U.S.-U.N. struggle moves to ICC {Henry Lamb}

U.S.-U.N. struggle moves to ICC
Henry Lamb

Posted: June 21, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

The media spotlight has dimmed on the conflict between the United States and the United Nations Security Council. The conflict has now moved behind the scenes and spread to the International Criminal Court, created in Rome in 1998.

In an unprecedented action, President Bush withdrew the U.S. signature from the Rome Statute in May 2002. The European Union, joined by the United Nations Association and the World Federalist Association, launched scathing criticism. When the court officially came into existence on July 1, 2002, the U.S. vetoed a U.N. resolution to extend peacekeeping operations in Bosnia, because it did not contain a guarantee that U.S. forces would be exempt from prosecution by the International Criminal Court.

Panic quickly spread across the international community at the thought of U.S. withdrawal from U.N. peacekeeping operations, and the diplomats quickly discovered a way to interpret Article 98 of the statute, which would provide a one-year exemption for the U.S. from ICC jurisdiction.

As that one-year exemption approaches expiration, the U.S. State Department has been busy negotiating new exemption agreements with individual nations that are a party to the ICC statute. As of June 16, there were 38 such agreements, and, again, the EU and U.N. supporters in the U.S. are furious.

The U.S. position respects the right of other nations to participate in the ICC but expects other nations to respect the U.S. right not to participate. That respect is demonstrated when a nation agrees to not allow U.S. citizens to be subject to the ICC while in their country. Nations that are unwilling to sign this agreement are subject to the withdrawal of U.S. bases, civilian employees and financial aid.

The EU, which has adopted a strong position of support for the ICC, calls the Article 98 agreements heavy-handed bullying tactics. The body has issued threats to ten applicant nations that their future membership in the EU could be in jeopardy if they sign an Article 98 agreement with the U.S. The EU has declared that these agreements are inconsistent with ICC states parties' obligations. …"

The battle over the ICC is, perhaps, the sharpest example of the contest between U.S. sovereignty and global governance. Without U.S. support and participation, the court's relevance is seriously jeopardized. Should the U.S. fall victim to the court's jurisdiction, U.S. sovereignty will fade into history.

The contest will be won or lost in the United States. Were Al Gore in the White House, U.S. sovereignty would already be fading into history. The Clinton-Gore administration, after refusing to vote for the final draft of the Rome Statute in 1998, signed the document just hours before the Dec. 31, 2000, deadline. Powerful organizations in the United States have mobilized to support U.S. participation in the ICC.

The World Federalist Association has created a coalition to lobby Congress and mount a propaganda campaign. Another coalition, called USA for ICC has also launched a massive, well-funded campaign in support of U.S. participation in the court.

It is not surprising that these organizations have targeted President Bush, and all Republicans for that matter, for replacement in 2004. The ICC and U.S. involvement in the United Nations are not simply partisan issues. Many Republicans support the ICC and the United Nations, and there are Democrats who adamantly oppose U.S. involvement in either. The contest is between conflicting philosophies, not between political parties.

Those who support U.S. involvement in the ICC and the U.N., support a socialist philosophy that holds that the power of government is omnipotent and thus may – or may not – grant rights to citizens.

Those who oppose U.S. involvement in these institutions tend to believe that government is not omnipotent but is empowered only by the consent of the governed. They realize that the policies of the ICC and the U.N. are formulated way beyond their consent and beyond any accountability to the governed.

This contest cannot be allowed to dally until another Clinton-Gore-type administration moves into the White House. Those who value U.S. sovereignty and the freedom it guarantees should insist that Congress adopt the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 (HR1146), which removes the U.S. from the U.N.

The time has come for the U.S. to make a clean break with the socialist-dominated global governance regime that seeks to define the U.S. role in the world community. The United States should define its own role in the world, based on the principles of freedom set forth in the U.S. Constitution.

Anything less is acquiescence to the enemies of freedom.

Editor's note: The May edition of WND's acclaimed monthly Whistleblower magazine is devoted entirely to the United Nations and globalism, and includes an in-depth, groundbreaking report by Henry Lamb. The issue focuses on the critical decisions America faces in the near future, which will determine whether it stays a free and sovereign nation or submits to global governance under the authority of the U.N.

Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization and chairman of Sovereignty International.

THIS article at WND

Guys, The World Federalist NGO is, as the name suggests, committed to having "Federalism" at the global level. This means having all power centralized to rule the whole world and it's peoples. Federalist {ism} as the name itself suggests is NOT supportive of "states" rights, much less individual rights {except those created, given and/or taken away by the whims of leaders of the central authority on any future given day}. As with any other "ism" faith leads them to "believe"{?} that this omnipotent power wielded by those individuals on high can only rule justly and with the best interests of the whole in mind.

In other words, socialists by any other name taken since before recorded time. As are all globalists with visions of utopia based on the evolution of mankind to "a new enlightenment". Peace and love, George.

Those who support U.S. involvement in the ICC and the U.N., support a socialist philosophy that holds that the power of government is omnipotent and thus may – or may not – grant rights to citizens.

Those who oppose U.S. involvement in these institutions tend to believe that government is not omnipotent but is empowered only by the consent of the governed. They realize that the policies of the ICC and the U.N. are formulated way beyond their consent and beyond any accountability to the governed.

This contest cannot be allowed to dally until another Clinton-Gore-type administration moves into the White House. Those who value U.S. sovereignty and the freedom it guarantees should insist that Congress adopt the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 (HR1146), which removes the U.S. from the U.N.

The time has come for the U.S. to make a clean break with the socialist-dominated global governance regime that seeks to define the U.S. role in the world community. The United States should define its own role in the world, based on the principles of freedom set forth in the U.S. Constitution.

Anything less is acquiescence to the enemies of freedom.
Henry Lamb

Did you ever read the Gulag Archipelago? If you did, how long was it before you realized that it was not just one case of massive injustice that was the point of the book, but the sheer enormity of it?

The Agenda 21 or Sustainable Development makes a farce of representative democracy. It has no place in a constitutional republic, but you are getting it anyway, unless you do something about it very soon.

"Changing Consumption Patterns" is about changing yours. "Programs for Women" and "Demographic Dynamics and Sustainability" are ways to take control of reproduction through healthcare. They want the children first, with their School-to-Work programs and Outcome-Based Education programmes. They want to control unions to control votes. They will use the claims of "indigenous peoples" as a lever for taking land, even though nobody knows who that really is much less the legitimate extent of their claims.

The civil servants will love Sustainable Development because they get to regulate what is or isn't "sustainable" to suit their purposes. They'll have mass-transit and bicycles. They'll have low-income housing, rent control, overcrowded schools, and the social problems that come with them. They'll mix those used-to-be middle class kids with children of immigrant workers raised on a steady media and public school diet of class warfare. They'll produce an ample supply of customers for the criminal justice system and those Psych Majors at the University.

This is Agenda 21. The UN intends to control your life, through incremental mandates instituted by your local government bureaucracy. You will never see it. You will never vote on it. No matter which path they use, the agencies can pen the new regulations under "threat" of lawsuit and down the pipe it comes: enforceable administrative rules without legislation.

This book has chronicled but a few of the early manifestations of the Agenda 21 in Santa Cruz County (logging, septic, and the listing of coho). Each time there has been a public protest or threat of a lawsuit, the agency formed a TAC to accept public "input." Each time the TAC convened, it was either advisory in nature (Timber-TAC under the control of the Planning Department or coho under CDFG) or manned by a majority of civil servants (Septic-TAC). Consensus, as defined by any normal human being, did not exist. It is fortunate that in California such public meetings are subject to the much-abused Brown Act, which requires that minutes of the meetings be available. T-TAC meetings were taped instead, just try to get a transcript. You would pay thousands of dollars to get one.

Congress? The Constitution? Public takings of private property? You just don't understand. These problems are about transformation products in Global Commons. Those trees on your property make oxygen for the rest of the planet and consume CO2 for the poor in China. Shell wants to trade the carbon credits that should have been yours to sell. You middleclass consumers, on the other hand, are producers of that noxious poison, and you use more of those Global Commons than your share. Have you no compassion?

48 posted on 06/01/2003 6:00 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (California: Where government is pornography, every day!)

46 posted on 06/20/2003 4:44 PM PDT by Ethan_Allen
One More Month to Block Rejoining UNESCO!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/930480/posts?page=1

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.