Monday, March 12, 2007

New World Order Drive Behind Global Warming

That the likes of Gordon Brown want a new world order to combat global warming isn't news, not really. The United Nations issues its tilted climate report every so often, and has been desirous of a global tax, too. But the people don't notice, nor do they care. What is new is the Council on Foreign Relations actually uttering the words, "new world order..." what's up with that?

Brown wants 'new world order' to fight global warming Mon Mar 12, 4:20 AM ET
LONDON (AFP) - Gordon Brown, likely to be the next prime minister, will deliver a speech calling for a "new world order" to combat global warming on Monday.

According to excerpts released by the finance ministry, Chancellor of the Exchequer Brown will also say the United Nations should make the fight against global warming a core "pillar" of its international mission.

Brown will praise the European Union's progress in combatting climate change after EU leaders on Friday agreed to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 20 percent by 2020, compared to 1990 levels.

He is set to announce domestic policy proposals that are targetted at helping Britons save energy, thereby cutting their individual carbon emissions, ahead of the government's publication of its Climate Change Bill on Tuesday.

The New New World Order
Daniel W. Drezner
From Foreign Affairs, March/April 2007


Throughout the twentieth century, the list of the world's great powers was predictably short: the United States, the Soviet Union, Japan, and northwestern Europe. The twenty-first century will be different. China and India are emerging as economic and political heavyweights: China holds over a trillion dollars in hard currency reserves, India's high-tech sector is growing by leaps and bounds, and both countries, already recognized nuclear powers, are developing blue-water navies. The National Intelligence Council, a U.S. government think tank, projects that by 2025, China and India will have the world's second- and fourth-largest economies, respectively. Such growth is opening the way for a multipolar era in world politics.

This tectonic shift will pose a challenge to the U.S.-dominated global institutions that have been in place since the 1940s. At the behest of Washington, these multilateral regimes have promoted trade liberalization, open capital markets, and nuclear nonproliferation, ensuring relative peace and prosperity for six decades -- and untold benefits for the United States. But unless rising powers such as China and India are incorporated into this framework, the future of these international regimes will be uncomfortably uncertain.

Given its performance over the last six years, one would not expect the Bush administration to handle this challenge terribly well. After all, its unilateralist impulses, on vivid display in the Iraq war, have become a lightning rod for criticism of U.S. foreign policy. But the Iraq controversy has overshadowed a more pragmatic and multilateral component of the Bush administration's grand strategy: Washington's attempt to reconfigure U.S. foreign policy and international institutions in order to account for shifts in the global distribution of power. The Bush administration has been reallocating the resources of the executive branch to focus on emerging powers. In an attempt to ensure that these countries buy into the core tenets of the U.S.-created world order, Washington has tried to bolster their profiles in forums ranging from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to the World Health Organization, on issues as diverse as nuclear proliferation, monetary relations, and the environment. Because these efforts have focused more on so-called low politics than on the global war on terrorism, they have flown under the radar of many observers. But in fact, George W. Bush has revived George H. W. Bush's call for a "new world order" -- by creating, in effect, a new new world order.

This unheralded effort is well intentioned and well advised...

Transcript of Interview
"The New New World Order"
Speaker: Daniel W. Drezner, Associate Professor of International Politics, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy
Presider: Gideon Rose, Managing Editor, Foreign Affairs
February 26, 2007
Council on Foreign Relations

Global Tax UN agenda Bill Clinton

The agenda of the UN under the guise of the various environmental agencies and groups is not recognized for what it actually is, and when the puzzle pieces are assembled, the big picture emerges. It reveals itself to be the benevolent (despotic) controller of not only the land and its resources, but of the people and their activities as well. Under the Wildlands Project, at least 50 percent of the land area in the United States would be returned to "core wilderness areas" where human activity is barred. These areas would be connected by corridors several miles in width. The core areas and corridors would be surrounded by "buffer zones" in which "controlled" human activity would be allowed. The words of Reed Noss clarify the real agenda, "the collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans."

"The Reorganization of Society, " as presented in their documents, is the five step plan of the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) to implement their agenda within the United States and the world."...

No comments: