Do Obama nominees signal a radical pro-U.N. agenda?

We must pay attention to understand what events and appointments mean.

Cliff Kincaid believes that Obama's nominees aren't what they seem:

CNN's Late Edition Sunday program featured the views of several observers, including so-called “Republican strategist” Ed Rollins, who could find nothing objectionable in any of President-elect Barack Obama’s controversial pro-UN nominations in the foreign policy arena. Rollins’ views were indistinguishable from those of Democrat Party strategist James Carville.

Host Wolf Blitzer commented, “It says a lot, Ed Rollins – correct me if I’m wrong – about his self-confidence, Barack Obama, that he’s bringing in these major figures with a lot of experience and a lot of personality and a lot of strong ideas, in the sense that he’s not afraid that they’re going to fight each other and fight him.”

Rollins replied, in part: “I think that’s one of the greatest compliments to him, is that he’s not afraid of smart, strong people around him.”

This is what passes for media scrutiny of Obama’s foreign policy picks.

In fact, there is much to question. Two nominees in particular – Sen. Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice – were close associates of Brookings Institution president Strobe Talbott, an advocate of world government who was named as a trusted contact of the Russian Intelligence service while he was in the Clinton Administration. The charge, which was denied by Talbott, was featured in the blockbuster book, Comrade J, based on interviews with a prominent Russian defector from the UN.

Talbott wrote a book this year, The Great Experiment, describing his own background in the pro-world government World Federalist Movement and naming a network of friends and close associates that includes former President Bill Clinton and billionaire Leftist George Soros. The purpose of Talbott’s book is to promote “global governance,” a euphemism for world government. It is defined in the subtitle as “The Quest for a Global Nation.”

With the nominations of Clinton as Secretary of State and Rice as United Nations Ambassador, Obama’s global agenda is becoming clear. He wants to dramatically expand the power of the UN, a corrupt global institution that is infested with spies for foreign and hostile interests. Obama’s record in the Senate included sponsorship of the pro-UN Global Poverty Act and co-sponsorship of the Jubilee Act. These two foreign aid spending measures alone would cost $920 billion to implement.

Obama also wants to pass several controversial UN treaties and says that he would consider joining the International Criminal Court, a UN institution that could prosecute American soldiers for “war crimes.”

But you wouldn’t know any of this if you had been watching CNN’s officially designated “Republican strategist” Ed Rollins on Sunday. “Hillary Clinton – 16 years experience, eight as first lady, eight as a United States senator,” said Rollins. “You couldn’t pick a better person that has traveled the world and knows the players.” Asked for his opinion of Susan Rice and others, Rollins said, “Extraordinary talent. And I think the interesting thing is, even though I’m the opposite party, these are people that are widely respected by Republicans on the Hill.”

If Rollins is correct about Capitol Hill Republicans, it indicates that the Republican Party is in even worse shape than commonly believed.

Mrs. Clinton, as First Lady, was a cheerleader for the UN and made a video appearance at a 1999 conference sponsored by the World The Birth of the Global Nation.”

In his message to the WFA, dated June 22, 1993, Bill Clinton noted that Norman Cousins, the WFA founder, had “worked for world peace and world government.” Clinton didn’t disagree with those goals, adding, “Best wishes...for future success.”

Hence, when Hillary Clinton gave her video-taped address in 1999, which was in honor of former “CBS Evening News” anchorman Walter Cronkite receiving the organization’s “global governance” award, there can be no doubt that she was aware of its pro-world government orientation.

Cronkite told the group that “we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government” and that America must “yield up some of our sovereignty.” He said this could be accomplished by passing several UN-sponsored or supported treaties, including a treaty to ban land mines, the UN Law of the Sea Treaty, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the treaty for a permanent International Criminal Court.

Rice, a former Clinton Assistant Secretary of State, has been close to Talbott as well. In fact, she worked with Talbott at the Brookings Institution until she started advising Obama’s presidential campaign and went “on leave” from the think tank. “I worked with Susan in government for eight years,” Talbott said, when she joined Brookings in 2002.

A Rhodes scholar and member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Rice served as a Brookings Senior Fellow in the Foreign Policy and Global Economy and Development Programs.

Rice favors establishment of a Department of Defense “peacekeeping institute” so that U.S. soldiers can be trained for UN missions. She is also on record in support of “a rapidly deployable international civilian police force,” presumably under the control of the UN; favors a United Nations military force to intervene in the Darfur region of Sudan; and is a believer in the man-made global warming theory.

She wrote a 2006 article in The National Interest blaming the terrorist attacks on America on September 11, 2001, on living conditions in oil-rich Saudi Arabia. “For years, Saudi Arabia, home to several 9/11 hijackers, experienced rapidly declining GDP [Gross Domestic Product],” she said.

The article, "The Threat of Global Poverty," urged “far greater U.S. action to reduce global poverty” and called for the U.S. to spend 0.7 percent of Gross National Income on foreign aid, raising annual foreign aid spending by the U.S. to about $80 billion a year. This view was incorporated in Obama’s Global Poverty Act.

When she was running for president, Hillary Clinton told the American Society of International Law (ASIL) that she supported several controversial U.N. treaties, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), a measure that conservative women’s groups say would provide a cover for demanding abortion and even decriminalizing prostitution on a global basis.

For his part, Obama told ASIL that he supports Senate ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, and CEDAW.

Regarding the International Criminal Court (ICC), Obama said, “I will consult thoroughly with our military commanders and also examine the track record of the Court before reaching a decision on whether the United States should become a State Party to the ICC.”

However, the World Federalist Association, which now calls itself Citizens for Global Solutions (CGS), favors Senate ratification of the pact.

After the November 4th elections, Don Kraus of CGS wrote under the headline, “Obama and the World Wins!” that “The election of Barack Obama and the global financial crisis have created unprecedented opportunities for global citizens to advance the vision of a well-governed world where nations work together to solve global problems.”

He also declared, “A new president and strong globalist majority in Congress gives our nation an opportunity to adopt a constructive policy towards the International Criminal Court. And the U.S. will be able to lead the way in a new round of global climate change negotiation. But this can only come about with if [sic] a passionate core of supporters pushes Congress and the White House to get the job done.”

See Also: Obama's view on international law; The Global Citizen, Fall 2008

From The Global Citizen: "Where Do They Stand on Global Issues?"

This November, American citizens will vote in arguably the most important presidential election of generation. As advocates and voters, it is our duty to examine where our two presidential candidates - Senators John McCain and Barack Obama - stand on the vital foreign policy issues that impact us all.

Regarding America’s role in the world, Senator Barack Obama has asserted that, “we can neither retreat from the world, nor try to bully it into submission. We must lead by
deed and example.” Obama believes that our country’s return to its rightful position as a global leader lies along the path of diplomacy and a commitment to the universal values that we all cherish. He argues that the United States is trapped by a Bush-Cheney modus operandi and that failure to talk with our adversaries circumvents potential progress and stymies America’s ability to rally international support.

Senator Obama has stated that before the U.S. can regain its position as a global leader, "we must first behave in ways that reflect the decency and aspirations of the American people.” This means that on an issue such as torture, America must “reject torture without exception.” Senator John McCain also recognizes that domestic changes are necessary in the process of restoring American legitimacy and leadership in the world, and likewise believes in a reversal of the current administration’s policies on torture.

McCain has traditionally been an outspoken critic of torture, having endured torture himself during his time as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. During the Republican presidential debates he was the only candidate to state, “We do not torture people.” However, McCain’s vote in February 2008 against the Conference Report on the Intelligence Authorization Act, which would have applied the Army field manual standards on interrogation to the CIA, was a failure to reject the Bush administration’s stance on this issue.

On the issue of U.S. cooperation with international institutions, Obama firmly believes that we must work more closely with our both our allies and international organizations such as the United Nations. He argues, for example, that the U.S. must play a leading role as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, which would require fully supporting the organization in its attempts to address 21st century challenges. To that end, Obama has consistently supported the U.N.’s Millennium Development Program and peacekeeping operations, and has stipulated that the U.S. must meet its obligations to fund both assessed and voluntary peacekeeping operations.

McCain, however, imagines a smaller role for the U.N. vis-à-vis America’s role in the world. He envisions a League of Democracies that would “link democratic nations in one common organization” as the vehicle through which the world’s greatest challenges may be addressed. He asserts that “it would be similar to what Theodore Roosevelt envisioned:like-minded nations working together for peace and liberty.”

Interestingly, McCain does not envision it replacing the U.N. or other existing structures, but rather argues that it could act when the U.N. is unable to do so. A League of Democracies would work in conjunction with other institutions in ordeR to find comprehensive solutions to the world’s gravest
problems such as the Darfur genocide. He articulated his stance on this issue when he wrote in 2004 that, “Peacekeeping troops should be deployed to Darfur to protect civilians and expedite the delivery of humanitarian aid…We should provide financial and logistical support to countries willing to provide peacekeeping forces.”

Obama has also taken a strong stance against humanitarian catastrophes such as that in Darfur. He argues that “the United States needs to lead the world in ending this genocide…The international community must, over the Sudanese regime’s protests, deploy a large, capable UN-led and UN-funded force with a robust enforcement mandate to stop the killings.” As President, in order to bring justice to the perpetrators, he would “continue to cooperate with ongoing [International Criminal Court] investigations in Sudan” even
though his overall support for the ICC has been tepid.

While it can be said with some certainty that both McCain and Obama seem more willing to cooperate with the international community than has the current administration, each candidate brings a range of attitudes
to the table in terms of his proposed foreign policy choices.

Obama’s insistence, for example, on the need for open dialogue with all countries and his continued push toward nuclear non-proliferation would constitute critical and important steps in a multi-lateral direction. But his hesitation on the ICC could spell a missed opportunity to send a powerful message to the world about America’s commitment to the rule of law and justice for the victims of war crimes.

McCain meanwhile has stated that, given the appropriate safeguards, the U.S. ought to be a party to the ICC. On the other hand, his League of Democracies, could divide the world between those who share the same ideology as the U.S. and those who do not.

Over the coming weeks, much will be said about the candidates’ positions. Before stepping into the voting booth on November 4th, voters will have many opportunities to investigate where the two candidates stand on the global issues that will determine America’s future position in the world.