as coordinated as many people believe.

We have seen how the vision of a world government grew out of a philosophy which inspired the empire-building of the 19th century. Good men, of impeccable reputation, seeking to improve the lives of others, whom they perceived to be less fortunate, tried to create the League of Nations, with the best thinking of the day. It failed. But the dream of world government did not fade. It was modified into the United Nations.

Political reality made the new institution far less than a world government, much to the chagrin of the more aggressive designers. A global institution of some kind was better than no global institution, so the world-government architects accepted what they could get at the time, with the hope of further revising the institution into a genuine world government at some point in the future.

There has never been agreement among all the players about what a world government should be.

Edward Mandell House thought the government should operate at the behest of a single, benevolent “Administrator.”

This view contrasts sharply with the aims of the World Federalist Movement, founded in 1947 in Montreux, Switzerland, which advocated a government with three branches: Executive, Judicial, and Legislative. The proponents of the House-Milner vision, as well as the World Federalists, both wanted a world government, but there was substantial disagreement about what the government should look like, and about how to achieve it.

This disagreement persists until this day throughout the one-world movement. This explains, in part, why there are so many sources cited as the “real” power behind the effort to impose a one world government. Depending upon whose work you read, you might think that the “New World Order” is being designed by the Bilderbergers or the Illuminati. Some are convinced that the Fabian Socialists are the true architects. Others believe The Club of Rome is behind it all, and still others argue that the Freemasons are the culprits. Many believe it must be the Rockefellers, and their baudy band of bankers. The Council on Foreign Relations, though, gets more attention, and credit, than most of the other lesser known sources.

The fact is that all of these forces, and others, have influenced the evolution of global governance over the last century. None have had anything like an exclusive control over the direction of events. Some organizations and individuals have exerted more and less influence, from time to time, than have others. We will attempt to explore the more important people and events that have shaped political reality as global governance emerges into a real, definable institution.

It is important to remember that the various organizations mentioned, are but stages on which individuals perform. These individuals are real people, subject to the frailties, influences, and spurts of genius that is characteristic of all people. These individuals establish friendships, change jobs, and move about throughout their lifetimes. As they do, their effectiveness is measured by how much of their vision gets translated into policy and practice. The people we will trace are more important to the rise of global governance than to the institutions with which they may be affiliated at any particular time. The institutions too, are important, because some of these institutions have attracted many very effective individuals. What all these people and institutions have in common, is a world view more similar to that of Thomas Hobbes, than the view expressed by John Locke. Watch as their view unfolds throughout the 20th century.

There can be no doubt that the Council on Foreign Relations and the Royal Institute for International Affairs institutionalized and formalized the philosophy and world view of Cecil Rhodes and Colonel Edward Mandell House. These institutions were successful in achieving the purpose for which they were created: to sufficiently educate the people to accept a world government. Their success is due, in no small measure, to the CFR’s flagship publication, Foreign Affairs, which began publication in 1922. In the United States, their cause was aided by a devastating depression and a protracted world war, but when the United Nations came before the U.S. Senate, there were only two dissenting votes.

As the relevant individuals began building the structure of global governance, political reality reared its ugly head, and detours became necessary. The first purpose of the U.N. was to end war, and assure that no nation could engage in war against another nation. To achieve this objective, every nation was to begin immediate disarmament, and pledge troops to be available to the U.N. to enforce decisions of the Security Council to insure world peace. Article 26 of the U.N. Charter requires that:

“In order to promote the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources, the Security Council shall be responsible for formulating, with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee referred to in Article 47, plans to be submitted to the Members of the United-Nations for the establishment of a system for the regulation of armaments.”

From the beginning, the United Nations was expected to regulate armaments – all armaments, including small arms and light weapons.

The tension between the United States and the Soviet Union escalated into the cold war, and neither country was willing to give up its means of military defense, and rely on the fledgling United Nations for protection. The United States fully intended to comply with the United Nations purpose. In September, 1961, the U.S. State Department issued Publication #7277, “THE UNITED STATES PROGRAM FOR GENERAL AND COMPLETE DISARMAMENT IN A PEACEFUL WORLD,” which is a step-by-step plan for turning over our national defense to the United Nations. The plan has never been rescinded, but world events have, so far, prevented its implementation.

Communism did not become a dirty word until after the second World War. Stalin, and his Soviet Army were allies, and played a critical role at Yalta. In fact, had Stalin not sided with the allies, the war could have turned out quite differently. As the cold war became more frigid, and Stalin appeared to be gaining both political and military strength, communism in America came under close scrutiny.

Congressman B. Carroll Reese of Tennessee, conducted investigations into foundation funding of organizations “whose efforts has been to promote ‘internationalism…directed toward world government,’ and a derogation of American nationalism.” (1)

Senator Joe McCarthy of Wisconsin chaired a Senate Committee on Un-American Activities. His campaign tarnished many non-communists but was successful in rooting out Alger Hiss, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, and Morton Sobell, all convicted of espionage-related crimes. (Because of the statute of limitations, Hiss could not be tried for espionage but was convicted of perjury for lying about his espionage activities.) (2)

We will explore these events in more detail in our next lesson.

During the 1950s and 1960s, the U.N. was little more than a debating society that occasionally attempted to referee disputes among the major world powers. Public attention was riveted on domestic issues and the deepening cold war. Russia’s Sputnik launch was a catalyst for the launch of the U.S. space program. Fidel Castro’s embrace of Communism in Cuba stiffened America’s policy of “containment” — first articulated in the CFR Journal, Foreign Affairs.

The 1954 Supreme Court desegregation decision pushed McCarthy, Communism, and the U.N. completely off the domestic radar screen. Rosa Park’s refusal to give up her seat on a Birmingham bus to a white man was the fuse that ignited an explosion of racial riots. Federal troops confronted Alabama National Guardsmen over Governor Orville Faubus’ refusal to let nine black children enter Little Rock Central High School. Dr. Martin Luther King delivered his “I have a dream” speech to a quarter-million people on the Mall in Washington, and tanks rolled on the streets of Chicago and Detroit.

Despite the distractions, the advocates of global governance worked on. In the last lesson, we learned that UNESCO was actively developing an international education program to train teachers in preparing students to become world citizens. The Institute of Pacific Relations, interlocked directly with the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Royal Institute for International Affairs, developed a special relationship with Quincy Wright at the University of Chicago. A series of conferences and workshops prepared teachers and professors to teach the U.N. doctrine.

Robert Muller, who joined the U.N. in 1948, developed the “World Core Curriculum” that has become the foundation for such programs as Outcome Based Education, and School-to-Work. Both the IUCN and the WWF expended massive resources developing education programs and aids for use in the classroom.

Behind the scenes, out of public view, the proponents of global governance intensified their efforts, without any public awareness of the United Nations or UNESCO relationships.

There appeared in the late 1960s, the Report from Iron Mountain. A controversy arose immediately as to its authenticity. It was supposedly a secret document, “leaked” by unidentified White House Sources. Others declared it to be a “sophisticated fictional satire” – a hoax perpetrated on an unsuspecting public.

Whether fact or fiction, the document made a valid point: people of vastly different persuasions rally together against a common enemy. With World War II ended, and the U.N. in place to prevent future wars, there would need to be another “common enemy” around which people of vastly different persuasions could rally. That enemy was defined to be – environmental degradation caused by an indifferent, rapidly exploding population.

It may be no more than a coincidence that the environmental movement in America was born in the wake of the release of this report. Or, as some suppose, it might have been the winding down of the civil-rights and Vietnam war protests that freed the “flower children” to turn their attention to another cause. This was the era that brought to America, and as we shall see, to the world, a new force in development of public policy.

Stirred by Rachel Carson’s 1962 book, Silent Spring, America’s youth were eager to turn their attention to the environment. Carson attacked the pesticide DDT as the killer of birds, and other chemicals on similar environmental grounds. On college campuses across the land, encouraged by a generation of professors trained in “internationalism,” environmental clubs were forming to clean up creeks, and pick up litter. They were a prime target for recruitment by a more sophisticated group of leaders.

In New York, the Brookhaven Town Natural Resource Committee, attempted unsuccessfully to get the town to stop using DDT in its mosquito spraying program. Five of the Committee’s members formed the Environmental Defense Fund in 1967, with the single purpose of getting DDT banned nationally. (3)

Senator Gaylord Nelson is generally credited with founding “Earth Day” in 1970, which marks the first national recognition of the environmental movement. (Incidentally, after leaving the Senate in 1981, Nelson went to work for the Wilderness Society, which, if you will recall, was founded by an avowed socialist, Robert Marshall, who published a call for the nationalization of all American forests, about 80% of which was privately owned at the time.)

The Natural Resources Defense Council is but one of many new environmental organizations that came into existence during this period (1970). Gustave Speth, one of three co-founders, began the operation in the offices of the Yale Law Journal with an initial $400,000 grant from the Ford Foundation. (4)

Russell Train became President of the Conservation Foundation (financed by the Rockefeller brothers) in 1965. He was tapped by President Nixon to be Undersecretary of the Department of Interior in 1969. He proposed the creation of the Council on Environmental Quality, and became its first Chairman in 1970. He then moved to the EPA, becoming its second Administrator in 1973, following William Ruckelshaus. In 1978, Train became the President of the World Wildlife Fund, and helped raise the funds required to create the World Resources Institute in 1982. The Conservation Foundation was absorbed by WWF in 1990.

William K. Reilly was hired by Russell Train as staff for the Council on Environmental Quality, where he was asked to draft the National Land Use Policy Act. Laurence Rockefeller was named Chair of the President’s Commission on Environmental Quality, and Reilly was assigned as director. The group published its work in 1973, titled: The Use of Land: A Citizen’s Policy Guide to Urban Growth. Reilly is an alumnus of Yale, and holds a law degree from Harvard. His education includes a year of studies in France, and a summer job at the United Nations in Geneva. He names Russell Train and William Ruckelshaus as his two most important mentors.

Reilly accepted the position of President of the Conservation Foundation in 1985, where he helped facilitate the merger with the World Wildlife Fund. He served as President of both institutions until he was tapped by President George H. W. Bush to serve as EPA Administrator.

In response to the growing interest in the environment, the United Nations scheduled an international conference in Stockholm in 1972, The United Nations Conference on Human Environment (UNCHE) and named Maurice Strong as Secretary-General of the event. Among its many recommendations, the conference report called for the creation of a United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) – a permanent agency to oversee environmental concerns. Maurice Strong was named as its first Director.

Strong first worked for the United Nations in 1947, at the age of 18, in New York, where he rented a room in the home of the U.N. Treasurer. There he met many people who later helped advance his career. His colorful resume includes a time as President of the World Federation of United Nations Associations, advisor to, or a member of the board of the IUCN, WWF, WRI, the Rockefeller Foundation – and many other rich and powerful organizations.

The EPA in the United States parallels the development of the UNEP. From the outset, the two agencies shared common goals, and through common membership in the IUCN, many of the same people.

Another U.N. conference in 1976 added substantially to the U.N.’s interest in the environment: The United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (HABITAT I), in Vancouver, British Columbia. Richard K. Reilly was a delegate representing the United States, as was Carla Hill, who later became George H.W. Bush’s chief trade negotiator, responsible for the development of the World Trade Organization. Agenda item number 10 , was titled “Land.” Here, for the first time, the United Nations articulated its policy on land and land use. A segment from the preamble of this item, will suggest the report’s content:

“Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; Public control of land use is therefore indispensable….”

The document reflects many of the ideas expressed in the work of Bill Reilly’s 1973 report on land use, prepared for the Rockefeller Commission, and his unsuccessful Land Use Planning Act.

Among the more important but lesser known organizations formed during this period are the Club of Rome (COR — 1968) and the Trilateral Commission (TC — 1973). The COR is a small group of international industrialists, educators, economists, national and international civil servants. Among them were various Rockefellers, and approximately 25 CFR members. Maurice Strong was one of the “international” civil servants. (5)

Their first book, The Limits to Growth, published in 1972, unabashedly describes the world as they believe it should be:

“We believe in fact that the need will quickly become evident for social innovation to match technical change, for radical reform of the institutions and political processes at all levels, including the highest, that of world polity. And since intellectual enlightenment is without effect if it is not also political, The Club of Rome also will encourage the creation of a world forum where statesmen, policy-makers, and scientists can discuss the dangers and hopes for the future global system without the constraints of formal intergovernmental negotiation.”

The U.N.’s world conferences proved to be a very successful tool through which the United Nations could control “intergovernmental negotiations,” and draw international attention to an issue of concern, and then develop a response to that concern, for implementation through the various U.N. agencies and the governments of participating member nations.

Communications and information

Several significant conferences were held during the decade of the 1980s. UNESCO Director General, Dr. A. M. McBow, appointed Sean MacBride to chair the International Commission for the Study of Communication Problems. Their report was released in 1980 entitled, Many Voices, One World: Towards a new more just and more efficient world information and communication order. The head of TASS, the official news agency of the Soviet Union, was one of fifteen chosen to serve on the Commission.

Not surprisingly, the report said that the “media should contribute to promoting the just cause of peoples struggling for freedom and independence and their right to live in peace and equality without foreign interference.” It expressed concern about independent news monopolies, such as the Associated Press and Reuters, but was not at all concerned about state controlled news monopolies such as TASS.

It recommended a transnational political communication superstructure “within the framework of UNESCO,” an International Centre for the Study and Planning of Information and Communication. The Commission believed that a “new World Information Order” was prerequisite to a new world economic order. (6)


West German Chancellor, Willy Brandt, was tapped to chair another International Commission in 1980: the Independent Commission on International Development. The Commission report, entitled North-South: A Program for Survival, stated:

“World development is not merely an economic process, [it] involves a profound transformation of the entire economic and social structure . . . not only the idea of economic betterment, but also of greater human dignity, security, justice and equity . . . . The Commission realizes that mankind has to develop a concept of a ‘single community’ to develop a global order.”

The report says that the choice is either development or destruction; either “a just and humane society” or a move towards [the world’s] own destruction. (7)


For 50 years, Sweden was a socialist country. In 1976, the socialists were dumped and conservatives took over — until 1982. Olof Palme restored socialism to Sweden and was promptly rewarded with the chairmanship of the Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security (ICDST). In their report, entitled, A Common Security: Blueprint For Survival,

the Commission built on Kennedy’s 1962 Blueprint for the Peace Race, and on the 1974 Charter for a New International Economic Order, which linked disarmament with development.

The Charter’s Article 13 says:

“All States have the duty to promote the achievement of general and complete disarmament under effective international control and to utilize the resources released by effective disarmament measures for the economic and social development of countries, allocating a substantial portion of such resources as additional means for the development needs of developing countries.” (Emphasis added).

The environment

Another World Conference on Environment and Development was held in 1987. Gro Harlem Brundtland, Vice President of the World Socialist Party, was named as Chair. The Brundtland Commission Report, entitled Our Common Future, embraced most of the ideas contained in the UNEP/IUCN/WWF publication World Conservation Strategy, including the concept of “sustainable development.” It is the Brundtland Commission that links the environment to development, and development to poverty. The Report says:

“Poverty is a major cause and effect of global environmental problems. It is therefore futile to attempt to deal with environmental problems without a broader perspective that encompasses the factors underlying world poverty and international inequality.”

Brundtland was a member of the Brandt Commission. Maurice Strong (who chaired the first world Conference on Environment and Development in 1972) was a member of the Brundtland Commission. Shridath Ramphal was a member of the Brandt, Palme, and Brundtland Commissions, and later co-chaired the UN-funded Commission of Global Governance. Ramphal is a past President of the IUCN. The Brundtland Commission succeeded in two break-through accomplishments:

(1) it linked poverty, equity, and security to environmental issues; and

(2) it recognized that the environment was a popular issue around which individuals, NGOs, and governments could rally.

Thus, the environment was firmly established as the battle-cry to mobilize the world to create a new system of global governance.

The 1990s saw the proliferation of U.N. conferences:

1990 – World Summit for Children – New York

1992 – U.N. Conference on Environment and Development – Rio de Janeiro

1993 – U.N. Conference on Human Rights – Vienna

1994 – World Trade Organization formed in – Uruguay

1994 – International Conference on Population and Development – Cairo

1995 – World Summit on Social Development – Copenhagen

1995 – U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development – New York

1995 – World Women’s Congress – Beijing

1995 – State of the World Forum – San Francisco

1995 – Commission on Global Governance Report – Our Global Neighborhood

1996 – U.N. Conference on Human Settlements (HABITAT II) – Istanbul

1997 – Rio +Five – Rio de Janeiro

1998 – World Conference on the International Criminal Court – Rome

2000 – Millennium Assembly and World Summit – New York

These are only some of the more important U.N. Conferences held around the world during the decade of the 1990s. Each of these conferences played a strategic role in the advancement of the global agenda to achieve global governance. A more detailed account of each of these events is available in The Rise of Global Governance, which is a must read for every serious student of global governance.

Rather than discuss the product of each of these conferences, which is available elsewhere, we will focus instead, on the political procedures which resulted in the tremendous success these conferences have had on public policy.

We will use the 1992 Conference on Environment and Development as an example, but be aware that a very similar process accompanied each of the other conferences.

From the moment the U.N. General Assembly authorized the 1992 conference, and named Maurice Strong as its Secretary-General, the IUCN and its affiliated network of NGO members around the world, swung into action. Preparatory committees, both official committees appointed by Maurice Strong, and unofficial committees established by various NGOs began developing plans to make the event the largest gathering of environmentalists the world had ever known.

Jason Clay of Cultural Survival, Inc., an NGO participant in Canada’s preparatory committee, described to writer, Elaine Dewar, the real purpose of the agenda being prepared for the conference:

“The Agenda…was far broader than a global attempt to get environmental issues into the center of domestic politics. This broad common Agenda aimed to remake the institutions of governance, to lever power up to large multilateral regional institutions while stripping it away from nation states. The nation state should wither away, its functions replaced by institutions of local and global governance.” (8)

The NGO community, coordinated through the IUCN and the WRI publication Networking, used the computer networks extensively to funnel information to and from the UNCED agenda planners, and to plan the NGO Forum. UNCED provided an opportunity for the NGOs to perfect the lobbying process.

With the blessings of and assistance from the UNEP, the NGOs scheduled a “Forum” the week immediately preceding the official conference. Nearly 8,000 NGOs were officially certified to participate in the UNCED Forum, and another 4,000 NGOs were observers, swelling the total attendance at UNCED to more than 40,000 people — the largest environmental gathering the world has ever known. UNCED may be recorded in history as the most significant event the world has ever known; it was the watershed event that began the final march to global governance.

To guide the agenda for the conference, UNEP and its NGO partners published two major documents: Caring for the Earth, (1991 via UNEP/IUCN/WWF), and Global Biodiversity Strategy, (1992 via UNEP/IUCN/WWF/WRI). These documents contained the material from which the revolutionary UNCED documents would spring.

Four major documents, and several minor, but important documents, were produced by the 1992 conference:

– The Rio Declaration is a statement of 27 principles which guide Agenda 21;

– Agenda 21, 300 pages of specific policy recommendations addressing every facet of human life;

– The Framework Convention on Climate Change; and

– The Convention on Biological Diversity.

That these four complex and extensive documents could be agreed by the 179 nations represented at the conference demonstrates the effectiveness of the various preparatory committees that did their work well before the conference convened.

Russell Train headed the official U.S. delegation to this conference, accompanied by then-Senator Al Gore. Both men publicly ridiculed President George H.W. Bush for his refusal to sign the Convention on Biological Diversity at the Conference. Bush did sign the other three documents.

The Framework Convention on Climate Change was ratified by the U.S. Senate before the end of the year. It was a non-binding treaty, calling only for “voluntary” action. As is often the case with U.N. Strategy, once the treaty is in force as international law, it is changed.

The treaty established a “Conference of the Parties” (COP), with a “Secretariat.” This is a new, permanent entity within the U.N. System, charged with implementing the treaty. At the first meeting of the COP in 1995 in Berlin, they issued the so-called “Berlin Mandate,” to make the treaty legally binding by a Protocol that was to be completed by 1997 in Kyoto, Japan. Thus, the Kyoto Protocol began its life.

The COP meets several times each year, with one major two-week annual conference. These meetings are overrun by environmental NGOs.

Many of the environmental NGOs funded especially to promote this treaty, participate in a coalition called the Climate Action Network (CAN) which has become a fixture at the U.N. climate talks. The coalition consists of environmental organizations on three continents. Other familiar environmental groups include The Nature Conservancy; Greenpeace; World Wildlife Fund; World Resources Institute; International Union for the Conservation of Nature; and Friends of the Earth.

Writing in Foreign Affairs, Jessica Mathews reported that these same NGOs actually wrote the Climate Change Treaty “…in the twinkling of a diplomat’s eye,” during the 18 months prior to the 1992 conference in Rio de Janeiro. They have continued to dominate the development of the Kyoto Protocol, and are now lobbying for speedy implementation.

The Convention on Biological Diversity was signed by President Clinton, and submitted for Ratification to the U.S. Senate. Al Gore was assigned the task of “reinventing government,” in preparation for implementing the treaty. He restructured the Department of Interior, the EPA, and other agencies around his “Ecosystem Management Policy.” Much to his surprise, the treaty was not ratified in 1994, but the Clinton administration continued implementing policies required by the treaty, even though it was not ratified.

Agenda 21 did not require ratification. It is a “soft-law,” or non-binding agreement. It recommended the creation in each nation of a national council on sustainable development. Bill Clinton was eager to comply, creating the President’s Council on Sustainable Development by Executive Order 12852, June 29, 1993.

The Council was said to represent the interests of the government, environmentalists, and business.

The co-chairs were David T. Buzelli, Dow Chemical Company, representing business, who also served on the World Resources Institute Global Council, and was a trustee of the Keystone Center, a well-connected NGO; and Jonathan Lash, President of World Resources Institute.

Also representing business was William D. Ruckelshaus, then chairman of Browing-Ferris. The same person identified by William Reilly as one of his mentors, and also a U.S. representative on the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development.

The council also included such notables as Michele A. Perrault, International Vice President of the Sierra Club; John C. Sawhill, President of The Nature Conservancy; and Jay D. Hair, President Emeritus, National Wildlife Federation who went on to become President of the IUCN.

Throughout the 1990s, the global agenda was advanced through government by Cabinet-level officials and their underlings, coordinated with the heads of the nation’s largest, most powerful NGOs, all in the name of protecting the environment, under the bullet-proof shield of “sustainable development.”

Through this example, we see the process for the advancement of public policy:

  1. Policy ideas are raised at the IUCN by NGOs, and government members who have previously declared their loyalty to the IUCN goals.
  2. Those policy proposals are incorporated into international law or agreements through various U.N. agencies or conferences, promoted by member NGOs.
  3. Once crafted into legal documents, government officials who are members of the IUCN or delegates to the U.N. work with IUCN member NGOs to build political pressure on Congress to ratify or implement the very policies they have crafted.
  4. With increasing frequency, these same NGOs are identified and chosen by government agencies, including the U.N., to monitor or implement the policies that have been adopted.

To demonstrate this last point, an analysis of the U.N. grants made by the Global Environment Facility in its June, 1998 report, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) listed $748,142,000 in global warming projects, $767,019,000 in biodiversity projects, and $63,672,000 in “multiple focal areas” projects.

A detailed analysis revealed that five NGOs were named repeatedly as “executing agency” or “collaborating agency,” on 42 projects totaling $792,705,000 in value. The NGOs named in these projects include: The Nature Conservancy (TNC); the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN); Greenpeace; World Resources Institute (WRI); and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). It is little wonder that they attend every climate change meeting en masse, to urge the delegates to continue the global warming welfare program. (9)

An analysis of the 1999 GEF Report, revealed that these same five NGOs were named on projects totaling more than $840,000,000.

These are the same NGOs that propose policies through the IUCN, promote the policies through political action, then implement the policies with grants from the U.N.

As we have seen, NGOs play a vital role in the advancement of the global governance agenda. They could not be effective without a significant, and reliable stream of money to cover the substantial expense of attending the various U.N. meetings. The funding mechanism, too, has become quite sophisticated.

In the early days of the environmental movement in America, environmental organizations were truly “grassroots” groups whose members contributed $10 or $20 to help publish a memeographed copy of a newsletter. As the movement gained recognition, individual organizations attracted the attention of foundations, who saw that these organizations could be used to advance their political and social agenda. Foundation grants began to flow.

By 1985, 138 major foundation and corporate funders formed what they call the Environmental Grantmakers Association. It is not a legal entity, it is a loose association that meets at least once each year with prospective grant recipients to plan which organizations get money to perform the projects the grantmakers want performed. It is operated under the auspices of the Rockefeller Family Fund, coordinated by Donald K. Ross, director of the Rockefeller Family Fund. (10)

A review of IRS records in 1996, revealed more than 150 environmental organizations that reported either assets or income in excess of $5 million. (11)

In addition to money from foundations and corporations, environmental organizations receive substantial funding from the federal government in the form of direct grants, contracts for services, settlements from lawsuits, and for attorney’s fees for lawsuits.

Finally, the last of the events of 1990s to be reviewed in this lesson is the Commission on Global Governance. Returning to the independent commission tactic used in the 1980s, Willy Brandt, who had convened the Independent Commission on Development in 1980, decided to convene a new commission: The Commission on Global Governance.

At a 1991 meeting of International Socialists in Stockholm, Brandt proposed the Commission. He took the idea to Butrous-Butrous Ghali, then-Secretary General of the U.N., who gave Brandt his blessing, and promised funding. Brandt named Ingvar Carlsson, former Premier of Norway, and Shridath Ramphal, former President of the IUCN, to co-chair the commission. Brandt died in 1992, and did not see the work of the commission.

The commission consisted of 28 carefully selected individuals, including Maurice Strong, who worked for three years to produce their final report in 1995: Our Global Neighborhood. This 410-page book, published by Oxford Press, sets forth quite clearly, the plan to achieve global governance. Among other recommendations, the report calls for:

  • Elimination of the veto and permanent member status in the Sucurity Council;
  • A new Economic Security Council;
  • Implementation of the Tobin Tax to provide independent funding for the U.N.
  • A standing army under the command of the Secretary General;
  • U.N. Regulation of multinational corporations;
  • Assignment of the “global commons” to the U.N. Trusteeship Council;
  • U.N. control of the manufacture, sale, and distribution of all firearms;
  • Creation of an International Criminal Court;

and much more, is detailed in an analysis published by Sovereignty International. This plan is being implemented. The Millennium Assembly in September, 2000, with more than 150 heads of state, including President Bill Clinton, adopted the Millennium Declaration , which embraces, in rather bland language, all of the ideas and recommendations contained in the Commissions report.

The U.N. now has the approval of most of the heads of states from around the world, to pursue these recommendations at will.

The politics of global governance has become every bit as sophisticated and well-funded as the machinery of national political parties. The politics of global governance, however, are not subject to public disclosure, nor regulation by any elected officials. The political acuity of the proponents of global governance far outstrips that of the opposition. Since the late 1980s, implementation of the global governance agenda has accelerated dramatically, while the opposition has struggled simply to discover what is happening, and try to raise some kind of defense. In our next lesson, we will explore America’s response to Global Governance.

Additional reading:

  1. The Rise of Global Governance, Henry Lamb.
  2. Our Global Neighborhood
  3. Reinventing Government, Robert Hillmann
  4. Trashing the Economy, Ron Arnold, Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise
  5. Undue Influence, Ron Arnold

  1. Rene A. Wormser, Foundations: Their Power and Influence, (The Devin-Adair Company, New York, 1958), pp. 304-305.
  2. Harvey Klehr, et al, The Secret World of American Communism. (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. 1995). p. 12.
  3. Ron Arnold, Trashing the Economy, (Free Enterprise Press, Bellevue, Washington, 1993), p. 287.
  4. Ibid., p. 325.
  5. Larry Abraham with Franklin Sanders, The Greening, (Atlanta, Georgia: Soundview Publications, 1993, p. 98.
  6. Sean McBride, Many Voices, One World, (New York, New York: Unipub, 1980, p. 270, as quoted by Philip C. Bom. The Coming Century of Commonism, p. 93.
  7. Willy Brandt, North-South: A Program for Survival, (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1980, p. 12f, as quoted by Philip C. Bom. Op Cit., p. 60f.
  8. Elaine Dewar, Cloak of Green, (James Lorimer & Company, 1995), p. 243.
  9. Henry Lamb, “NGOs Drive Global Climate Agenda,” Daily Report from Bonn.
  10. Ron Arnold, Op. Cit., p. 596.
  11. Wealthy NGOs, Sovereignty International.