This is an archived site. Phone numbers, addresses, e-mail links, etc are INVALID. DO NOT PLACE ANY ORDERS.

Frames No Frame

MARCH 6 - 12, 1995

Joan Veon, Free Lance Journalist to UN Conferences

Not much was reported on the news with regard to the United Nations Social fact, not much news was reported back in September, 1994 with regard to the United Nations International Conference on Population and Development. This is most interesting when you consider that the UN agenda is humanistic in scope---in Cairo, an Irish Catholic priest said to Dr. Jyoti Singh, President of the Conference, "I have read the Programme of Action and God is not mentioned once" to which Dr. Singh replied that it was up to the countries to insert God [according to their form of who god is], global" because it will affect literally every person in the world, and politically correct because only the UN view is allowed which happens to be shared by the Clinton Administration.

According to the UN there was 90% consensus going into Cairo and 95% going into Copenhagen. This is amazing when you consider that only 15,000 to 25,000 people who attend these meetings are participating in global governmental law compared to the number of people in the world. Why else would they harass the pro-lifers or assign people to track "dissidents"? In order to understand how the UN defines terms, one only has to look at their definition of "consensus". Without going into a two paragraph quote from Dr. Singh in Cairo, "consensus" means that you agree with as little as two words or two sentences in the 113 page Cairo or 90 page Copenhagen documents and "then you are free to enter your reservations as to what you do not like with the UN." However, if one carefully looks into UN rules, they have the right and the ability to negate reservations. This means that even President Clinton's reservations on the UN Rights of the Child, are up for grabs. This form of consensus is also interesting when you consider that the Programme of Action is only written in French and English. Therefore, if you do not speak one of these languages, you are at a loss to truly understand the meaning and implication as to how it really will affect you and your country's mores and culture.

In Cairo the prevailing philosophy is that there are too many people on the Earth and that the population must be reduced in order to bring the world into "sustainable development." Most pathetic was the lament of the Third World who said they could not get aspirin from their local health clinic, only condoms. In Copenhagen, the UN set a new course of action for the future. In the opening statements of those in charge, you could hear this new mandate, "A new type of political process has brought us where we are", "...the new development role of the UN....this is transition from peacekeeping to Economic Social Force--look at the world in terms of a new compact, new dialogue, where everyone gains." Boutros Boutros-Ghali looks at it in the terms of a "new social contract".

But who will truly gain? The writer found that it is no coincidence that within a twelve month period from the Cairo Conference in September, 1994 to the September, 1995 Fourth Women's Conference and which spans the celebrations of the UN's 50th Anniversary, that these three major conferences were being held. She further found that the Copenhagen Social Summit was the key for the changes which the UN wishes to make during this time of reflection. "A time", according to Sir Shridath Ramphal, co- Chairman of the Commission on Global Governance, "which begs the question 'Did we get it right in San Francisco' [50 years ago]?" In addition, the Gorbachev Foundation USA is holding a conference the end of September called "State of the World Forum" which will be "an historic convening of Senior States people and some of the world's most preeminent thinkers to articulate the fundamental vision of politics and values necessary to constructively shape the coming century."

Page Two

So what really happened in Copenhagen? The real truth was the push by the UN for a global tax in order for them to raise the monies necessary to rid the world of poverty, unemployment and social disintegration. Is it not true, that in order to change your situation, you need a reason for the action you really want to take...after all, isn't that why wars are fought?

From the moment after the United Nations said "welcome" to the press corps they did not stop hammering on a number of global tax issues. The main tax the UN discussed is what is known as the "Tobin Tax", in which the UN would tax the $1T in monies trading on the international currency markets on a daily. By taking 1/500 of 1% tax, the UN would glean more than $150B on a yearly basis which is 15 times their current 1993 worldwide spending of $10.1B. In 1981, James Tobin recommended a 1/10 of 1% which would glean $1.5T a year. The UN has "room" to maneuver when they need more monies since the mechanism is already in place. In addition, a number of other taxes were also brought up by UN representatives in all of the press briefings and over 20 of the scheduled workshops. While the global tax was not officially in the Programme of Action, Chapter V called for "new and innovative" and "new and creative" forms of financing. What the UN was doing was conditioning the press corps and the people who attended as to what they are going to do.

The Summit ended with France, Canada and Denmark supporting the Tobin Tax idea which

they will bring up at the next Group of Seven Finance Ministers meeting in June.

These same recommendations just happen to coincide with the recommendations of a number of other study groups, all of whom have been funded by The Ford Foundation. All the studies say the same thing, i.e. empower the UN through a number of global taxes, change the UN charter so they can meet on a full-time basis, strengthen the World Bank, turn the IMF into a World Central Bank, add an Economic Security Council to monitor the finances of the world, strengthen the jurisdiction of the World Court and allow the UN to have their own permanent volunteer army in order to keep world peace. Do you see what I see?

With regard to family-types of issues, in Cairo, the Vatican fought valiantly against using abortion as a means of family planning. While they were able to "win" on this issue in Cairo, it will be brought up at the Fourth Women's Conference in Beijing in September where the goal of the U.S. delegation will be to target choice as part of human rights and reproductive choice. In addition, one of the objectives of the Cairo conference was to include homosexual marriage as part of "family". While it did not gain acceptance there, it may very well be targeted in Beijing.

Lastly, if the press truly reported all of the things that happened in Copenhagen, perhaps the American people would be prompted to recall the vision which our forefathers had in 1776 when they took a stand against the English.