Making the Case for Sovereignty
Jon Dougherty
What is often lost in discussions about the United Nations is that it indeed does have a legitimate function. The world body was initially established as a way for disputing nations to come together in a controlled, moderated environment of peace to work out their differences, rather than resorting to war as a first step. That concept is valid, and, under the terms set forth by God, it is an opportunity for all of His children here on earth to find a way to live together in peace.
However, it doesn't take a Master's Degree in political science to understand that the globalists of the world are not interested in adhering to the original intent or charters of the UN. Their aspirations are to be much more than just a mediation forum; they want, quite simply, to rule the world. Their interests do not lie in the sovereignty of individual nation-states. In fact, sovereignty is a four-letter-word to these people, as is God, truth, and any other tool opponents could use to thwart their efforts. What is alarming for this country, is that many of the most influential members of this cabal of globalists are Americans. Citizens of a nation that once embodied the very notion of sovereignty, liberty and freedom.
Well, there it is; demonize me all you want, you Leftists. But before you do, I challenge each one of you to dispute the claims I'm about to make.
First, the global cabal is attempting to condition Americans to accept a world judicial authority as surely as we now accept the validity of the US Supreme Court. To prove this, witness that a few weeks ago the 'World Court' in the Hague tried to issue a stay of execution for a Paraguayan national who was convicted of murder in Virginia. What made this compelling was that our State Department actually considered complying with the order, if the state of Virginia did not. A few years ago, when a similar UN-sponsored tribunal attempted to indict President George Bush for 'war crimes' in Iraq, the State Department laughed off the indictment and never gave it a second thought.
Secondly, more and more military ventures are undertaken these days under the auspices of the UN than practically all other military operations by sovereign nations combined. Out of the more than 100 deployments US troops are currently engaged in, about forty percent are within the operational jurisdiction of the United Nations Security Council. This includes some of our most visible deployments, such as Korea, Bosnia, and Africa. Also, a recently published article in The Washington Times reported that the Clinton administration made a $200,000 contribution, using State Department funds, to the formation of a world army, which would fall under the aegis of an 8-member UN controlled panel. Regardless of the spin, no US administration would contribute even one dollar to an entity that has been, from the beginning, designed to act as a global armed force.
Third, witness the exponential growth of the United Nations bureaucracy over the past 50 years. There are enough bureaucracies to address every aspect of a world citizen's life. There are global welfare agencies, military agencies, judicial agencies, and an apparatus [the entire UN body] that acts as a sort of world congress. The pieces are in place.
Not only are these pieces of evidence enough to compel even the most doubting of Thomas's to believe, but throughout the latter 1900's multiple globalists have made multiple statements and innuendoes regarding the coming globalization of the peoples of the world. Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, Mikhail Gorbachev, and even President Bill Clinton have all expressed their preferences for world government, and if these are some of the most influential policymakers in the world, why should anyone doubt their motives?
Besides all of this, present and past UN General Secretaries have made pledges for world armies, global taxes [for "funding" of UN projects], more power for world courts, and for the strengthening of world trade and financial organizations. There is a World Bank, an International Monetary Fund, a World Court, a World Trade Organization, a UN Security Council [for military operations], and dozens upon dozens of agencies and sub-agencies that, when pooled, address every single concern a traditional nation-state must address. The only thing lacking is the full and unbridled cooperation of each government, including the US government - for now.
A recent article written by Sally Barclay and appearing in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review said that there may only be as few as 1-2 million Americans who have seen all of this "writing on the wall" regarding the UN and their globalist aspirations. With those kinds of odds, it's a safe bet that there aren't enough of us around to elect enough of the kinds of American leaders needed to thwart this plan. If that's true, then Ms. Barclay is right.
But I doubt her numbers. Personally, I believe there are more "sovereignists" around than that. Also, in virtually every discussion I have had with experts who decry the globalist tendencies of the United Nations, none of them can convincingly explain the role China or, for that matter, Russia, will play. My point is, these two powerhouses have their own aspirations of global dominance, and it doesn't seem likely that a resurgent Russia or a mature China would succumb to a vision of globalization dominated by western leaders and cultures.
I'm not criticizing those experts; my point is, like them, I just don't know what these other emerging powers will do. Will they resist the dominance of the world by the West? Will they comply? Will they allow it only if they have a bigger decision-making role? Honestly I can't say and, apparently, neither can anyone else.
What I do know is this - a sovereign nation-state, with its own culture, its own economy, and the ability to make its own decisions is preferable to the one-size-fits-all version American and international globalists envision. God created many different peoples with the vision that all would live in harmony, but Man has made that virtually impossible. A Divine plan for a world community is one thing, but one created by power hunger elitists is altogether different and much more dangerous.
Regarding all the different countries and cultures, consider that America is the richest country on earth; there is no way each and every citizen of the world can have as good an earning potential as do Americans, because there just isn't that much wealth in the world. But to accomplish this equality, globalists intend to 'adjust' American wages down as wages in other countries are ratcheted up, so that we can meet somewhere in the middle - but at a point that is considerably less than what average Americans earn now. Besides, globalists intent on power do not seek to enrich the population. They seek to subdue it, and you cannot do that with a world consisting of citizens who make good money because they won't stand for it.
Finally, a sovereign America will continue to have love for God, something internationalists do not find appealing nor preferable. They want their subjects to worship them, to believe that all power and privilege is granted to individuals based on their grace, not the grace of God. We have seen this happen throughout the history of the world and in every single case, tyranny is the rule, not liberty. Even a Leftist cannot disprove that. Deny it, yes, but disprove it, no.
Americans have a choice, at this point, but maybe not for much longer. That choice consists of whether or not we want to remain a nation in charge of our own future or allow ourselves to become part of a larger coalition of global serfs, no longer belonging to a specific culture or possessive of a nation we can call our own. The case for sovereignty doesn't get much simpler than that.