Two UN Summits, One Millennium Goal: Conforming Humanity to Socialist Solidarity

by Berit Kjos


The Millennium World Peace Summit
http://www.millenniumpeacesummit.org/aboutframe.html (August 28-31) sought a spiritual foundation for a global ethic of socialist rights and duties

The UN Millennium Summit  http://www.un.org/millennium/ (September 6-8) sought approval for a world government that would manage natural, human, and social resources around the world by consensus

"For the first time in history religious and spiritual leaders from the major religious traditions and from all regions of the world met at the United Nations to pledge themselves to work for peace. They
signed this 'Commitment to Global Peace' and resolved to join together to address the pressing problems of conflict, poverty and the environment." Commitment to Global Peace
http://www.millenniumpeacesummit.org/aboutframe.html

"...there have been well meaning and sometimes eloquent calls for world government; calls which pointed to the unfairness, inequality and injustice of the present distributions of wealth, power and
policy making.... If only we could work as one world, then we could solve the world's problems together." Introduction to The Charter for Global Democracy signed at the Millennium Summit.
http://www.charter99.org/charter.html

"We pledge to move expeditiously to endow the UN with resources --both operational and financial -- commensurate to the tasks it faces in its peacekeeping activities worldwide.... As Permanent Members of the Security Council, we will continue to fulfill our obligations under the Charter and commit to making UN organization stronger and more effective." Presidents Clinton (USA), Putin (Russia), Zeming (China) and Chirac (France) and Prime Minister Blair (UK), September 7, 2000. Statement by the P-5 on the Millennium Summit.
http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/I2R?urn:pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/2000/9/8/ 2.text.1



The two UN summits fit together. As in Nazi Germany, political success calls for cooperating churches and compromising spiritual leaders. http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/#1 [1]

Both Summits agreed to build a more "efficient" United Nations. They wanted a standing UN army and a "reformed" Security Council -- one unencumbered by the "gridlock" of a veto. Canadian master-strategist Maurice Strong, http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/#ms who led the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development, serves their joint goal well.

Mr. Strong, who now heads the UN's University of Peace -- a vital partner to the World Peace Summit -- is also in charge of UN "reforms". His view of the needed reforms is no secret, for his
leadership on the strategic Commission on Global Governance exposed some sobering plans. Its 1995 report, Our Global Neighborhood,
http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/#gn outlined the agenda:

"Governments are understandably reluctant to commit troops rapidly for UN action, particularly in civil wars and internal conflicts....

"This underlines the need for a highly trained UN Volunteer Force that is willing, if necessary, to take combat risks.... Such an international Volunteer Force would be under the exclusive authority
of the Security Council...." (page 110)

What if the US Congress disagrees with UN decisions. Could it simply press for a US veto on the Security Council? Not if Strong implements his vision of reform. The United States, which is billed 25% of the huge UN budget, would be dismissed from the Security Council:

"We recommend that a new class of 'standing ' members be established.... Of these new members, two should be drawn from industrial countries and three from among the larger developing countries. Of the two from industrial countries, presumably one will be from Asia and one from Europe. Of the three from developing countries, we would expect one each to be drawn from Asia, Africa, and Latin America....

"The new standing members will not possess a veto, and we believe the aim should be for the power of the veto to be phased out." (240-241)

Many Americans refuse to believe this could happen. Others -- who like my family in Norway, saw nations shift from freedom to Nazi tyranny overnight during World War II -- know well that massive
social changes always have and will be part of history.

It's tempting to think that the United Nations would save us from such devastations in the future. Instead, we need to realize that the same human quest for power that drove Lenin and Hitler to unthinkable ends, is now being centralized in a single government ruled by ambitious, compromising national leaders -- some in virtual bondage to the World Bank and IMF.

Granting such powers to the UN would mean that countless decisions affecting our lives and families will be made for us by leaders who are not accountable to voters and cannot be removed from office.

So don't be deceived by the noble sentiments. In spite of the grand promises, local control and "decentralization" are outright lies! Everyone -- throughout the world -- would have to live, think,
participate and work according UN rules and standards or face a potential intrusion by the UN-controlled forces. And when that happens, you would have no place to hide. (See Local Agenda 21
http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/la21_198.html )

Part 1: The World Peace Summit
http://www.millenniumpeacesummit.org/aboutframe.html

Sheiks and swamis, priests and patriarchs, moguls and medicine men.... From around the world, they had gathered in New York on August 28 to join a four-day dialogue on "unity among religions." This Millennium World Peace Summit of Religious and Spiritual leaders would supposedly thrust humanity toward a utopian oneness and peace on earth. But for those who doubt the noble rhetoric, this meeting of
minds raised some sobering questions:

What kind of unity did these religious leaders envision? What would the UN require of its spiritual leaders?  What did they have in common?  What kind of unity?

Not all spiritual leaders were welcome. The new global "democracy" calls for worldwide representation -- but only by those who conform to the UN vision of solidarity. Dissenting voices could cause conflict and expose the lack of consensus. As Rabbi Arthur Schneier, president of the Appeal of Conscience Foundation, said,

"We have to marginalize religious leaders who are peace spoilers and are inciting hatred
http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/cwhbcv3-98.html and nationalistic passions, which destroys life....

We have a lot of those who are out there who are not in sync, and who are seeking t undermine our peacemaking, bridge-building efforts.''
http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/#3 [2]

"Peace spoilers" include those who refuse to conform to the UN vision of "Religion in a Culture of Peace." Biblical Christianity would fit the label well, for the true followers of Christ cannot be "in sync" with the world. They will not compromise their faith in order to please the global village.

Since Ted Turner's Better World Fund paid most of the Summit expenses, one would expect intolerance for God's truth. It's no secret that the Summit's Honorary Chairman Turner has little love for Christianity. In his Summit message, he described his spiritual search:

"The thing that disturbed me is that my religious Christian sect was very intolerant... because it taught we were the only ones going to heaven. It just confused the devil out of me because I said heaven is
going to be a might empty place with nobody else there.

"Now I believe there may be one God who manifests himself in different ways to different people ... And I can't believe God wants us to blow ourselves to kingdom come. He wants us to love each other
and live in peace." http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/#33

[3] http://www.mcjonline.com/news/00b/20000839a.htm Ted Turner Attacks
Christianity At U.N. "Peace Summit"
http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/#33

The Dalai Lama didn't fit either. China would tolerate no public support for the exiled Tibetan Buddhist leader. Its leaders had voiced their disapproval, and the UN chose to violate its own principles rather than offend the Communist giant.

What does the UN require of its spiritual leaders?

The UN's readiness to bow to Chinese demands caused both concern and consternation. "While religion should not dictate politics, neither should politics dictate faith,'' said Mustafa Ceric, the Grand Mufti
of Bosnia and Herzegovina. "We have a very sorry experience from the Communist period, as well as the most recent past, where politics has manipulated religion.''

It makes sense that history would repeat itself. In spite of the tempting lies about human and spiritual evolution, human nature doesn't change from century to century. June Griffin, who attended the Summit with support from Congress, described the hypocrisy of those who proclaim lofty ideals but pursue self-interest, power and prestige:

"Past agendas have failed, thus religion is to be reintroduced into politics as the ultimate pressure. Over a thousand religious leaders and spiritual heads of the poor nations came to the UN Religious Peace Summit in their humblest limousines, SUV's and other means of western accommodation, after having flown through the air on Yankee-invented airplanes. One Hindu said he spent $20,000 to attend and still he couldn't get a place to speak. Not all is well. ...

"The solemn ceremony was delayed 45 minutes because the emcee was unable to clear the first three rows for the speakers. Either they didn't understand his "please empty the first three rows so that we can get on with this historic event," or used it as a good excuse to retain the best seats. He pleaded patiently for 45 minutes, I said, and in vain called an interpreter, but alas, none moved. "Please turn off cell phones," but they rang on. Seems Mother Earth's children don't mind very well." http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/#4 [4] A personal report from a reporter who was present at the conference.

What did count was a public demonstration of "unity in diversity." This "diversity" called for showy but shallow distinctions between their various religions. Drums, feathers and other outward symbols helped hide the genuine ideological differences which had yielded to UN standards for the new global "unity." In other words, peace pipes and distinguishing robes were welcome. Unlike the Biblical cross, they didn't threaten the blueprint for solidarity.

What did they have in common?

At the close of the World Summit, the spiritual guides signed a "Commitment to Global Peace."
http://www.millenniumpeacesummit.org/aboutframe.html Together they would support the UN's quest for answers to "the pressing problems of conflict, poverty and the environment." As in Nazi Germany, the
Soviet Union and Communist China, compliant religious leaders would consent to a common UN-defined duty: to be used by political strategists to persuade and manage the masses.

Ponder some of the suggestions in this Commitment to Global Peace. As in most UN documents, it highlights the crisis needed to justify the loss of freedom and the planned control. Notice how it commits
religious leaders (1) to accept its dubious presumptions, and (2) to use their influence to serve the UN agenda for "sustainable development" -- establishing a socialist welfare system and economic
equality around the world under the banner of "saving the environment."

"Whereas our world is plagued by violence, war and destruction, which are sometimes perpetrated in the name of religion....

"Whereas no individual, group or nation can any longer live as an isolated microcosm in our interdependent world....

"Whereas there can be no real peace until all groups and communities acknowledge the cultural and religious diversity of the human family in a spirit of mutual respect and understanding....

"In light of the above, and with a view to discharging our duty to the human family, we declare our commitment and determination:

1. To collaborate with the United Nations and all men and women of goodwill locally, regionally and globally in the pursuit of peace.....

2. To lead humanity by word and deed in a renewed commitment to ethical and spiritual values...

5. To awaken in all individuals and communities a sense of shared responsibility for the well-being of the human family...

7. To educate our communities about the urgent need to care for the earth's ecological systems....

The second point -- "no individual... can any longer live as an isolated microcosm in our interdependent world" -- is already being used in communities across the USA to justify pressuring people of all ages to participate in the consensus process.
http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/mc9-24-98.html The Columbine massacre and the new quest to identify "loners" as potential criminals have intensified this pressure.

Remember, the United Nations demands solidarity. Only a new set of shared beliefs, values, attitudes, and behaviors can complete its utopian vision of the global community. To succeed, it needs the cooperation of spiritual leaders who will persuade their followers.

Absolute truth and political dissent are unacceptable. Uncompromising positions could bring conflict and gridlock. Our Global Neighborhood suggests a threefold approach to establishing " an ethical dimension
to global governance. " Do they sound familiar?

Encourage commitment to core values and strengthen the sense of common responsibility for the global neighborhood.

Express these values through a global ethic of specific rights and responsibilities.

Embody this ethic in the evolving system of international norms, adapting, where necessary existing norms of sovereignty. (See Our Global Neighborhood)   http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/#gn

This "sense of common responsibility" was as vital to totalitarianism in Nazi Germany and the Communist block as it is to the United Nations today. While the responsibilities (or duties) were adapted to
both real and artificial needs of the times, they served to focus the masses on common quests.

Part 2