All over the world, regions stand where nations once stood. The world is on the cusp of a revolution in political arrangements, as the citizens of the world are losing control with hardly a word spoken.
After the successful Aunschluss of the Lisbon Treaty took place, historic European nations fell one by one to the power of the European Union. Recent reports indicate that a small elite now governs Europe, through a highly removed and secretive process. Examples of this newfound European collectivism were observed recently in Greece, when EU officials threatened to place the nation of Greece in suzerainty, due to unsustainable debt obligations. A nation reduced to province?
But this trend is not limited to Europe. In Asia, APEC now straddles the region, drawing on pledges from individual member nations to surrender economic sovereignty to APEC institutions. In South East Asia, ASEAN gains increasing leverage over previously sacred national spheres. In Africa, the budding OAU exercises military and economic authority. In the Caribbean, CARICOM has taken over money, government, and education. What is left of any significance?
In the Pacific, PACICOM unites the island nations, previously colonized by European powers that no longer exist. In the former Soviet Union, the CIS, once sidelined by westerners as a futile attempt to cling to past Soviet grandeur, has regained control over key policy areas, due to recent demonstrations of Russian might in surrounding Slavic countries. Poland, the Ukraine, and Georgia are all under official threat from Moscow.
The Arabic-speaking nations long ago homogenized decision-making processes within an arrangement known as the Arab League. The unique oil-based interests of the Middle-East make supranational interaction a necessity.
And Latin America has for many years systematically pooled its sovereignty within min-regional unions like MERCOSUR, progressing to an EU-prototype called the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR). UNASUR even has its own regional parliament. There are currently ten such regional governments in place. America has been guided to its super-region relatively quietly, owing in large part to American sensitivity to loss of freedom and political independence to foreign powers. East-West claims to ideological difference have faded into the pages of history, as all nations bow to centralized, regional governance.
Debates over regionalism, or the absorption of the nation-state into wider regional structures, have been at the forefront of the modern body politic. Everything from the European Union, to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America — already acknowledged as a North American Union prototype by the intellectual elite — have been designed to replace the aging concept of nationhood. But what is still less known is that regionalism is by no means the ultimate end. As the word region implies, these entities are intended to be merely stepping stones on the way to complete global governance.
It was Joseph Stalin who first observed that people will more readily surrender sovereignty to vague regional entities with which they have more in common, than to an abrasive world authority. In his 1912 essay “Marxism and the National Question,” Joseph Stalin maintained that “regional autonomy is an essential element in the solution of the national problem.” American leaders are intentionally or unwittingly following the communist blueprint.
Regionalism is the “bite by bite” process elitists have chosen to bring about their desired goal of world government. By carving up the world into vast regional blocs, the upward consolidation required for world government can proceed undetected. As former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski informed his co-conspirators at the Gorbachev State of the World Forum:
We cannot leap into world government in one quick step…The precondition for eventual globalization-genuine globalization-is progressive regionalization, because thereby we can move toward larger, more stable, more cooperative units.
At the outset of America’s Bicentennial, Brzezenski would remark:
Either 1976 or 1989-the two-hundredth anniversary of the Constitution-could serve as a suitable target date for culminating national dialogue on the relevance…of the representative process, and the desirability of imitating the various European regionalization reforms…More important still, either date would provide a suitable occasion for redefining the meaning of modern democracy….
What could possibly be improved upon in the American system, a system designed to secure liberty, by “imitating” the centralized and undemocratic European model? Unless the aim is to consolidate power, shouldn’t the structure of American government be left alone? To translate, what Brzezinski and his cabal advocate is nothing short of unbridled, unchecked power. This is further substantiated by the 1928 Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) report, Survey of American Relations, which suggests this key reform:
Substitution of a majority of both houses for two-thirds of the Senate in treaty ratification would accord with the practice of most continental European governments…This would seem reasonable, in view of the constitutional provision that treaties are the supreme law of the land….
This means simply, that if the proviso requiring the less attainable two-thirds majority of the Senate for the passage of treaties can be eliminated, treaties can be used more effectively to combat America’s “passion for independence,” a derogatory label the report assigns to American patriotism. The “dialogue” to which Brzezinski refers seems to be an extension of the dialogue of 1776. Will we be ruled by foreigners, unelected and unaccountable? Will we craft government to so look like every other despotic autocracy the world over? Or will America remain a beacon of freedom, mankind’s last best hope? This question has not yet been answered, but at present, the Brzezinskis are winning.
Borrowing proposals from the prominent Council on Foreign Relations in the 2005 report, Building a North American Community, President Bush advanced a trilateral pact called the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), entangling America within a trilateral regulatory “harmonization” process, by which all federal and state law could be amalgamated with the laws and traditions of Mexico (and Canada). Bush then rammed S. 1348 through Congress under the guise of immigration reform, containing alarming surrenders of national sovereignty to North American partners Canada and Mexico, including: a common security perimeter, visa waivers for all Mexican and Canadian nationals, tri-national law enforcement cooperation, the relocation of border enforcement resources to Mexico’s southern border, and full mobility of labor.
Current refusal on the part of the Obama Administration to enforce the border, including legal challenges to states exercising this authority, should be seen as a desperate attempt to hasten regionalization of the North American continent, displacing citizens and increasing foreign loyalties amongst residents. And yet, Obama’s premeditated attack on US sovereignty is not found only in his benign neglect of immigration laws. President Obama decided to implement the Bush-era call for a “continental perimeter” without the constitutionally required vote from Congress in February and just last week President Obama bypassed Congress and allowed unscreened Mexican trucks to cross US borders in violation of current statute and in a brazen assault on the American trucking industry. But then, what industry hasn’t Obama assaulted? More importantly, permitting an invasion of Mexican trucks weakens the sovereignty of the United States and creates an artificial need for “North American” standards.
And “North America” is not the only region with which the United States is engaged. The US has concluded multiple unofficial agreements with the EU and APEC that pledge America to steadily transfer remaining American sovereignty into foreign hands over the next few years. And now, President Obama is poised to lay the final brick, retooling and renaming the American project to avoid any further public scrutiny.
That the American intellectual and political elite are striving for world government is incontrovertible. But what do they actually gain if they succeed? Whatever power or wealth they have been promised surely could not be as great as what they already have with a strong America. But what’s to say the promisors won’t renege on their pledges once America has lost the privilege of the last word? Right now, America is the guarantor of international justice, but if America is destroyed, so ultimately is this accountability. Besides, assuming our leaders obtain their coveted positions in the new order, they will still have to share power with numerous bureaucrats from hundreds of other states. Why not just stay America?