Posted by: Yvonne | October 5, 2010

Feds Say Global Governance at ‘Critical Juncture’

By Henry Lamb
Sovereignty International

Pundits and politicians who giggle and point fingers at people who dare refer to global governance display their ignorance, or their duplicity. The U.S. National Intelligence Council, and the European Union’s Institute for Security Studies has just released a report called: Global Governance 2025: At a Critical Juncture.

This 82-page document discusses quite openly the current status of global governance and the likelihood of global governance maturing into full-fledged global government. Those who scoff at the reality of global governance are to be pitied for their ignorance or despised for their duplicity. As Gustave Speth , former director of the World Resources Institute and head of the U.N. Development Program, said in 1997:

“[G]lobal governance is here, here to stay, and driven by economic and environmental globalization, global governance will inevitably expand.”

Speth’s belief was confirmed in November 2009 by Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European Union Council, who said “Global governance is the global management of our planet.”

The new U.S.-E.U. report defines global governance to be “the collective management of common problems at the international level” and says that global governance is at a critical juncture.

The United Nations Development Program, in its 1999 report, defines global governance to be “the framework of rules, institutions, and practices that set limits of the behavior of individuals, organizations and companies.”

Both the U.N. and the new U.S.-E.U. report are quick to say that global governance in not global government. The new report describes global government as the exercise of sovereignty through a hierarchical system of authority, while global governance is a voluntary arrangement of shared sovereignty among nations.

If global governance has the power to “limit the behavior of individuals, organizations, and companies,” then such actions are, indeed, the exercise of sovereignty, even if that sovereignty has been voluntarily surrendered to an international institution such as the World Trade Organization or to an international treaty.

Dancing around the semantics is simply a diversion in an attempt to appease, distract or discredit the opponents of global governance. The indisputable fact is that global governance has advanced dramatically in the last two decades and is moving forward even faster under the Obama administration.

The new report says:

“[The] EU has sought to export its model of regional integration and sovereignty-sharing and has devised a distinctive discourse on global governance and priorities.”

The report also quotes a Chinese participant:

“Global governance requires giving over significant sovereignty to others – that is the view in China. …”

Any way you look at it, as global governance advances, national sovereignty evaporates. The report identifies three areas in which more effective global governance is badly needed and is likely to materialize: climate change and the environment, opening of the Arctic and the global economy.

Read the rest here.



%d bloggers like this: