Henry Lamb: The UN’s 1995 ‘Global Neighbourhood’ plan for a One World Government

---

In 1996, Henry Lamb exposed the UN’s plan to take over the world using a book the UN had published the year before.  The title of the book is ‘Our Global Neighbourhood’.

Written by 28 “experts” the book describes a global taxation scheme to fund the UN’s operations; a standing UN army; an Economic Security Council; UN authority over the global commons, expanded authority for the Secretary-General and much more.  By 1996, some of the plans had already been implemented.  As the years have gone by, more and more of the plan has been and is being rolled out.

Henry Lamb was a renowned expert on global governance and its implications on individual freedom and private property rights. He was the author of ‘The Rise of Global Governance’. He was also the author of the article ‘The UN and Property Rights’, the report ‘Global Governance: Why? How? When?’ and a columnist for Renew America.  And chairman of Sovereignty International, a non-profit organisation dedicated to promoting individual sovereignty and limited government, founder of the Environmental Conservation Organisation and Freedom21, Inc.

In 1996, Lamb gave a t talk on the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Wildlands Project at the Granada Forum.

“All of the conspiracy theories that you’ve ever heard about ‘One World Government’, about the UN takeover of the world, all of those conspiracies have now been laid to rest,” he said.  “There’s nothing conspiratorial about it.  It’s all published!”

“The UN-funded Commission on Global Governance began meeting in 1992, in earnest … and last fall released their final report.  It is entitled ‘Our Global Neighbourhood’,” he said.

After briefly describing the 1995 document, he goes on to talk about Agenda 21, the Biodiversity Treaty, The Wildlands Project and the Global Biodiversity Assessment.

[embedded content]

If the video above is removed from YouTube, you can watch it on Rumble HERE and BitChute HERE. Hyperlinks to some of the documents referred to above can be found HERE.

In the video above, Lamb also mentioned topics on which we have previously published articles: Agenda 21, the Biodiversity Treaty, The Wildlands Project, Global Biodiversity Assessment and the 30×30 plan. See our articles HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE. 

Further resources: Agenda 21 Course: Confronting Agenda 21 (Part 3), Henry Lamb, 8 March 2013

For this article, we are focusing on the first document Lamb mentioned: ‘Our Global Neighbourhood’.

Our Global Neighbourhood is the report of the Commission on Global Governance issued in 1995.  The Commission on Global Governance, an international commission of 28 people, was established in 1992 to suggest new ways in which the international community might cooperate to further an agenda of global security.

The report presented the Commission’s conclusions and recommendations for discussion at the General Assembly of the United Nations’ 50th-anniversary session.  Divided into seven chapters, the report served as “a call to action,” encouraging world leaders and non-governmental actors to work together toward achieving the goals expressed by the commission.

‘Our Global Neighbourhood’ was 410 pages long. A shorter version, 120 pages, can be found HERE and archived HERE.

In 1996, Henry Lamb published ‘A Summary Analysis’ which is 22 pages. The following is a summary of Lamb’s analysis. You can read his full analysis HERE. 

A Summary of Henry Lamb’s Analysis of Our Global Neighbourhood

Table of Contents

Introduction

The Commission on Global Governance released its recommendations in preparation for a World Conference on Global Governance, scheduled for 1998, where official world governance treaties were expected to be adopted for implementation by the year 2000.

The Commission’s proposals included expanding the authority of the United Nations (“UN”) to provide global taxation, a standing UN army, an Economic Security Council, UN authority over the global commons and an end to the veto power of permanent members of the Security Council.

Other proposals include the establishment of a new parliamentary body of “civil society” representatives (“NGOs”), a new “Petitions Council”, a new Court of Criminal Justice, binding verdicts of the International Court of Justice and expanded authority for the UN Secretary-General.

The Commission consisted of 28 people, carefully selected for their prominence, influence, and ability to effect the implementation of the recommendations.  It was endorsed by the UN Secretary-General and funded through various trust funds and foundations.

The Commission on Global Governance has released its recommendations in preparation for a World Conference on Global Governance, scheduled for 1998, where official world governance treaties are expected to be adopted for implementation by the year 2000.

‘Our Global Neighbourhood’, was published by Oxford University Press in 1995 and reflects the work of dozens of different agencies and commissions over several years.

Background and Formation of the Commission

The Commission on Global Governance was established in 1992 with 28 members and funding from the UNDP, nine national governments and private foundations.

The Commission was formed after a report on global governance opportunities was presented in April 1991, in Stockholm, by Ingvar Carlsson, then Prime Minister of Sweden, and Shirdath Ramphal, Secretary General of the Commonwealth.

The report was initially requested by former West German Chancellor Willy Brandt, who called a group of international leaders to Konigswinter, Germany in January 1990.

The Commission’s co-chairmen, Ingvar Carlsson and Shirdath Ramphal, met with UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali in April 1992 to secure his endorsement of the effort.

Members of the Commission

1. Ingvar Carlsson, Sweden Prime Minister of Sweden 1986-91, and Leader of the Social Democratic Party in Sweden.

2.Shirdath Ramphal, Guyana Secretary-General of the Commonwealth from 1975 to 1990, President of the IUCN, Chairman of the Steering Committee of the Leadership in Environment and Development Program; Chairman, Advisory Committee, Future Generations Alliance Foundation, Chancellor, University of the West Indies, and the University of Warwick in Britain, member of five international commissions in the 1980s, and author of Our Country, The Planet, written especially for the Earth Summit.

3. Ali Alatas, Indonesia Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia since 1988; permanent representative to the United Nations.

4. Abdlatif Al-Hamad, Kuwait Director-General and Chairman of the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development in Kuwait. Former Minister of Finance and Minister of Planning; member of the Independent Commission on International Development Issues; Board member of the Stockholm Environment Institute.

5. Oscar Arias, Costa Rica President of Costa Rica from 1986 to 1990; drafted the Arias Peace Plan which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize; founded the Arias Foundation for Peace and Human Progress.

6. Anna Balletbo i Puig, Spain Member of the Spanish Parliament since 1979; member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and on Radio and Television; Executive Committee of the Socialist Party in Catalonia; General Secretary of the Olof Palme International Foundation; President of Spain’s United Nations Association; and activist on women’s issues since 1975.

7. Kurt Biedenkopf, Germany Minister-President of Saxony since 1990; member of the Federal Parliament; Secretary General of the Christian Democratic Union of Germany.

8. Allan Boesak, South Africa Minister for Economic Affairs for the Western Cape Region; Director of the Foundation for Peace and Justice; Chairman of the African National Congress (ANC); President of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches and a Patron of the United Democratic Front.

9. Manuel Camacho Solis, Mexico Former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Mayor of Mexico City; Mexico’s Secretary of Urban Development and Ecology.

10. Bernard Chidzero, Zimbabwe Minister of Finance; Deputy Secretary-General of UNCTAD; Chairman of the Development Committee of the World Bank and the IMF; and member of the World Commission on Environment and Development.

11. Barber Conable, a former United States President of the World Bank, is mentioned alongside his roles as Chairman of the Committee on US-China Relations and Senior Advisor to the Global Environment Facility.

12. Jacques Delors, President of the European Commission since 1985, is noted for his positions as Minister for Economics, Finance and Budget, and Mayor of Clichy.

13. Jiri Dienstbier, Chairman of the Free Democrats Party in the Czech Republic, also served as Deputy Prime Minister of Foreign Affairs.

14. Enrique Iglesias, President of the Inter-American Development Bank since 1988, held various positions including Minister of External Relations and Executive Secretary of the UN Economic Commission for Latin America.

15. Frank Judd, a member of the House of Lords in the United Kingdom, served as Under-Secretary of State for Defence, Minister for Overseas Development, and Director of Oxfam.

16. Hongkoo Lee, Deputy Prime Minister of the Republic of Korea, held positions as Minister of National Unification, Ambassador to the United Kingdom, and Professor of Political Science at Seoul National University.

17. Wangari Maathai, founder of the Green Belt Movement in Kenya, also served as Chair of the National Council of Women of Kenya and spokesperson for non-government organizations at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio.

18. Sadako Ogata, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees since 1991, held positions as Director of the International Relations Institute and Chairman of the Executive Board of UNICEF.

19. Olara Otunnu, President of the International Peace Academy in New York, served as Foreign Minister of Uganda and Chaired the UN Commission on Human Rights.

20. I.G. Patel, Chairman of the Aga Khan Rural Support Programme, held various positions including Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, Chief Economic Adviser to the Indian Government, and Deputy Administrator of the United Nations Development Program.

21. Celina Vargas do Amaral Peixoto, Director of the Getulio Vargas Foundation, also served as Director-General of the Brazilian National Archives and Director of the Centre of Research and Documentation on Brazilian History.

22. Jan Pronk, Minister for Development Co-operation in the Netherlands, held positions as Vice Chairman of the Labor Party, Member of Parliament, and Deputy Secretary-General of UNCTAD.

23. Qian Jiadong, Deputy Director-General of the China Centre for International Studies, served as Ambassador and Permanent Representative in Geneva to the United Nations and Ambassador for Disarmament Affairs.

24. Marie-Angelique Savane, Director of the Africa Division of the UN Population Fund, held positions as Director of the UNFPA in Dakar, Advisor to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, and President of the Association of African Women for Research and Development.

25. Adele Simmons, President of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, served as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the UN High Level Advisory Board on Sustainable Development, and President Carter’s Commission on World Hunger.

26. Maurice Strong is a prominent figure from Canada, holding multiple positions including Chairman and CEO of Ontario Hydro, Chairman of the Earth Council, and Secretary-General of Earth Summits I and II.  He is also a member of the World Commission on Environment and Development, and his work is featured in the November/December 1995 issue of Ecologic.

27. Brian Urquhart, from the United Kingdom, is a Scholar-in-Residence at the Ford Foundation’s International Affairs Program and has served as the United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Special Political Affairs from 1972 to 1986.  Urquhart is also a member of the Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues.

28. Yuli Vorontsov, from Russia, has held various diplomatic positions including Ambassador to the United States, Ambassador to the United Nations, and Advisor to President Boris Yeltsin on Foreign Affairs.  Vorontsov has also served as Ambassador to Afghanistan, France and India.

The Reasoning for Global Governance

The Commission believed that world events, advances in technology and global awareness of environmental catastrophe create a climate in which the people of the world would recognise the need for global governance.

According to the report, global governance “does not imply world government or world federalism,” but rather a new system of governance that employs a variety of methods, without giving the governed an opportunity to vote on the outcome.

The foundation for global governance is based on the belief that the world is ready to accept a “global civic ethic” based on core values such as respect for life, liberty, justice and equity, and that governance should be underpinned by democracy and the rule of enforceable law.

However, the report’s definition of “respect for life” is not limited to human life, but rather means equal respect for all life, consistent with the biocentric view that all life has equal intrinsic value.

[We have previously published articles to explain that “equity” is not the same as “equality.”  In fact, the two concepts are fundamentally different.  See HERE and HERE.]

Core Values and Principles

The Commission’s proposals were based on a set of core values that prioritise human security, environmental protection and global governance.  These core values have been emerging in UN documents since the late 1980s and have dominated international conferences, agreements and treaties since 1992, including Agenda 21 adopted in Rio de Janeiro.

The Commission on Global Governance emphasised the importance of extending respect for life to all living beings, not just humans, and noted that the impulse to possess territory is a powerful one that must be overcome.

It also highlighted the need to balance national sovereignty with international responsibility, stating that although states are sovereign, they are not free to do whatever they want and that global rules of custom constrain their freedom.

Maurice Strong, a member of the Commission, suggests that sovereignty cannot be exercised unilaterally by individual nation-states and that it will yield to the imperatives of global environmental cooperation.

[Related: The Man Who Invented Climate Change – Maurice Strong]

The Commission proposed sweeping changes to the UN based on the core value of “justice and equity,” which aims to reduce disparities and bring about a more balanced distribution of opportunities around the world.

It also emphasised the importance of “mutual respect,” defined as “tolerance,” and noted that individual achievement and personal responsibility may be counter to this value.

The UN’s World Core Curriculum, authored by former Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations Robert Muller, aims to promote a global approach to education and encourage students to become “true planetary citizens.”

[Related: Education for the New World Order, Prof. Johan Malan and Introducing Universal Core Curriculum, The Encyclopaedia of World Problems and Human Potential]

The Commission’s proposals also institutionalised the value of “caring,” which aims to encourage cooperation to help those in need and defines “integrity” as the adoption and practice of core values and the absence of corruption.  It believed that as the world adopts these core values, a “global ethic” will emerge, which will embody a set of common rights and responsibilities and provide a framework for effective global governance.

A Global Ethic and Human Security

The proposed global ethic would bestow upon all people certain rights, including a secure life, an opportunity to earn a fair living and equal access to the global commons.

The Commission noted that the effectiveness of this global ethic will depend on the ability of people and governments to transcend narrow self-interests and agree on a set of common rights and responsibilities.

The Commission on Global Governance emphasised that the right to a “secure life” encompasses not only freedom from war but also protection from chronic threats such as hunger, disease and repression, as well as sudden disruptions in daily life.

Human security was considered a goal as important as state security, marking a significant expansion of the United Nations’ responsibilities, which would now include the security of individuals within member states.

The Commission also highlighted the importance of environmental security, emphasising the need to control human activities that harm the planet’s life support systems and applying the “precautionary principle” to mitigate these risks.

Economic Security and Global Governance

The right to earn a “fair living” has far-reaching implications, including the need for fair distribution of natural resources, elimination of extreme income disparities, and the creation of job opportunities for all people.

The Commission proposed the establishment of an Economic Security Council to oversee global economic governance and ensure that all people have the opportunity to earn a fair living.

The Trusteeship Council would be given the mandate to exercise trusteeship over the global commons, including the administration of environmental treaties and the levying of user fees, taxes and royalties for permits to use the global commons.

The global commons are defined as the atmosphere, outer space, the oceans and related environment and life-support systems that contribute to the support of human life.

Restructuring the UN System and UN Army

The Commission’s recommendations for achieving global governance involved enforcing core values through a global bureaucracy, which would be established through a revitalised and restructured United Nations system.

The UN Security Council, the supreme organ of the United Nations system, would be reformed to have 23 members, with the permanent members’ veto power phased out and the remaining members serving as “standing members” until a full review of member status can be conducted.

New principles for the Security Council’s actions would be established, including the right to a secure existence for all people, the prevention of conflict and war and the elimination of conditions that generate security threats.

The Security Council would be empowered to intervene in the affairs of sovereign states when the security of individuals is in jeopardy, including military intervention as a last resort, and would be authorised to raise a standing army, known as the United Nations Volunteer Force.

The United Nations Volunteer Force would be a small, highly trained, well-equipped force of 10,000 troops, available for rapid deployment anywhere in the world, under the exclusive authority of the UN Security Council and the day-to-day command of the UN Secretary-General.

The Trusteeship Council, an original principal organ of the United Nations system, would be reconstituted to have authority over the global commons, with a fixed number of members, including qualified members from “civil society,” such as accredited NGOs.

The Commission proposed a significant shift in the UN system, giving unelected, self-appointed environmental activists a position of governmental authority on the governing board of the agency controlling the use of the atmosphere, outer space, the oceans and biodiversity.

The Economic and Social Council (“ECOSOC”) would be retired, and its agencies and programmes would be shifted to the Trusteeship Council, which would ultimately be governed by a special body of environmental activists chosen from accredited NGOs appointed by delegates to the General Assembly.

The United Nations Environment Programme (“UNEP”), along with all environmental treaties under its jurisdiction, would be governed by this special body, and the environmental work programme of the entire UN system would be authorised and coordinated by it.

Enforcement would come from an upgraded Security Council and the new Economic Security Council (“ESC”), described as an “Apex Body,” that would have the standing concerning international economic matters that the Security Council has in peace and security matters.

The ESC would be a deliberative, policy body that works by consensus without veto power by any member, and its responsibilities would include continuously assessing the overall state of the world economy, providing a long-term strategic policy framework to promote sustainable development and securing consistency between the policy goals of international economic institutions.

The ESC would also study proposals for financing public goods by international revenue raising, address long-term threats to security and promote sustainable development, with a focus on issues such as shared ecological crises, economic instability, rising unemployment, mass poverty and environmental sustainability.

The Commission recommended that the ESC have no more than 23 members, be headed by a new Deputy Secretary-General for Economic Co-operation and Development, and use Purchase Power Parity (“PPP”) to measure the gross domestic product (“GDP”) of all member nations.

The ESC would have authority over telecommunications and multimedia, and businesses that use the airwaves and satellites would be subject to its policies, to provide a measure of global public service broadcasting not linked to commercial interests.

The World Trade Organisation (“WTO”) and the International Labour Organisation (“ILO”) would be brought under the authority of the new ESC, which would aim to promote open and stable trade based on multilaterally agreed rules to raise the living standards of the poor and achieve environmental sustainability.

Global Governance of Trade, Development and Migration

The Commission on Global Governance emphasised the need for a system of global governance to oversee the global information society through a common regulatory approach, with the World Trade Organisation (“WTO”) giving preferential treatment to poor countries in license allocations and creating rules to counter national monopolies.

The Economic Security Council (“ESC”) is expected to address various global issues, including tariffs and quotas, technical and product standards, social provision and labour markets, competition policy, environmental control, investment incentives, corporate taxation and intellectual property law.

The ESC aims to centralise and consolidate policymaking for world trade, the international monetary system and world development, with a broad consensus on elements such as environmental sustainability, financial stability and a strong social dimension to policy.

To deal with third-world debt, the Commission recommended establishing a system similar to corporate bankruptcy, where a state’s affairs are managed by the international community, allowing for a fresh start.

The ESC is expected to facilitate technology transfer, crucial for development in developing countries, and establish immigration policies to address the inconsistency in government treatment of migration.

Environmental policies will be under the authority of the Trusteeship Council, with implementation and enforcement coordinated through UN organisations and non-governmental organisations (“NGOs”) such as the World Conservation Union (“IUCN”), the World Resources Institute (“WRI)” and the World Wide Fund for Nature (“WWF”).

The Role of NGOs

The Commission on Sustainable Development (“CSD”), created as a result of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, would serve as the focal point for coherence and coordination of UN programmes, providing political leadership in implementing Agenda 21 and achieving sustainable development.

The Commission recognised the importance of NGOs and institutions as partners with government and businesses in achieving economic progress and sustainable development, citing the contributions of organisations such as the IUCN, WRI, and WWF.

The Commission emphasised the importance of involving civil society in global governance, leading to more people-focused and productive programmes and projects.  To achieve this, the Commission proposed the creation of two new bodies: the Assembly of the People and the Forum of Civil Society, which would provide a platform for representatives of NGOs to participate in global governance.

The Assembly of the People would consist of representatives elected by national legislatures, with the possibility of direct election by the people in the future.

The Forum of Civil Society would comprise 300-600 representatives of accredited NGOs, meeting annually before the UN General Assembly to provide considered views on global governance.

The Commission recognised the essential role of NGOs in global governance, which is a demonstrated fact of life, and sought to institutionalise their participation through legal status.

The idea of NGO participation in global governance dates back to the founding of the UN, with Julius Huxley playing a key role in establishing the International Union for Conservation of Nature (“IUCN”) in 1948.

The IUCN has been instrumental in promoting NGO participation in global governance, with 980 accredited NGOs as of 1994, and has created influential organisations such as the WWF and the WRI.

These NGOs have been involved in shaping major environmental documents and have a significant presence in global and regional conferences, including the UN Conference on Environment and Development (“UNCED”).

The Commission noted that there are 28,900 known international NGOs, many of which are directly involved in advancing the agenda of global governance, and have significant resources and national constituencies.

The participation of NGOs in global governance is not limited to international conferences but is also being applied to domestic policy, with national NGOs playing a key role in shaping the domestic agenda on global issues.

The structure of “civil society” participation in global governance is revealed in various documents from UN organisations, the IUCN, WWF and the WRI, often described as “Public-Private Partnerships.”

These partnerships involve the creation of “boards” or “councils” representing the interests of all “stakeholders,” but are often dominated by well-prepared NGOs.

At the local level in the USA, NGOs are frequently full-time professionals, funded through the Environmental Grantmakers Association or the federal government, and coordinate with regional and national NGOs.

The NGOs that set the US national agenda are often the same ones accredited to the UN or members of the IUCN and ultimately aim to establish a “Bioregional Council” with authority over local land and resource use decisions.

The Commission recommended the creation of a “Right of Petition” available to international civil society, which would allow NGOs to petition the UN directly through a Council for Petitions.

This Council would be a high-level panel of five to seven persons, independent of governments, appointed by the Secretary-General with approval of the General Assembly, and would make recommendations to the Secretary-General, the Security Council and the General Assembly.

Although this mechanism had not been formally incorporated into the UN system in 1996, it was being used, as seen in the example of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition petitioning the World Heritage Committee of UNESCO to intervene in a private company’s plans to mine gold near Yellowstone Park.

International Law and Global Governance

The Commission aimed to remedy the historical limitations of international law by developing and drafting proposed international law through the UN International Law Commission and the IUCN’s Environmental Law Centre.

The Commission recommended that treaties and agreements include binding adjudication by the World Court and that all nations accept compulsory jurisdiction of the World Court, with the WTO being a step in this direction.

Even in 1996, the WTO had a system where members agreed to accept WTO decisions and not seek bilateral resolution of disputes, ensuring compliance with global rules.

Also by 1996, the International Law Commission (“ILC”) had developed statutes for a new International Criminal Court, which would have an independent prosecutor to investigate alleged crimes, acting independently without instructions from governments or other sources.

The Commission recognised that implementing international standards could face opposition from internal political processes within nation-states and populist action, citing the example of the Biodiversity Treaty that was not ratified by the US Senate due to grassroots opposition.

The Commission noted that accredited NGOs and their affiliates are seen as “expanding democracy” through civil society participation, while non-accredited civil society activity is viewed as “political pressure” and “populist action.”

Financing Global Governance Through Global Taxation Schemes

The Commission proposed a fresh look at globally redistributive tax principles to finance global governance, suggesting a more sustainable approach to managing the global commons, particularly environmental issues.

The UN’s annual expenditures in 1996 were around $11 billion, with the cost of implementing Agenda 21 estimated at $600 billion per year, which in a Globalist’s mind highlights the need for a more robust financing system.

The Commission proposed establishing practical, small-scale schemes of global financing to support specific UN operations while avoiding giving the UN direct taxing power and instead relying on member nations’ assessments and voluntary contributions.

The Commission noted that the United States had often withheld payment to influence UN policy and that the UN has no power to enforce payment of assessments or voluntary contributions, constraining the exercise of the General Assembly’s collective authority.

The Commission on Global Governance suggested that user charges, levies and taxes should be agreed upon globally and implemented through a treaty or convention to generate revenue for the United Nations.  The Law of the Seas treaty served as an example, authorising a UN organisation to charge application fees and royalties to companies mining the sea bed, despite the United States not having ratified the treaty.

The Commission proposed various global revenue-raising schemes, including charging for the use of common global resources, corporate taxation of multinational companies and a tax on international monetary exchange, as suggested by Nobel Prize winner James Tobin.

The Commission says “It would be appropriate to charge for the use of some common global resources. Another idea would be for corporate taxation of multinational companies.” 

The favoured scheme was first advanced by Nobel Prize winner, James Tobin. He has proposed a tax on international monetary exchange which would yield an estimated $1.5 trillion per year.

“Charges for use of the global commons have a broad appeal on grounds of conservation and economic efficiency as well as for political and revenue reasons.”

The Commission supports a $2 per barrel tax on oil, which automatically escalates to $10 per barrel in 10 years.

“A carbon tax introduced across a large number of countries or a system of traded permits for carbon emissions would yield very large revenues indeed.”

Our Global Neighbourhood: A Summary Analysis by Henry Lamb, February 1996

As well as charging for the use of the global commons, and taxation on multinational companies, monetary exchange, oil and carbon, other recommended global revenue sources included a surcharge on airline tickets, charges for ocean maritime transport, user fees for ocean fishing and special fees for activities in Antarctica and geostationary satellites.

The Commission supported the concept of global taxation and urged the evolution of a consensus to realise this concept.

Implementation and the Future of Global Governance

By 1996, many of the Commission’s recommendations had already been incorporated into treaties, agreements and proposals, with some already implemented, and the General Assembly was scheduled to hold a World Conference on Governance in 1998.

The Commission called for preparatory work to develop documents on global governance, which will be adopted at the 1998 Conference and ratified for implementation by the year 2000.

Only accredited NGOs would be allowed to participate in the preparatory work, and only delegates appointed by the President of the United States would be able to cast votes on issues affecting Americans.  The same would apply to all countries.

The NGO machinery of global governance is active in America, promoting the global governance agenda through various means, including agitation, lobbying and discrediting dissenting voices.

By 1996, the US national media was already portraying dissenting voices as right-wing-extremist, militia-supporting fanatics, leaving many American citizens unaware of the progress of the global governance agenda.

The United States is the only remaining power strong enough to influence the UN, and 1996 may be the last opportunity to avoid or influence the shape of global governance, Lamb said.

Lamb added that the Commission on Global Governance’s recommendations, if implemented, would lead to a dramatic transformation of society, creating a global neighbourhood managed by a worldwide bureaucracy under the authority of a small group of appointed individuals.  This bureaucracy would be policed by thousands of individuals paid by accredited NGOs, certified to support a specific belief system that many people find unacceptable.