“In the next century (now), nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single global authority and realize national sovereignty wasn’t such a great deal after all.” Strobe Talbott, Deputy Secretary of State under Bill Clinton
Global governance, the next new thing in trendy international thought (the wealthy elite), has been typically portrayed as the inevitable evolution upward from the primitive nation-state and its antiquated notions of constitutionalism and popular sovereignty. Not “world government,” wildly unpopular among knuckle-draggers (the peasants) in America, but a rebranded alternative, more nuanced and sophisticated, that would creep in on little cat feet before the Neanderthals (the peasants) knew what was up.
Taking a clue from the European Union, these “globalistas” envision a world in which the “elite” will meet and fashion new rules of norm “rubber stamped,” without debate or voter input, and put in place by each nation’s ruling tyrant. As it stands now, the United States is the main threat to global governance.
Our adherence to sovereignty defined by our Constitution rather than to multilateral human rights treaties and institutions is a stumbling block to the world’s elite. Sovereignty for those raised in freedom, is not an abstract concept of international law and politics, nor was it ever rooted in an actual “sovereign” as head of state. Beginning with the American Revolution, Americans rejected sovereignty and legitimacy outside of a constitutional framework of representative government. “No taxation without representation” was one early formulation and “We the People” the most famous and broadly influential. We see ourselves as personally vested with sovereignty, an ineluctable attribute of citizenship, and react with concern when globalists insist that “pooled” or “shared” sovereignty will actually benefit us.
Most Americans believe we already have too much governmental control and the notion of giving up authority to an unnamed, unknown, and unfamiliar people and governments, whose tangible interests bear little relation to our own, is totally unappealing.
John Fonte, in his book “Sovereignty or Submission” provides several case studies of the global governance philosophy at work, including international efforts to direct U.S. domestic policy; transmogrifying the law of war to constrain U.S. options and practices; the International Criminal Court; isolating and delegitimizing Israel; and international migration and assimilation policies. In describing the intrusion of foreign actors into U.S. domestic policy, Fonte uses a phrase of former German Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer, “global domestic politics” which captures the problem.
In the globalist view, there is no room for national variation from their norms, or tolerance for contrary majorities in different countries. This explains the ongoing efforts to homogenize E.U. member states, and the growing tendency to second guess what have been seen historically as entirely domestic issues used by international elitist at the United Nations to criticize and harass the U.S. in recent years.
In considering traditional foreign affairs issues, the laws of war, the ICC, and the isolation of Israel are all excellent examples of the globalist approach. They seek to exploit both international law and domestic U.S. law to limit, constrain, and intimidate the U.S. and its political and military leaders from robustly defending our national interests abroad. There is little doubt that the proponents of “lawfare” have used this strategy successfully against Israel and increasingly against the U.S. By threatening U.S. officials with prosecution for alleged war crimes or human rights abuses, asserting jurisdiction over U.S. citizens when they travel abroad, for example, globalistas seek to impose their version of international law over our own constitutional authorities.
America’s response must be that we do not recognize no higher earthly authority than our Constitution, which no valid treaty can supersede or diminish. And, we certainly do not accept that “customary international law, which we do not voluntarily follow, can bind us, especially today’s variety formed not by actual custom but by leftist academics who hardly have our best interests at heart.
The struggle to preserve our constitutional system of liberty and representative government is a great unfolding political war, and the outcome is far from certain.
“We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and their great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” David Rockefeller
Read: John Bolton’s “Against The Globalistas”, a review of “Sovereignty or Submission: Will Americans Rule Themselves or be Ruled by Others” by John Fonte