EU “Parliament” Seeks to Build UN Parliament
Under the guise of bringing “democracy” to the United Nations, often ridiculed for its membership roster as the “dictators club,” powerful globalist and establishment forces in the European Union and beyond are pushing the idea of adding a “Parliamentary Assembly” to the UN. Such a planetary “Parliament,” globalists say, would give the UN some “democratic legitimacy” to usurp ever more control over the destinies of both individuals and nations. Already, some UN bosses such as former Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon (pictured) have started referring to the UN as the “Parliament of Humanity.” But for advocates of liberty and national independence, the radical idea to further empower the UN is dangerous and must be opposed.
The European Union’s pseudo-Parliament wants the EU to play a lead role in building a United Nations “Parliament” as part of what it touted as a “rule-of-law-based international order.” And last month, the European Parliament, which acts as a sort of rubber stamp for legislation created by unelected bureaucrats in the EU Commission, again put its globalist agenda on paper. As part of the European outfit’s “annual recommendations” on EU policy for the upcoming UN General Assembly meeting in September, the pseudo-legislators called for a big push to advance an EU-backed UN legislature that would make “laws” for all of humanity. The EU “High Representative on Foreign Affairs,” Federica Mogherini, claimed last year that a UN Parliamentary Assembly “could be a very useful tool.”
Among other globalist schemes, the official recommendations call for the EU and its member governments to push forward the notion of “establishing a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly with a view to increasing the democratic profile and internal democratic process of the organization and to allow world civil society to be directly associated in the decision-making process.” By “civil society,” the EU Parliament means the growing constellation of largely tax-funded non-governmental organizations, or NGOs, that provide crucial “pressure from below” to advance the globalist agenda. Under the plan, governments would also send members to the UN “parliament” to rule over humanity.
The EU recommendations also offered some blunt language on the EU’s agenda to empower the UN as a sort of global government. According to the document, the EU should “play a proactive part in building a United Nations that can contribute effectively to global solutions, peace and security, human rights, development, democracy and a rule-of-law-based international order.” Once one is well-versed in globalist speak, the true agenda becomes clear: global laws created by a global government to enforce the globalists’ perverted vision of “human rights,” which as government-granted revocable privileges are essentially the opposite of the God-given rights described by America’s Founding Fathers and enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
Of course, the EU has been pushing that scheme for two decades, and has long called on EU member states to lobby for the creation of a UN Parliament. The idea of global government, meanwhile, has been around since the Tower of Babel. But after World War I, powerful forces resurrected the plot with the League of Nations, and later with the UN. As regular readers of The New American know well, the UN was always intended by its founding fathers — including convicted Soviet agent Alger Hiss on the U.S. side, and mass-murdering Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin on Moscow’s side — to usurp more and more powers over humanity.
One of the key architects of the UN at its founding conference, aside from communist agent Hiss, was globalist John Foster Dulles (pictured), who went on to serve as U.S. secretary of state. In his 1950 book, War or Peace, Dulles, a founder of the establishment swamp known as the Council on Foreign Relations, explained the agenda clearly. “The United Nations represents not a final stage in the development of world order, but only a primitive stage,” he wrote. “Therefore its primary task is to create the conditions which will make possible a more highly developed organization.” He went on to claim in the same book that he had “never seen any proposal made for collective security with teeth in it, or for world government or for ‘world federation, which could not be carried out either by the United Nations or under the United Nations Charter.”
All of that brings us back to the proposed UN Parliamentary Assembly. While some analysts have argued that the creation of a UN Parliament would require changes to the UN Charter, others have said it could easily be created by the UN General Assembly without any modification to the charter. “Ironically, it is easier for the UN to create a UNPA [Parliamentary Assembly] than to add just one single seat to the UN Security Council,” wrote Andreas Bummel, the director of “Democracy Without Borders” and coordinator of the Campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly. “A UNPA can be created according to Article 22 which allows the General Assembly to establish subsidiary bodies as it deems necessary to fulfill its work.”
In August, Bummel’s Campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly boasted in a press release that more than 1,500 current and former members of parliaments from more than 120 nations had endorsed the scheme. “This is an important milestone,” said Bummel. “The support of a UN Parliamentary Assembly by such a broad group of parliamentarians from all the world’s regions shows once again that it is high time for the United Nations to consider this project.” Among those listed as supporting the project are top leaders such as Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, an apologist for the late mass-murdering dictator Fidel Castro, and other senior government officials from around the world.
Top UN bosses have for years been acting like it is already a done deal, with former UN boss Ban calling the UN the “Parliament of Humanity.” Even top globalist Americans have been involved. Former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, infamous primarily for saying on television that 500,000 dead Iraqi children was an acceptable price to annoy a dictator armed and put in power by the U.S. government, co-chaired the pro-UNPA “Commission on Global Security, Justice and Governance.” In addition to the European Parliament, the globalist constructs known as the “Latin-American Parliament” and the “Pan-African Parliament” have also gone on record backing the scheme.
Setting aside the dangers of further empowering the dictators club, there is a good reason America’s Founders warned so fervently about the dangers of democracy when they set up a constitutional republic in the United States. In Federalist, No. 10, for example, James Madison, widely regarded as the father of the Constitution, wrote: “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
And that was for mere nation states. Now, imagine a “global democracy,” as envisioned by advocates of a UN Parliament. In essence, it would put the fate of America and her liberties in the hands of vastly different cultures with no traditions of liberty, self-government, free enterprise, Christianity, and Western civilization. The result would be global plunder, until the wealth of the poor and middle class in developed nations was finally exhausted, followed inevitably by tyranny. In fact, in its own documents, including the UN Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, the UN has made its agenda completely clear.
Rather than tinkering with the UN or making it more “democratic,” the U.S. government must simply withdraw from the dictators club. Already, there is legislation in Congress to do that: the American Sovereignty Restoration Act, or H.R. 193. If and when the bill is passed, it would repeal the UN Participation Act, evict the UN’s spy-filled headquarters from U.S. soil, and prohibit any U.S. funding or involvement with the UN or any of its tentacles. Concerned Americans should reach out to their members of Congress and educate the local electorate on the UN threat to ensure that America remains independent and free. The alternative, again, is global tyranny.
ER recommends other articles by The New American
About the author
Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook.