One hundred fifty world leaders attended the Millennium Summit September 6-8, 2000 at United Nations headquarters in New York, at the invitation of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.1   The summit was part of the Millennium Assembly (the 51st session of the United Nations), which was devoted to plans to transform the UN into the New World Government. These leaders were asked to ratify a core package of twenty-five treaties,2  to define a new division of powers between the New World Government and the nations that is similar to one proposed by the World Federalists.3   Eighty-five nations signed forty different treaties, conventions, and protocols on international law.4

     The treaty establishing the International Criminal Court had 110 signatures, nineteen of which have ratified it as of September 8, 2000.  When ratification reaches sixty, the Court will go into operation.5   The Court will enforce all international law on all nations whether or not that nation signed the treaty that created the Court or the international law it enforces.  This is unprecedented.  There seems to be no legal basis for subjugating nations that did not sign the International Criminal Court treaty.  Although Clinton signed the treaty, the U.S. Senate will likely reject it.

     The treaty creating the International Criminal Court seems to be designed to work around a possible rejection by the U.S. Senate of UN Charter amendments proposed under UN reform.  The UN Charter amendments will transform the UN General Assembly into a legislative body, create a World Police force, a UN embassy system, and add other governmental powers to the UN.  However, these amendments require the ratification of all five permanent members of the Security Council.  The U.S. is one of the permanent members.  The creation of the International Criminal Court will circumvent a U.S. rejection of these Charter amendments.  Through it, the UN will be able to impose legal control over all nations without amending the UN Charter.

     The UN is moving to establish a stronger political relationship with regional organizations.  The New World Government plans to override national governments through organizations like the European Union, European Parliament, and NATO in Europe.  The European Union is presently working on the transfer of judicial and domestic affairs of each European nation to the European Union.  British citizens fear they will lose the right to trial by jury and be subject to the arrest and incarceration powers of the European Public Prosecutor.6

     In the Western Hemisphere, the UN will coordinate with the Organization of American States.  In Africa, it is with the Organization of African Unity.  The declaration of the UN Security Council on September 8, 2000, revealed that the Organization of African Unity will be a target of UN control.

     Former KGB officer Anatoliy Golitsyn predicted in 1991 that the Soviets and their Russian successors would use the UN to create a world government.  He said, “Soviet strategists will come forward with fresh initiatives combined with deliberate provocations and crisis in order to enhance the role of the United Nations.  They will do this because they regard the United Nations as a stepping stone to a future World Government.  7  Later in 1989, he predicted that “a campaign for a new system of World Government will be launched at the Summit level and will be accompanied by pressure from below, the active use of agents of influence and secret assassinations of leaders who are seen as obstacles.  8

     The Stimson Center, a liberal think tank in Washington D.C., proposed a federation of nations put all the world  ‘s military power in the hands of the UN (New World Government).9  With this military power, no nation, including the United States,  could oppose its policies, no matter how objectionable they might become.

     Proposes for the ultimate form of the new UN military started in 1999.  Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov proposed to the United Nations on September 21, 1999 that the Multipolar World group, a new Russian-Chinese military axis, be the instrument for the enforcement of international security and stability.  He said, “There is simply no other universal instrument which could regulate international relations.  10  He suggested that the Multipolar World group would be in harmony with this new UN role since it is based on “principles of international law.  11  On the same day, September 21, 1999, Ivanov met with the Iranian, Indian and Pakistani foreign ministers at the UN to discuss the Russian proposal.  These ministers supported Russia  ‘s plan to use “force in conditions of the globalization of international relations.  12  Russi presented its plan to the Millennium Assembly at the UN in September 2000.

2. Upgrade United Nations capacity for planning, establishing, deploying, and conducting peacekeeping operations.

3. Make provisions for new financing of peacekeeping operations.

     It also called for Member States to provide resources for the rapid deployment of peacekeeping operations.  Britain offered its nation for the headquarters of this new military force.  In America, twenty-eight liberal democrats introduced House Resolution 4453 into the U.S. House of Representatives, on May 15, 2000, “To encourage the establishment of a United Nations Rapid Deployment Police and Security Force.    This resolution supports the creation of a 6,000-man force “under the control of the UN  ‘s Military Staff Committee.  14

     The prospect of such a UN military force has been anticipated for some time.  It alarmed some members of the U.S. Congress several years ago.  In a February 8, 1997 interview with BBC Worldwide Television in London, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan responded to those concerns.  He said, “he had to reassure some members of the U.S. Congress that they need not fear a U.N. takeover of the United States.  Some of them were very concerned that the U.N. is a threat to U.S. sovereignty, that we were going to come in and tax U.S. citizens.  15

     The plans to build this new UN military and establish the UN as a world government have generated new strong opposition among U.S. citizens.  On September 7, 2000 in Washington D.C., a group of patriotic organizations delivered 300,000 petition signatures to U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert.16  These petitions called for the United States to withdraw from the United Nations.  The organizing groups were the American Policy Center, Sovereignty International, America  ‘s Survival and The Liberty Committee.

     The Liberty Committee is a caucus of sixteen Congressional Representatives in the U.S. House of Representative to support legislation that fits a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.  These Representatives have introduced bills to fight for U.S. national sovereignty and oppose the creation of the New World Government.  These bills are:

•     H.R. 1146 - American Sovereignty Restoration

•     H.R. 4654 - American Servicemembers  ‘ Protection

•     H.R. 4669 - Citizen Soldier  ‘s Protection

•     H.R. 2655 - Separation of Powers Restoration

•     S. 1795 - Executive Orders Limitation

•     H.R. 220 - Freedom and Privacy Restoration

     They oppose H.R. 4453 the UN Rapid Deployment Police/Security bill.

     The Liberty Committee has 43,000 activists nationwide.  For information on joining them, contact The Liberty Committee at The Liberty Committee, Fifth Floor, 701 West Broad Street, Falls Church, VA 22046, or http://www.thelibertycommittee.org.

     Since most Americans who know about the creation of the New World Government oppose it, a conflict between America and those nations backing the New World Government is likely.  The nations backing the New World Government include Russia, China and our European allies.  Taylor and Sato the authors of Future Sources of Global Conflict believe, “Russia could in the long term even become a major supporter of UN actions through the provision of peacekeeping forces.  Even assuming that Russia does eventually settle on a figure of 1.5 million for its armed forces, it could still have significant numbers of troops available for global peacekeeping duties provided too many are not tied up in conflicts in the former Soviet Union.  17

America gives Russia the Nuclear Advantage 

    He cut the number of U.S. battlefield nuclear weapons from 8,000 to 1,500.  He then invited the Soviets to follow his example and dismantle their nuclear weapons.  Since they were not required by treaty to dismantle their 20,000 battlefield nuclear weapons, they did not.  Today, Russia is building new battlefield nuclear weapons, while America‘s supply is reported to be as low as 200 weapons.

     Council on Foreign Relation members Brent Scowcroft, Henry Kissinger, and George Shultz attended George W. Bush‘s nuclear disarmament announcement and added their support to his proposal.21

     The unilateral disarmament of our nuclear forces has put our nation at risk.  The overwhelming Russian nuclear advantage on the battlefield means our forces can no longer deter a nuclear attack by threatening to retaliate with our nuclear weapons.  The policy of mutual assured destruction or deterrence is gone.  In addition to this weakness, the U.S. will have the same problem with strategic nuclear weapons if our nation follows George W. Bush‘s proposal, which will unilaterally cut our strategic nuclear forces.  Nuclear inferiority will open our nation to nuclear blackmail or to nuclear attack.  For the first time nuclear war will be winnable for the Russians.  If America has to stand alone against the combined military strength of Russia, China and Europe to defend its sovereignty, let us not do it from a position of inferiority.

Transfer of American Security to the New World Government
Threatens the U.S. Constitution

     The alternative to fighting the nations backing the New World Government is the surrender of our nation to the control of the New World Government.  However, meeting the legal obligations of the New World Government will also have a price.  Sydney D. Bailey and Sam Davis, authors of The United Nations: A Concise Political Guide, explain “that almost all unofficial proposals to amend the Charter [of the United Nations] envisage some diminution of the sovereignty of states.    This process will bring “an era in which all states accept a diminution of sovereignty, in exchange for a part-share in the sovereignty of all other states.  22  Bailey and Davis point out that United Nations “Members assume obligations which may, in certain circumstances, limit their freedom of action.  23

     However, some U.S. courts have ruled that the constitution is superior to international treaties including the UN Charter.  Treaties ratified by the United States Senate have the force of federal law, but are limited by the framework of the U.S. Constitution just as federal laws are.  Any attempt to ratify a treaty that would override the bill of rights, the federal obligation to provide a national defense, or any other provision of the U.S. Constitution could be expected to be found unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.  The ratification of the UN Reform treaty would give many of the powers, now delegated to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution, to the United Nations.  This conflict may lead to the U.S. attempting to pull out of the UN.  Bailey and Davis anticipated this and wrote, “If two-thirds of the Members, including the five permanent members of the security council, decide to change the Charter in a way that increases the obligations or reduces the privileges of Membership, such change is binding on all, including states which oppose the change.  It may not even be possible, in such circumstances, to resign from the United Nations because there are no provisions in the Charter for termination of Membership, other than expulsion for persistent violations of the Charter.  24

NATO Alliance is Neutralized

     The Russians want to go further and replace NATO with a new security arrangement based on new rules that would include Russia, but not America.  The development of bilateral military ties between Russia and U.S. allies of France, Germany, and Britain is part of this plan.  Also, the new military relationship between the Western European Union and Russia is part of this plan.  The framework, favored by the Russians, for this new security arrangement for Europe is the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE).  At present, this organization includes Russia, Western European nations, Eastern European nations, and America.  If the CSCE excludes America, this will fulfill the Soviet objective of removing America from European security affairs and realigning them to Russia.  Another blow to American security is the new commitment of European forces, formally committed to NATO, to the UN Rapid Reaction Force.  This undermines NATO and provides an avenue for European forces to be used against the U.S. 

     Instead of fighting these new threats, the Clinton administration‘s promoted the Partnership for Peace program that accelerated the development of the UN Rapid Reaction Force and let new military ties develop between the European Union and Russia.

Russia Moves the World‘s Militaries against America

     The Clinton administration‘s catastrophic foreign policy opened the door for two major blows to U.S. security interests in 1997.  On April 23, 1997 at a summit meeting in Moscow, Russian President Boris N. Yeltsin and Chinese President Jiang Zemin “pledged to work together to limit America power and influence in the world.  28  This new military and political axis known as the Multipolar World also includes Iran, India, and Belarus.  A couple of weeks later, the Western European Union (WEU) on May 13, 1997 announced they would sign an agreement with Russia and the Ukraine to use their planes to transport European troops to a future crisis.  The armies of the WEU are the bulk of the NATO alliance.  The WEU said they made this agreement because they anticipate the U.S. Congress will not support the use of U.S. planes in such a crisis. 29 Since Russian planes will transport these troops, Russia and Europe could be allies in this crisis and these European troops could be used against U.S. interests.

     Reuters reporter Bernard Edinger wrote, “The WEU wants to show Europe can undertake long-range military interventions when the U.S.-led NATO alliance, to which most WEU states belong, does not want to get involved. The final declaration of the WEU ministerial said, “Russia and Ukraine play an essential role in Europe‘s security and stability.  WEU has demonstrated its concern to consolidate and develop harmonious relations with these two countries.  30

     The Europeans have done little in the way of using military force outside of Europe in the past and they have rarely opposed U.S. policy.  The first indication of a more independent European military policy was an announcement January 30, 1995 by a European Commission that urged the creation of a European Intervention Force to carry out the Defense policy of the European Union. 31  Now, this European plan opens the possibility they will be on the same side as Russia in some future crisis and America will be on the opposite side.  This is a dramatic shift in European foreign and military policy.  This new agreement could threaten American interests in the future.  

     On November 20, 2000, the foreign and defense ministers of the European Union (EU) met in Brussels, Belgium to pledge European forces to the Rapid Reaction Force proposed at the UN Millennium Summit.  The European Union will contribute 100,000 men, 400 combat aircraft, and 100 ships.  This is about one tenth of all European forces.  By the year 2003, this force will be ready to deploy within 60 days and will be able to sustain military operations for up to a year.  The EU also proposed training 5,000 police officers, prosecutors and judges for “civil crisis management   in troubled areas. This was originally proposed by President Clinton at the Millennium Summit. 35

     The EU branch of the Rapid-Reaction Force will be independent from NATO and U.S. forces.  It will support the peacekeeping, peacemaking, and humanitarian missions defined at the Millennium Summit.   Outside of the European theater these forces will be under UN command.  NATO supports the Rapid-Reaction Force even though this force will undermine NATO strength.  This force will use some of  the same men and equipment that are now dedicated to NATO.  NATO is also providing sensitive information to the EU to create this force, but the EU is not sharing information about itself with NATO.  It is creating a new security system, to classify information, that will exclude NATO.  Since most NATO members are European Union members, the new security system has the effect of excluding only the U.S.36

     This new security system is being promoted by Javiar Solana, the EU foreign policy high representative. Solana was the former Secretary General of NATO, but earlier he also led an anti-NATO campaign as a member of the Socialist Workers Party.

     Five days after the EU pledged 100,000 men to the Rapid Reaction Force, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov praised the EU for taking a more independent role from NATO.  Ivanov also said “Overall, our relations with the European Union are now rising to a new level - the level of a strategic partnership.  37  

    America is participating in this global disarmament plan, which includes building the World Military  (UN Rapid Reaction Force).  Russia has donated one tenth of its army to the UN and now Europe has donated 100,000 men.  Clinton has started the division of U.S. forces into ten expeditionary forces and the Democrats in the U.S. Congress are promoting H.R. 4453 to give 6,000 U.S. troops to the UN. 

     Unfortunately, America is participating in international programs to disclose our military holdings.  One of these programs is the Global Exchange of Military Information.  The other is the UN Register of Conventional Arms. 

     UN universal disarmament plans envision the transfer of all national armies to the UN.  The total military manpower available to the UN in the year 2000 is over 200,000 men and this may grow to include the combined military of Russia, China, the United States, and the European Union.  This would be about 8 million men.  If the U.S. refuses to accept UN control and refuses to donate its forces to the UN as part of this universal disarmament plan, the World Military (of over 6 million men) could be used to attack the U.S. military, which has only 1.5 million men.

     The UN and America will clash on at least two issues.  UN control of our military and UN control of our land.  President Clinton and other presidents have committed the U.S. to the concept of universal disarmament, but this is unlikely to happen. 

     Through an underhanded manipulation of the Senate treaty ratification process, the U.S. Senate unknowingly ratified, on October 15, 200, the UN Convention to Combat Desertification giving the UN control of land use policy in the U.S.  This treaty will control most of the land in U.S.