During Wednesday’s meeting of the European People’s Party (EPP) in Munich, German Chancellor Angela Merkel took the opportunity to take a cheap shot at President Trump while calling for the European Union (EU) to rise up and lead the world.
The idea of World Government — a “New World Order” — is nothing new; President George H.W. Bush spoke of it often. The idea of accomplishing that goal by incremental regionalization — a series of “unions” similar to the EU eventually coalescing into a full-fledged “One World Government” — is also nothing new. In fact, in a famous article appearing in the April 1974 issue of Foreign Affairs (the magazine of the globalist-dominated Council on Foreign Relations), Richard Gardner lamented that “the gap has never loomed larger between the objectives and the capacities of the international organizations that were supposed to get mankind on the road to world order” and cursed what he saw as “an outbreak of shortsighted nationalism that seems oblivious to the economic, political and moral implications of interdependence.”
Waxing on about his goal of “world order” and “interdependence” between nations, Gardner expressed “cautious optimism” that he had a plan that would turn the tide, since “never has there been such widespread recognition by the world’s intellectual leadership of the necessity for cooperation and planning on a truly global basis, beyond country, beyond region, especially beyond social system.”
But because of that “shortsighted nationalism,” Gardner realized that the old plan of building a One World Government would only rile those opposed to it and may even spur them to effective action. So, he wrote:
In short, the “house of world order” will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great “booming, buzzing confusion,” to use William James’ famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault. Of course, for political as well as administrative reasons, some of these specialized arrangements should be brought into an appropriate relationship with the central institutions of the U.N. system, but the main thing is that the essential functions be performed.
That the EU — which had its foundations laid in the economic treaties made in the wake of WWII and was just beginning to emerge as a full-fledged government when Gardner penned those words — was (and is) the perfect test-bed and example of his plan to achieve globalization through incremental regionalization. And as he wrote, “the U.N. system” and its relationship to regional governments like the EU are essential to that plan.
Now, with the bait having dangled long enough to have sufficiently caused a large part of the world’s governments to nibble, Chancellor Merkel is attempting to set the hook and reel in the prize catch.
At Wednesday’s meeting, Merkel recalled her statement from more than a year ago that “the times when we could fully rely on others are to some extent over.” Her remark appears to be a slam of President Trump who had criticized European countries for paying such a small percentage of NATO’s budget. She went on to criticize President Trump for withdrawing from both the Paris climate treaty and the Iran nuclear deal, saying, “All of that confirms the assessment that the world is being reorganized.”
And since “the world is being reorganized,” Merkel said that the EU should position itself as the leader of that reorganization. And — taking a cue from Gardner — her plan involves what he described as “the U.N. system.”
She called for Europe to “Europeanize” its position in the UN, allowing the EU to “speak with one European voice” — especially on the UN Security Council. Her plan calls for a rotating group of roughly 10 EU member states to work alongside France, since France is one of only five countries with veto power on the counsel.
With Merkel positioning the EU in general — and herself in particular — to take a more dominant role in the UN, the “reorganization” of the world looks to be headed in the direction of unaccountable bureaucratic internationalism. Considering that many UN policies and conventions are binding on all member states, this would be a great time for the United States to reconsider the merits of UN membership.
Tracking the trajectory, it is apparent that “the U.N. system” — already incompatible with national sovereignty — is preparing to move further in that direction. The “U.N. system” is clearly being used in Gardner’s 1974 plan to make “an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece” to build “the house of world order.” Of course, this is neither surprising nor a departure for the UN. This was its purpose, as laid out by its founders. Since there is no room in that system for national sovereignty, remaining a member state will mean sacrificing what is left of our independence. If we mean to remain free, the United States should get out of the UN and get the UN out of the United States.
Perhaps Berlin would be a possible new home for the headquarters of the world governing body. After all, Germany has been offered as the “next leader of the free world.” That recommendation came from Jeremy Ghez, affiliate professor of economics and international affairs at business school HEC Paris. Ghez — taking his own jab at President Trump and his policy of putting America first — said, “At a time when the United States is becoming increasingly unilateralist, pundits have volunteered Germany as the next leader of the free world.”
Merkel’s comments at the Munich meeting of the EPP indicate that she is ready and willing for Germany to take on the mantle offered by Ghez and she appears to be posturing herself to be the leader of the free world. Addressing the division in the EU over pressure from Brussels to accept migrant quotas on the one hand and the reluctance of some central and eastern European countries to accept those quotas on the other hand, Merkel said, “If we fail to provide a common answer to questions of illegal migration, the foundations of the European Union will be called into question. Action is really needed here.” She went on to say, “As chancellor I belong to the European Council, in which decisions always have to be taken unanimously. So the question of a majority decision is not relevant there. A solution on this subject will certainly have to be prepared in the European Council.”
Photo: AP Images
