Monday, March 30, 2009

The Specter of Global Governance

For an introduction to this post I’d like to start with one of George Washington’s many great statements. It is a belief that sadly, too many Americans no longer accept:
“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”
I have been watching events unfold over the last few months involving our government and our future as a nation. I have endeavored not to jump to conclusions and make knee jerk reactions; however, I can no longer ignore the writing on the wall. I can’t help but be alarmed at many of the developments that have been unfolding. I will not be able to elaborate on all of them here and now, but there is one development in particular that I will address very quickly.
Due to the fast approaching board game status of our currency caused in part by over printing, the Chinese have opined that the US dollar should no longer be considered the reserve currency. In addition, others have called for the creation of a global currency. This last week at a meeting of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Treasury Secretary Geithner, in answer to a question posed by investment banker Roger Altman in regard to the adoption of such a currency gave what should be to all Americans an alarming response. The conversation is as follows:
ALTMAN: Let me just follow that up for one second. A number — I haven't read the governor's essay, either, but a slew of news reports interpreted his comments to suggest that the world needs a super reserve currency, and that the dollar, on some gradual basis, ought to be replaced in favor of that. And I wasn't entirely clear what your response was.
GEITHNER: Well, as I said, I haven't read his proposal, but I thought the initial reaction was sort of ahead of the details of the proposal I saw. The only thing concrete I saw was a reference to expanding the use of the SDR, but I look forward to reading his figures. As I said, I have tremendous respect for him. He's a really thoughtful, pragmatic guy, and he has a great record of credibility in China as a whole, so anything he's — he's thinking about deserves some consideration.


Before I address Geithner’s statement I will give what I see as the context behind it.
This age of globalization we live in has perhaps done more for the opportunity of the creation of global government than any other movement in world history. We have created the UN and NATO in the name of addressing global concerns and national and regional conflicts. We have created the WTO and the IMF to address global economic concerns, promote modernization in developing countries, and to manipulate global politics by means of economic incentives. We have also created complex trade agreements in the form of NAFTA, CAFTA, and AIPAC, in the name of so-called “free trade” to promote economic liberalization and the free movement of goods and peoples across boarders. In addition, we have also pushed for global tribunals on issues of “global warming” through initiatives like the kyoto protocols. This is just to name a few of the obvious examples of global government.
In all of this euphoria of creating more and more government, the rights and liberties of man are ever being placed in fewer and fewer hands. To what end to can we expect the creation of all this new government take us? Will it bring us more liberty? Will it bring us more security? Those should, after all, be the two central aims of any form of government. I can't give a good discussion on the balance between liberty and security here, but suffice it so say, for now, that it is indeed doubtful that our insistent moves toward global government will bring us either liberty or security. Can we really think that some nebulous bureaucracy made up of various nations and corporations, convening in Paris will have the best interest of our liberties at heart? And can we suppose that any such governing body will be benign, peaceful, and “democratic”? Nay! Those of us who know better know that power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
No matter how hard the economic crisis becomes, America must NOT give in to the siren song of massive government, either here within our own boarders or jointly, colluding with other nations. We must remain sovereign in every respect. We must remain independent; we must remain free.
What do these concerns for global government have to with Geithner’s statement about entertaining the idea of a global currency? The answer is that it has everything to do with the concerns for global government. The fact that our own government is will to even entertain the idea, frankly, scares the hell out of me. It has been bad enough that the last 20 years of “free trade” has bound us hand and foot in debt and dependency to the nations of the world, our current government doesn’t even seem to bat an eye at the thought of further subjugating us to the fate of the rest of world.
I am a firm believer that, in this crisis, each nation has the ultimate burden of getting its own house in order. This is not to say there should be no cooperation, but integration is wholly separate matter. But even assuming that some “temporary” form of global integration is necessary to whether this storm, can we really expect such a thing to be temporary? Can we not expect those at the top of such a power structure to let go of that power once it is handed to them?
The creation of a global currency will be just one more step towards global government. This mischief will not end at the creation of a currency—it will end with nothing less than global government. Every American concerned with their freedom should decry even the very thought conceived by our own Secretary of the Treasury, a post once held by the great Alexander Hamilton—a thought that is no doubt shared among the entire Obama Administration.
However, if nothing else—even if you think that the possibility of a global government is hogwash, you should still be concerned that our government is entertaining the idea to set aside our own heritage and our own sovereignty, and abandon our currency. Should we ever do so, we will have proved once and for all that we are truly no longer worthy to bear the slogan “In God We Trust” on our currency, but must in truth admit it is really “In Government We Trust.”
Should the day come where our government accepts such an alternative, I would hope that we would be willing to rise up against such a scheme.