DOWNSIDE LEGACY AT TWO DEGREES OF PRESIDENT CLINTON
SECTION: THE POLITICAL WINDS
SUBSECTION: SOVEREIGNTY AT ISSUE
Revised 8/20/99

SOVEREIGNTY AT ISSUE

6/28/98 Washington Post Thomas Edsall reported "President Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair are seeking to take advantage of the unprecedented number of Western governments controlled by center-left parties to turn their "third way" political strategies in the United States and Great Britain into an international movement.In the United States, Sidney Blumenthal is the Clinton aide working most closely with the Blair government and with center-left parties in France, Germany, Italy and Brazil. "We are sharing our experiences on the issues that confront us in all advanced industrial nations," Blumenthal said, describing the discussions as informal. .But the emergence of trans-Atlantic, one-nation politics of a new third way makes it increasingly clear that far more than personality is at stake."

U.N. World Court - Virginia
Miami Trials, Italian Court
International Criminal Court (June/Rome)
U.N. Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters (RDMHQ)
One Nation Politics
U.N. World Heritage Sites (UNESCO)
Specialist New (Blue Beret Incident, Allegience to US not UN)

Summarized from 7/2/98 Manchester Union Leader Patrick Buchanan. Ralph Nader wrote to the 100 largest U.S. corporations, urging that, at their next shareholders meetings, their CEOs lead the company in the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States, the reactions include: Arco, Amoco and Delta said no. Allstate said it would not be appropriate. Busch, Aetna, Dayton-Hudson and 3M were concerned about offending global participants. Hewlitt-Packard, Kodak and Caterpillar said it would not be productive. Boeing said it was not necessary. Coca-Cola and Bristol-Myers said they might consider it. AT&T said it would consider it.

March 11, 1998 International Criminal Court proposed crimes (Article 5 draft): Genocide="causing serious . . . mental harm to members of [a national, ethnic, racial or religious] group;" Enforced Pregnancy does not refer to the act of rape; and Persecution="the wilful and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law [carried out with the intent to persecute on specified grounds]" . "against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural or religious [or gender] [or other similar] grounds."

June 26, 98 United Nations Commission on Global Governance: ".The exercise of sovereign power must be linked to the will of the people. Unless the abuse of sovereignty is stopped, it will be impossible to increase respect for the norms that flow from it. In an increasingly interdependent world, old notions of territoriality, independence, and non- intervention lose some of their meaning. National boundaries are increasingly permeable--and, in some important respects, less relevant. A global flood of money, threats, images, and ideas has overflowed the old system of national dikes that preserved state autonomy and control. .It is now more difficult to separate actions that solely affect a nation's internal affairs from those that have an impact on the internal affairs of other states, and hence to define the legitimate boundaries of sovereign authority. .For all these reasons, the principle of sovereignty and the norms that derive from it must be further adapted to recognize changing realities. States continue to perform important functions, and must have the powers to fulfil these functions effectively. But these must rest on the continuing consent and democratic representation of the people. They are also limited by the fundamental interests of humanity, which in certain severe circumstances must prevail over the ordinary rights of particular states. . The readiness of the Security Council to authorize UN action, including military action, in support of humanitarian purposes represents a proper and necessary evolution of the exercise of international responsibility.." Lee Casey a former US Justice Department law counsel said of the ICC: "As it is currently conceived the ICC will continue in one institution the functions of investigation, fact-finding, prosecution, judgment, sentencing, appeal and pardon." A United Nations human rights summit will hear welfare-reform critics describe Idaho's policy (recipient must spend 20 hours a week working or looking for work) as an international human rights violation, under Articles 23, 25, 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948

7/2/98 Washington Times Gaedig Bonabesse reports "Several European companies with investments in the United States are under pressure to withdraw them from states where capital punishment is enforced, members of the European Parliament warn. The state of Texas, which executes more criminals than any other state, has been put on particular notice that such sanctions are possible.."The governor took an oath of office to uphold the laws of our state, including the death penalty" .In Europe, the death penalty is . forbidden in the 15 member states of the European Union. "

The Ammunition Panel met at the United Nations in New York from April 27, to May 1,1998. The UN cites the relatively limited shelf life of ammunition and its large consumption during conflict as reasons for stringent control and limits on possession. The Panel's long term goal is to substantially increase regulation of international commercial shipments to completely ban civilian possession of military caliber rounds ( .308, .30-06, .223, 6.5X55mm, .303 etc ).

"There are a lot of very brilliant people who believe that the nation-state is fast becoming a relic of the past. "-- President Clinton, New York Times, November 25, 1997

Washington Times, Greg Pierce 7/9/98 "As the world gets smaller, the U.S. Supreme Court will be drawing on judgments from other countries in its own deliberations, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said yesterday in Brussels."

7/9/98 AP Daniel Wakin on the International Criminal Court ".Agreement is near on most of the nuts and bolts issues, such as rules of procedure and cooperation between governments, the court's composition and administration. However, the draft will leave unresolved some of the fundamental political issues that have been the subject of contentious debate: the independence and power of the prosecutor."

Clinton at commencement address at Pennsylvania State University 5/10/98 - urged all public schools to make community service mandatory by requiring high school students to volunteer for a certain number of hours in order to earn their diplomas ...

7/10/98 AP Daniel Wakin "A U.N. conference Friday produced a draft treaty on a world criminal court that would grant the prosecutor sweeping authority, a measure vigorously opposed by the United States. The draft also did away with proposals to declare the use of nuclear weapons, blinding lasers and anti- personnel mines as war crimes. It said the court could have jurisdiction over internal conflicts, now the major source of crimes against humanity. The draft also allowed including state ``aggression'' as a crime -- if delegates could decide on what that means by Monday."

7/12/98 AP Oslo: "Delegates from 21 countries will meet in Oslo on Monday to draft a strategy to keep small arms like machine guns out of the hands of terrorists, criminals and countries on the brink of war. Among the countries expected at the two-day session are the United States, Germany, Britain, France, Canada, Brazil, Mali, South Africa, Indonesia and Zimbabwe.."

7/13/98 UPI "The United States is sending a strong message of caution at a U.N. conference on the creation of an International Criminal Court, urging delegates to ``recognize the potential and realistic limitations'' of such a court. In a statement to the conference, the United States reaffirmed its disapproval of the ``universal jurisdiction'' of an International Criminal Court over crimes against humanity and war crimes _ two of the three ``core crimes'' agreed upon when the conference began a month ago. The United States supports automatic ICC jurisdiction only over the third core crime, genocide, but it wants to be able to ``opt-in'' in cases of crimes against humanity and war crimes. Opting-in means that a nation would have to approve before the ICC could have full jurisdiction."

7/16/98 Reuters via Fox "Some 60 like-minded democracies rejected Thursday a plan that would have allowed states to opt out of the jurisdiction of a world war crimes court, leaving key differences with the United States unresolved.U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson was so disturbed at the turn of negotiations that she wrote to all delegates expressing her "deep concern'' and pleading for the court to have automatic jurisdiction on all three core crimes.."

AP 7/17/98 Candice Hughes "Over strong American opposition, a draft treaty creating the world's first permanent war crimes tribunal emerged early today from marathon United Nations' negotiations. Delegates from 160 countries have until midnight to endorse the treaty, and several said the draft had a good chance of winning approval.Despite weeks of arm-twisting, U.S. diplomats failed to block the creation of an independent prosecutor and insert a loophole that would allow American citizens and soldiers an exemption from the court's jurisdiction. Most of Washington's closest allies opposed the U.S. position."

REVIEWING THE RHODES LEGACY By William F. Jasper ".. However, it is not idealism per se, but a particular kind of idealism, of which Rhodies are typically imbued, that is the problem under consideration here. And it is certainly not an idealism proceeding from an "ideological vacuum." If that were the case, we would expect to see idealism manifested and expressed in a diversity of shapes and forms, as for instance: Christian idealism versus humanist/pagan/atheist idealism, individualist versus collectivist idealism, libertarian versus totalitarian idealism, nationalist versus globalist idealism, etc. The Oxonian idealism, however, seems to run almost invariably along the humanist/pagan/atheist, collectivist, totalitarian, globalist, elitist lines. Perhaps Beinart's peers do not explicitly subscribe to such a nasty idealism, but, apparently, it is implicit - at least in the formative stages - in their collective world view, and it is this which makes him "uneasy."As he says, they have a passionate "commitment to government," but, "above all, they believe "in themselves" in government." Which is exactly the kind of "idealism" British empire builder Cecil John Rhodes intended to foster when he established the Rhodes scholarships at the turn of the century.."

World Net Daily 7/20/98 "The trouble with nailing President Clinton on anything is that as soon as you start closing in on him for one example of high treason or criminal insanity, he is embarking on a dozen head-spinning new ones. The latest scandalous illustration is his Pentagon's plan to have U.S. Special Forces soldiers train China's People's Liberation Army troops. I'm not kidding. Defense Department spokesman Kenneth Bacon confirmed for the South China Morning Post the possibility that the Green Berets and Navy SEALS would share their famed fighting secrets with America's most likely military adversary for the foreseeable future.Once again, the question of motives arises. Stupidity could not possibly explain such monumental treacheries. Money flows in to the Clinton campaign and technology and vital national security secrets flow out. How much can this administration get away with before Americans rise up in anger and demand some accountability? A few months ago, a nuclear physicist in Los Angeles was convicted of providing national defense information to the Chinese and lying about it to U.S. investigators. Peter Lee was sentenced to a $20,000 fine, one year in a halfway house and 3,000 hours of community service. U.S. District Judge Terry J. Hatter thought he was making an example of Lee."

7/6/98 The New American 7/6/98 "A delegation from Red China's Ministry of Public Security was recently hosted by Pinkerton Global Intelligence Services and met with an FBI official for a briefing at FBI headquarters, accoriding to a report in the Washington Times . FBI spokesman Frank Scafidi said that the agency has "been trying to establish an office in Beijing to accomplish our goals of having better access in China for law enforcement activities, such as following up leads in China that affect cases we have going on." Of course, the visit of the Chinese delegation also fits well with the Clinton Administration's potentially treasonous coddling of the Red dictatorship.

CNS 7/24/98 Michael Carney - "The recent approval by members of a United Nations conference in Rome of a proposed International Criminal Court (ICC) has several members of Congress very concerned about its possible encroachment on U.S. sovereignty. The Washington Times is reporting a bipartisan coalition of Sens. John Aschcroft (R-MO), Rod Grams (R-MN), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Joseph Biden, Jr. (D-DE), and Jesse Helms (R-NC) have asked Secretary of State Madeline Albright for assurances that "not one soldier" take part in any NATO or other international mission without an agreement that no U.S. soldiers be prosecuted by the international court. In a letter to the Secretary of State, Helms wrote, "Madam Secretary, I am unalterably opposed to the creation of a permanent U.N. criminal court because any permanent judiciary within the United Nations system would be totally inappropriate, inasmuch as, like the creation of a standing army, or the power to collect taxes, it would grant the U.N. a principal trapping of sovereignty." .."

8/1/98 End Times Web Site William Blase ".The original concept for the UN was the outcome of the Informal Agenda Group, formed in 1943 by Secretary of State Cordell Hull. All except Hull were CFR members, and Isaiah Bowman, a founding member of the CFR, originated the idea. .Since that time the CFR and its friends in the mass media (largely controlled by CFR members such as Katherine Graham of the Washington Post and Henry Luce of Time, Life), foundations, and political groups have lobbied consistently to grant the United Nations more authority and power. Bush and the Gulf War were but one of the latest calls for a "New World Order." Through executive order, Clinton has attempted to give the U.N. authority to command U.S. troops. Many American historical sites are now U.N. "World Heritage Sites," such as Independence Hall, Carlsbad Caverns, and the Grand Canyon. The administration is moving forward with the Biodiversity Treaty (though not ratified by Congress) and the Wildlands Project, developed by convicted eco-terrorist Dave Foreman, founder of Earth First! and present director of the Sierra Club. It would convert much of the area of the U.S. to wilderness areas, connected by corridors for the free movement of species (except for humans, who would be confined and "concentrated" into enclaves...)."

Sovereignty International 7/8 98 "On July 14, Kofi Annan released Maurice Strong's initial plan to begin reforming (read: restructuring) the United Nations. The 95-page document, entitled Renewing the United Nations: A Programme for Reform, is a step-by-step program to implement many of the recommendations advanced by the UN-funded Commission on Global Governance in its 1995 report entitled Our Global Neighborhood. The reform plan comes as no surprise. Maurice Strong was a member of the Commission on Global Governance and a lead author of its report. He was the first appointment of Kofi Annan, just days after Annan's selection as UN Secretary-General. As Executive Coordinator for Reform, Strong was hired specifically to restructure the sprawling UN system into the mechanism for global governance described in Our Global Neighborhood. .The plan puts into motion a fundamental shift of purpose for the existence of the United Nations. The United Nations was created, and heretofore, has functioned to serve its membership of sovereign nations. The market, or service area for the United Nations is now shifting away from sovereign nations to focus directly on the citizens of those nations. The UN is no longer limiting its activities to providing services for nations, but is now gearing up to provide "security for the people" within those nations."

Honolulu Star Bulletin News Pat Omandam 8/12/98 "Hawaii's annexation by the United States could be declared invalid, according to a United Nations report. The report said the situation of native Hawaiians now takes on a "special complexion" because of, among other reasons, President Clinton's November 1993 Apology Resolution to native Hawaiians. The study recommends Hawaii be returned to a U.N. List of Non-Self Governing Territories - a list of indigenous peoples colonized by another country. Such action could make Hawaii eligible for decolonization as well as a U.N.-sponsored plebiscite. The 73- page unedited final report, submitted after nine years of reviewing treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements between nations and indigenous peoples, was filed July 30 in Geneva."

Miss Kelly 8/27/98 World Net Daily ".It appears the Third Wayers are realizing that perhaps Bill Clinton is too severely crippled to continue with the agenda with any success. As such, when it is clear he is dead in the water agenda-wise, Bill will be chucked overboard and a new Third Wayer placed at the helm. Several things have happened in the last 24 hours that are, in my view, extremely significant. Thomas Friedman at the NY Times wrote yesterday: "But if there is no hope for the agenda, what need is there for the man?" .Add this to Clinton going out for a sail with Walter Cronkite. Cronkite is a major globalist who believes in world government and said so very plainly in his book. "If we are to avoid [a World War III] catastrophe, a system of order -- preferably a system of world government -- is mandatory. The proud nations someday will see the light and, for the common good and their own survival, YIELD UP THEIR PRECIOUS SOVEREIGNTY, just as America's colonies did two centuries ago. When we finally come to our senses and ESTABLISH A WORLD EXECUTIVE AND A PARLIAMENT OF NATIONS. ..." [p. 128, A Reporter's Life] Remember when the "statesmen" of the Republican Party visited the White House and said, "Dick, for the sake of the country and the Republican Party, you need to resign,"? Some have waited for the Democratic big-wigs to do the same with BC. But it will never happen because BC is not beholden to the Democrats. He takes his orders from the Third Wayers. ONLY when the Third Way bails out on Bill -- or their "greymen" have that same chat with Bill, will he resign. I suspect "Uncle Walter" and Bill had such a "chat" on his boat yesterday ... about how the AGENDA transcends the man, and as such BC needs to step aside and be replaced with someone who can move the agenda forward.."

AP 9/2/98 Karin Davies "The women told their stories in voices that cracked with the pain of remembering: Gang rape of a pregnant victim. Being forced to parade naked. Mutilation. Months after the harrowing testimony, an international tribunal for the first time has defined rape as a genocidal crime. U.N. judges also said Wednesday that sexual violence is not limited to "physical invasion'' of the body and may not even require physical contact.."

Sunday Times of London 8/20/98 Robert Harris "Blair's third way to elected dictatorship The prime minister has written a pamphlet. And tomorrow, in what must rank as one of the more ill-timed and unfortunately named summits in recent history, he flies to America to talk about "the third way" to, of all people, Bill Clinton. As Frankie Howerd would have said: titter ye not. It was, therefore, with a heavy heart that I picked up Mr Blair's thin pamphlet. Prime ministers are not usually given to writing works of political philosophy while in office; offhand, I can't think of a premier who has done so since Gladstone. It was bound to be dull, I thought. And, in some ways, it is quite dull.. But the blandness of the prose is deceptive. Again and again, on the point of slumber, you realise you have just read something unexpectedly interesting, potentially even revolutionary. Consider, for example, this passage: "My vision for the 21st century is of a popular politics reconciling themes which in the past have wrongly been regarded as antagonistic - patriotism and internationalism; rights and responsibilities; the promotion of enterprise and the attack on poverty and discrimination. . ." Well, you think (your heading nodding forwards onto your chest), nobody could argue with that. And then you realise that that is precisely the point: nobody could argue with it. What is striking about that sentence is its inclusivity, its pre-empting of all serious opposition, for who but knaves or fools could attack such sentiments? This is the essence of the third way, and it goes far beyond the tactic of stealing your political opponent's clothes. As Blair's pamphlet makes clear, it is no longer merely a question of saying, "Oh, this bit of Thatcherism is good, so well keep it". What we have here is synthesis as ideology - synthesis as an end in itself - a concept I have never before seen advocated so openly in democratic politics. It is either breathtaking, or sinisterly Orwellian, or both, depending on your point of view..."

South China Morning Post 10/21/98 Agence France-Presse "A second round of defence consultations between China and the United States ended in Beijing yesterday with both sides agreeing the talks had improved mutual understanding, Xinhua reported. Senior officials from the PLA said the discussions, which began on Monday, had laid solid ground for further exchanges and co-operation between the two armies. Defence Minister General Chi Haotian , in a meeting with US Under-Secretary of Defence Walter Slocombe yesterday, said that the regular consultations mechanism was "a hotline for the Sino-US armed forces" which could help reduce divergence and increase common ground between the sides.. safety consultation next year. The first defence consultations were held last December in Washington. This month, China attacked tentative plans for Japan and the US to develop a theatre missile defence programme, denouncing some of the clauses in a related US defence spending bill as "anti-China".."

Financial Times - London 11/24/98 Gerard Baker ".When Bill Clinton, US president, was asked during his Tokyo visit what was the most important economic challenge facing the world, he replied without hesitation: "To adapt the international economic systems to the realities of the 21st century".."

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation 8/4/98 ".The Clinton Administration has filed arguments with the U.S. Supreme Court claiming that no union should be required to provide workers with an independent audit of union political activities. Moreover, it argues that unions should be permitted to force workers to pay for union activities around the world - from Mexico to Indonesia - as a condition of employment. The National Right to Work Foundation has been served with a copy of U.S. Solicitor General Seth Waxman's arguments urging the Supreme Court to reject the Foundation's petition for a writ of certiorari in Strang v. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).Also in the petition, Clinton's Justice Department argued that American workers should be fired for refusing to pay for a union's national and international union collective bargaining costs, no matter where in the world they are incurred. .."

12/2/98 Rep Bob Barr "."While this ruling does allow our Committee some access to these memos, Judge Johnson's decision raises fundamental Constitutional issues, specifically, regarding separation of powers. "Under our Constitution, the judicial branch is not allowed to interfere in impeachment proceedings. By limiting access to materials requested by our Committee, Judge Johnson may have crossed that line. If we set a precedent that judges can deny evidence in an impeachment investigation, we risk rendering the impeachment power meaningless, because the process could be impeded by any federal judge at any time. "Given the Clinton Administration's concerted efforts to block our access to these memos, it is very likely they contain important information that could bear directly on our Committee's work. It is unacceptable to limit our access to them."."

Jewish World Review 12/8/98 Linda Chavez Excerpts by Marcellus ".Bill Clinton has attacked the integrity and independence of the judicial system, and if he gets away with it, the separation of powers with its checks and balances ---- which is fundamental to American democracy -- will be irreparably weakened. The president lied under oath in court proceedings, not once but many times, not just in a civil deposition but before a grand jury investigating possible criminal wrongdoing. He also induced others to provide false testimony to the grand jury and to a federal court trying a civil case. The president's actions do not merely constitute perjury or obstruction of justice as they would if anyone else had committed them. They are the willful assault of the chief executive on the judiciary. If the president can, with impunity, lie under oath in a judicial proceeding, the judiciary becomes subordinate to his power. In effect, he places himself above the law and not subject to it...."

The New York Times 12/24/98 William Safire ".Not since the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Teheran has American territory been so egregiously invaded as last week -- and nobody in the distracted Clinton Administration seems to care. In Damascus, where the Syrian dictator Hafez al-Assad rigidly controls the populace, tens of thousands massed in protest, ostensibly about our bombing of Iraq. A selected part of the mob -- about 1,000 drawn from the ruling Baath Party -- was permitted to march at night where demonstrators are never allowed to go: through the upscale al-Rawdha neighborhood, where the United States Embassy and the Ambassador's residence are located.."

World Net Daily Joseph Farah ".From where do our rights descend? The Bill of Rights? No. The Constitution? No. The Federal government? No. The United Nations? Certainly not. But, apparently, that's what Bill Clinton thinks. For earlier this month, Dec. 10 to be exact, he issued another one of his infamous executive orders -- this time on "the implementation of human rights treaties." In Executive Order 13107, Clinton sets up a new federal bureaucracy for the purpose of implementing U.N. treaties, whether ratified by the U.S. Senate or not. And that federal bureaucracy will implement the treaties on the U.N.'s terms..Who is the sovereign that imparts such blessings upon the populace of the world? The answer to that question is stated unequivocally in article 29 of the U.N. document, which states: "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." That pretty much explains who the "massa" is and where the plantation boundaries end. What a stark contrast between the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, and the founding documents of the United States of America. The Declaration of Independence and Constitution both make it clear that basic human rights are inalienable, meaning they descend from the ultimate Sovereign, the Creator, God. Therefore, no human authority, no government, no criminal, no individual can abrogate or abridge those rights. Remember, any right government can bestow upon a people, it can just as easily take away.."

Reuters 2/3/99 ".United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson on Wednesday appealed to the U.S. authorities to stop the execution of convicted murderer Sean Sellers by the state of Oklahoma. Sellers was sentenced to death in 1986 for the killing of his mother, stepfather and a shop assistant when he was 16 years old and suffering from mental disorder...In her statement Robinson said if sentence were carried out it would "run counter to established international principles and the international community's expressed desire for the abolition of the death penalty"..."

EWTN News 2/5/99 CWNews.com Freeper marshmallow ". A United Nations commission investigating discrimination against women called on Colombia on Thursday to end its legal ban on abortion to bring the country into compliance with international conventions. The 23-member commission, which monitors compliance with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, said Colombian women were receiving illegal abortions despite the ban... "

Wall Street Journal 2/3/99 Holman Jenkins Jr. ".On that day, a week after being surprised by the question of Monica in his Paula Jones deposition, the president with deliberation and forethought did walk into a meeting with his cabinet and tell them a lie about his personal relationship with Ms.Lewinsky. Thereupon, each of the above cabinet secretaries went out on the White House lawn and, with all the spontaneity of a Soviet May Day parade, affirmed for the cameras that each believed the president's lies. As anyone familiar with the televised presidency can readily grasp, these performances are not left to chance. They are highly scripted. Another cabinet secretary, arguably a more important one, Treasury's Robert Rubin, appeared on CNBC to tell the financial markets "I absolutely believe" the president. Thus the apparatus of governmental communication was employed by a knowing president to spread a lie about his personal indiscretions...In lying to his cabinet, Mr. Clinton was in essence blackmailing them to provide the country with examples of knowledgeable persons of stature who affirm his lies. He did this with premediation. These ranking members of the government, confirmed by the Senate and sworn in by the judiciary, fell upon their swords to protect Bill Clinton's personal interest..."

State Department 2/16/99 James Foley ".Foley announced that Vice President Gore will host the first-ever international conference on fighting corruption at the State Department February 24-26. Over 300 justice and security officials from more than 70 counties are invited. The conference is part of a broad Clinton Administration approach to battling the rising tide of international crime, Foley said.."

USIS Washington File 2/16/99 ".The first session of the preparatory commission for the International Criminal Court convened at UN headquarters February 16. The commission will discuss fundamental issues such as the court's rules of procedure and evidence the types of crimes over which it has jurisdiction once it comes into force. The court was established by the UN Diplomatic Conference in Rome on July 17, 1998. It will actually come into being after 60 states have ratified the statute. Although 75 states have signed the statute, only one country -- Senegal -- has ratified the statute so far. Participation in the preparatory commission is open to all states that were invited to the Rome conference, including those states that have not yet signed the statute. The United States, which did not sign the statute, is participating in the commission meeting. The US delegation is led by Ambassador David Scheffer, chief US envoy for war crimes issues, who headed the US delegation at the Rome conference..."

Washington Post 2/23/99 Charles Trueheart "..."Great nations who understand the importance of sovereignty at various times cede various portions of it in order to achieve some better good for their country," she said. "We are looking at how the nation-state functions in a totally different way than people did at the beginning of this century." ...Madeleine Albright talking about Kosovo

Freeper Brian Mosely Associated Press 2/26/99 By KEVIN GALVIN "... President Clinton today outlined a foreign policy of active involvement overseas -- from China to Kosovo -- for the final two years of his administration, saying Americans ``must embrace the inexorable logic of globalization.'' ..."

All Texas News 3/11/99 Freeper Newskeeper reports "…Donald, an, aircraft mechanic at McAllen Airport who would not reveal his last name stated: "The UN guys have been over there for months and months. You mean to tell me that the news media is just now aware of this?: Donald was incredulous, "Hell they have landed planes here for fuel. They won't buy fuel on the mexican side of the border. They have never been unfriendly, but something tells me not to trust them. They are not Americans, I can guarantee you that. Most appear to be Europeans, most all have heavy accents." Donald also believes that although no UN trucks or any uniformed men have been spotted on the Texas side of the border, it is common knowledge that many of the UN personnel stay at the McAllen Holidome. Donald says: "Go there and ask them for yourself what they want" Tomorrow http://www.alltexas.net/news/txnews1.html …"

Newsmax.com 3/12/99 Reynosa Mexico----AllTexas News 3/11/99 "…NAFTA, Borders 21, and American heritage Rivers Initiative are all falling into place now. On Tuesday our reporters followed up on leads about U.N. personnel stationed at the United States-Mexican Border. Upon arriving in McAllen, TX we began to follow leads and make contacts with our sources. Ready to get on the move, we jumped into the a truck and headed for the Mexican Border about 10 minutes due south of McAllen. We arrived at the busy border crossing at Hidlago Texas/Reynosa, Nuevo Leon, Mexico and parked on the US side of the border. We trekked on foot across the international bridge. It did not take us long to find what we came to find: United Nations personnel complete with UN symbol and blue beret. A United Nations truck sat close by but without the usually large UN painted on the side. One must wonder why they are there. Is it to protect Mexico from unseen threat or is it a direct threat to the sovereignty of the United States? We were there to find out. American-educated Mexican Federal Police Officer Enrique Santa Maria Guerrero says The UN has been here for months. But he doesn't know why. They sit in our building, smoke and do nothing but watch us. When questioned about why there were stationed in Reynosa, Officer Enrique says: "It's NAFTA. We were told in the summer of last year the UN observers would be coming, and now they seem to be here to stay. We don't need UN men on our border, we need UN Men to watch our elections!!!" Enrique continued: "Each shift fills out a report which we are not allowed to see…."

The Daily Oklahoman 3/17/99 John Mallon Freeper deepsixx "…The United Nations Population Fund calls for grade school teaching of sex education and omits parental supervision entirely - also they want $25 million from the US to implement this - Hillary approves of their agenda…"

The American Cause 2/26/99 Pat Buchanan "…The sovereignty issue is roaring back… Up at the United Nations, the carpenters of the New World Order are busy constructing the world's first permanent war crimes tribunal. Modeled on the Nuremberg court that convicted the Nazis, the new tribunal claims jurisdiction over all nations, including the United States. Last July, America rejected the court, fearing U.S. soldiers could be prosecuted. Yet, American diplomats are beavering away alongside U.N. bureaucrats who envision the tribunal as a world court that shall sit above the claims of any and all nation-states…."(W)hat makes a state sovereign," Rabkin writes, "is that it need answer to no outside authority." For us, sovereignty means the primacy of our own Constitution. The people of the United States, by their own sovereign authority, have made the Constitution supreme over the government, and no outside agreement can challenge that supremacy." Yet, both NAFTA and Al Gore's Kyoto treaty on global warming supersede our Constitution and imperil that sovereignty, putting America on the same fatal path being trod by Europe. Writes Rabkin: "(T)he Common Market ... has expanded in size and ambition to emerge as something like a federal superstate. ... The European Union has undertaken ... to remove tariff barriers ... to standardize products and services, to ensure common protections for labor and the environment, and to reallocate wealth from richer to poorer regions. In total, such 'integration' is far more ambitious than the aggregate of policies undertaken by the federal government in the United States. ... (T)he European Court of Justice claims and exercises the authority to invalidate statutory enactments of parliaments ... "No one seriously pretends," he adds, "that the member states of the EU are still sovereign in the way they once were." …."

From Freeper Brian Mosely "…from my Bio-WHAT? page ….As Americans are beginning to be aware of the dark side to the USMAB (Bio-sphere) program, there has been a growing clamor that this and other UN programs are eroding our national sovereignty. When asked point blank about this loss of sovereignty by Sara McClendon during the March 7, 1997 Press Conference, President Clinton responded in a strange way, "there is a not insubstantial number of people who believe that there is a plan out there for world domination and I'm trying to give American sovereignty over to the U.N. There was a --I read in our local Arkansas newspaper, one of them the other day had a letter to the editor saying that, there I go again, there's Clinton out there trying to give American sovereignty over to the United Nations. Let me just say this: For people that are worried about it, I would say, there is a serious issue here that every American has to come to grips with,...and that is, how can we [the United States] be an independent, sovereign nation leading the world in a world that is increasingly interdependent, that requires us to cooperate with other people and then to deal with very difficult circumstances in trying to determine how best to cooperate.... [W]e live in an interdependent world. We have to cooperate with people. We're better off when we do. We're better off with NATO. We're better off with the United Nations. We're better off when these countries can work together. So I just think for folks that are worried about this out in the country, they need to be thinking about how -- we're not going to give up our freedom, our independence, but we're not going to go it alone into the 21st century either. We're going to work together and we have to…."

LifeSite Daily News 3/31/99 "…Speaking with LifeSite News just moments after stepping off the plane from New York, veteran UN diplomat Gilles Grondin told LifeSite that the UN Cairo+5 prepcom which was scheduled to end yesterday continues today despite sessions that went till 1:30am. The reason for the delay, says Grondin is that the G-77 countries are rejecting efforts by the West, particularly the European Union, the US and Canada to have an anti-family agenda dictated to them. "At every turn," reports Mr. Grondin, "sexual and reproductive rights are pushed on the G-77 countries." He confirmed that by these terms the West was referring to 'rights' to homosexuality, abortion, contraception, sterilization and sex-education to be granted from the age of 10. According to Mr. Grondin, the G-77 nations are demanding that the UN articles be chapeaued, thus allowing them to exercise national sovereignty, but the US and Western delegates are fighting sovereignty proposals with the help of the UN Secretariat. Mr. Grondin recalled that at the conference the Vatican delegate noted that whenever world "health" was mentioned only "reproductive health" was discussed. Furthermore, it was made clear that there was no end of money from the West available for reproductive health but that there were definite limits on funding for other health concerns. Mr. Grondin, a pro-life lobbyist at the conference and himself a former Western UN diplomat involved in human rights in the Third World, said, "I was ashamed to be from the West."…"

Helen Chenoweth "...In the run-up to our war with Yugoslavia, Congress was permitted by its leaders to carry out an impotent charade of debate. On March 11th, the House approved a non-binding resolution endorsing the use of American troops to enforce a peace agreement between the Yugoslav regime of Slobodan Milosevic and secessionist leaders in Yugoslavia's Kosovo province. On March 23rd, just hours before Solana issued the order to begin the bombing, the Senate approved a resolution supporting the military campaign. But Clinton Administration officials, including the President, had by that time made it clear that while they sought approval of the military action from Congress, they did not consider it necessary for Congress to authorize the military strike on Yugoslavia.....In order to appreciate the depth of the Administration's deception regarding the war over Kosovo, it is necessary to understand that the war was "authorized" by NATO long before the bombing began on March 24th. The day after the war began, the London Telegraph reported that General Clark, NATO's supreme military commander, "received his activation order for hostilities last October. The order was the official moment when authority over the forces to be used was transferred to him from the top brass of the member countries supplying them. The supreme commander does not need new permission from politicians or diplomats whenever he wishes to change tactics, or increase or scale back operations." At 1:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time on March 24th, with American bombers en route to Yugoslavia and just minutes before the first explosions were reported on the ground in Kosovo, White House spokesman Joe Lockhart explicitly admitted that the power to take our nation into war had been surrendered to a foreign official - namely, the NATO Secretary-General. Lockhart was asked by correspondent Helen Thomas, "Who gives the green light on this now? Is it the President himself, or the Supreme Commander of NATO...?" Lockhart replied, "The Supreme Commander of NATO acts on the authority of the political leaders of the NATO countries, and he has that authority." In brief, the power to declare war in Kosovo was exercised by NATO Secretary-General Solana; the power to make war was given to NATO's Supreme Commander; the President of the United States played the role of "selling" the war to the public, and Congress was tacitly told that its duty was to rubber-stamp the decision to take our nation into war, and to authorize payment of the resulting expenses...."

Townhall.com Phyllis Schlafly "...Does Sovereignty Matter? Bill Clinton's threats to enter the Kosovo conflict are a direct attack on national sovereignty, our own as well as Yugoslavia's. The foreign policy gurus of the Clinton Administration don't believe in the concept of sovereignty and are trying to replace it, piece by piece, with their global utopian vision. In trying to force the sovereign state of Yugoslavia to kowtow to a U.S.-dictated "peace" agreement, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is demanding that Yugoslavia allow foreign troops to occupy a portion of its territory where they would exercise authority backed by force. It is, of course, a critical element of sovereignty that foreign troops must not be allowed jurisdiction over a nation's soil. So Albright cut to the core of the argument with a demand that Yugoslavia surrender a piece of its sovereignty. She said: "Great nations who understand the importance of sovereignty at various times cede various portions of it in order to achieve some better good for their country. We are looking at how the nation-state functions in a totally different way than people did at the beginning of this century." That ominous ultimatum sounds like a double entendre. Yugoslavia is not a "great nation," but the United States is. And it's becoming more and more evident that the Clintonites are pursuing an incremental plan to cede various portions of U.S. sovereignty in order to achieve what they believe is the "better good ..."

John Birch Society/The New American Magazine 4/26/99 Helen Chenoweth Freeper Sandy "...When the order was given for American military personnel to attack Yugoslavia, it was not issued following a declaration of war from Congress. Nor was the order given by the President as a means of repelling a sudden attack on America by a foreign aggressor, or as a measure intended to rescue Americans abroad from unexpected peril. In fact, the order to attack Yugoslavia didn't even follow the pattern set in Korea and Vietnam, in which our nation was committed to protracted foreign wars through unilateral presidential action. On March 23rd, the order to commence hostilities was given to an American general by a Spanish Marxist - NATO Secretary-General Javier Solana..."

AFP 4/3/99 "...NATO, created 50 years ago in response to a perceived Soviet threat, has seen off Russian communism but is now engaged in a debate on its future spectacularly highlighted by the Kosovo crisis. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, formed on April 4, 1949, is celebrating its half-century with bombs rather than candles. Since March 24, the 19-member pact has been waging an air campaign against Yugoslavia. The aim is the freedom and security of the ethnic Albanians who make up 90 percent of the population of the Serbian province of Kosovo, and whose autonomy has been denied them by Belgrade...."

London Observer 3/28/99 Andrew marr "...This war is not a modern war. It is the last episode in Europes twentieth-century War of the Nations. The nationalist fuel burning Kosovo villages in 1999 is chemically identical to the stuff that set the first Belgian and French villages aflame in 1914. What began in the Balkans is ending there. ... For Europe's long war has become, inexorably, a war against the nation-state. The story of our century is in part the story of how nation-tribes failed to live together. Slowly, agonisingly, the old lies about national destiny, race and absolute sovereignty have been tested and exposed. And slowly, fitfully, a new political idea has struggled to replace them. It was present at the short-lived League of Nations. It spoke at the Nuremberg trials and, more confidently, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Genocide Convention of 1948, then at the Geneva Conventions of 1949. ....And what is this idea? It is world government. That may sound wild. But its starting assumption is that there are universal humanitarian values which matter more than national sovereignty. And in this limited way, at least, it has already been accepted. This, after all, is why we are today attacking a sovereign nation, Yugoslavia, which has a legally elected government and which threatens none of its neighbours. This is why Pinochet, who has broken no law in Britain, is under house arrest in Surrey....."

The Nation 4/19/99 Michael T. Klare "….President Clinton's decision to use military force against the Serbs was not simply a calculated response to Slobodan Milosevic's intransigence. A careful reading of recent Administration statements and Pentagon documents shows that the NATO bombing is part of a larger strategic vision. That vision has three basic components. The first is an increasingly pessimistic appraisal of the global security environment….. The second component is the assumption that as a global power with far-flung economic interests, the United States has a vested interest in maintaining international stability…..The third component is a conviction that to achieve global stability, the United States must maintain sufficient forces to conduct simultaneous military operations in widely separated areas of the world against multiple adversaries, and it must revise its existing security alliances--most of which, like NATO, are defensive in nature--so that they can better support US global expeditionary operations. Combined, these three propositions constitute a new strategic template for the US military establishment….. Less public, but no less significant, is the US effort to convert NATO from a defensive alliance in Western Europe into a regional police force governed by Washington. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright first unveiled this scheme this past December at a meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Brussels. Claiming that missile-armed "rogue states" pose as great a threat to Europe as the Warsaw Pact once did, Albright called on NATO to extend its operational zone into distant areas and to combat a wide range of emerging threats. "Common sense tells us," she said, "that it is sometimes better to deal with instability when it is still at arm's length than to wait until it is at our doorstep." …"

NewsMax 4/13/99 "... When challenged on China's human-rights record, Zhu testily replied, "I not only regard that as unfair but also take it as an interference in China's internal affairs." Little wonder that China, Russia and India (representing 60 percent of the world's population) are stridently opposed to our war on Yugoslavia. They have watched as we chose to ignore the argument that Yugoslavia has a right to use force to prevent one of its provinces from seceding. They watched as NATO, on behalf of its 19-member nations, decided that the human rights violations in Kosovo justified its decision to intervene with military power. Obviously, what worries China and Russia and a host of other nations is that America is setting in place foreign policy principles that would ultimately motivate and justify military intervention in their internal affairs. We are in the incipient stages of globalism. The precedents are being set in place. On a small scale, such as will not stir too much opposition, we have modeled the future by turning over to a third party, NATO, not only our military resources and personnel, but also military decisions, even the decision to commit America to a war. The American people are being conditioned to accept the transfer of national power to a central world authority for the noble purpose of fighting man's inhumanity to man...."

Los Angeles Times 4/11/99 Raymond Garthoff "...The North Atlantic Treaty Organization's 50th anniversary had been expected not only to celebrate its successful contribution to keeping the peace throughout the Cold War, but also to herald its expanded role, as Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright said, in keeping the peace for its next 50 years. The Washington summit, on April 23-25, will display all the pomp befitting the occasion. It will reflect the enlargement of membership in Central Europe and reaffirm an open-door policy to more expansion. It will issue a new "vision statement" for the post-Cold War world. What had not been expected was that the fireworks for the 50th would pale beside a month of NATO's nightly bombing of Yugoslavia. Suddenly, the alliance's new mission, blandly described by Albright at the last NATO summit in December, sounds less reassuring. She spoke of a "new and better" NATO "committed to meeting a wide range of threats to our shared interests and values," and acting "to ensure stability, freedom and peace in and for the entire transatlantic area." Commendable aims, but is it a realistic policy prescription? The question is whether NATO is to remain an alliance for collective defense or be transformed into a collective security "enforcer," initiating military action against other countries deemed to threaten "the interests and values" of member states...."

Los Angeles Times 4/11/99 Raymond Garthoff "...Its actions over Kosovo, for better or worse, herald the new NATO. The alliance initiated military action not in defense of its 19 members, but of their "interests and values." This makes a mockery of arguments only recently made to Russia that it had nothing to fear from NATO enlargement, because, after all, NATO was merely a defensive alliance..... The new NATO mission may be intended to expand international law, but an alliance decision to override traditional interpretations and circumvent the United Nations risks undermining that very international law. If one group of states can assume rights of unilateral military intervention vis-a-vis other members of the international community, so can any other. Is that a pattern we wish to encourage? The new NATO clearly has constructive aims and a laudable new "vision," but it has not resolved some fundamental issues. If NATO assumes the right to place limits on the sovereignty of nonmember states, without a mandate from the United Nations or consensus of the world community, it should at least have a clear understanding of the repercussions of its actions...."

The Time UK 4/12/99 James Landale "...TONY BLAIR today calls for a "new internationalism" in which the world community never again tolerates the brutal repression of an ethnic group by a dictator struggling to remain in power. In an article for Newsweek magazine, the Prime Minister suggests that Nato's action in Kosovo could be a model for future international relations. Mr Blair says: "This is a conflict we are fighting not for territory but for values, for a new internationalism where the brutal repression of whole ethnic groups will no longer be tolerated, for a world where those responsible for such crimes have nowhere to hide." He adds: "We are fighting for a world where dictators are no longer able to visit horrific punishments on their own peoples in order to stay in power." Establishing the principle that outside countries can intervene in a sovereign state to halt "ethnic cleansing" would mark a radical shift in the basic norms of international relations and Mr Blair's remarks will provoke unease among many countries...."

CNN Transcripts 4/10/99 Sam Nunn (D) Former US Senator "... NELSON: Let's take a look at the public relations war for a minute. Has Mr. Milosevic won that one? NUNN: Oh no, I don't think so. I think he's antagonized his neighbors; I think he's alienated everybody around him; I think he's lost world opinion. He's got some countries rallying behind him, because some countries resent any invasion of sovereignty. Of course, the Russians and some other countries that are Orthodox and Slavic are more favorable toward him. But, no, I don't think he's won any kind of population... NELSON: Next question, probably the last one we'll be able to get in: Are we in -- is NATO in danger of losing Russia? NUNN: I think that's a big, big danger here, and that's when you have to distinguish between vital interests and important or humanitarian interests. Russia's emergence as a part of the community of nations, avoiding the proliferation of mass -- of weapons of mass destruction out of Russia today as their economy crumbles is a vital interest to the United States. We are alienating Russia. They feel isolated; they feel humiliated; they feel not listened to. Now, we can't give them a veto, nor should we, but we should have had them in the loop, at least communicated with them on a regular basis and gotten their views, listened to them every now and then. We still should do that. And as we accelerate bombing, we need to accelerate diplomacy, and we need to involve the Russians. They've got an election coming up at the end of this year. They've got an election next year for the president, parliamentary this year. If those elections end up being affected adversely here, we could have a Russia that really is difficult to deal with in the future...."

Associated Press 4/12/99 Nicole Winfield "...Russia asked the International Court of Justice on Monday to determine the legal consequences of NATO airstrikes on Yugoslavia. Moscow has argued that NATO action over the Kosovo dispute is illegal because the U.N. Security Council didn't explicitly authorize it. Russia also says the strikes against its Serb allies violate the fundamental goal of the United Nations, which is to maintain peace in the world. The draft request doesn't mention Kosovo, NATO or Yugoslavia by name, but diplomats said the intent of the resolution was clear: to give Russia another chance to formally object to the NATO assault on its allies in Belgrade. The draft cites the U.N. Charter in saying individual nations and regional organizations cannot use force against sovereign states without the authorization of the Security Council. "No considerations, whether political, economic, military or of any other kind, may be used to justify the threat or use of force in violation of the Charter of the United Nations,'' it says...."

www.conservativenews.org 4/15/99Ben Anderson "...Legislation has again been introduced both the House and Senate to prohibit U.S. lands from being used as part of the United Nations' "World Heritage" sites or biosphere reserves, programs which some say threaten the power of the United States to govern its own land. The current effort follows similar legislation in 1997 which died in a Senate subcommittee. The stated purpose of the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act is "To preserve the sovereignty of the United States over public lands and acquired lands owned by the United States, and to preserve State sovereignty and private property rights in non-Federal lands surrounding those public lands and acquired lands." ..."

Jane's Defence Weekly 4/14/99 Marc Rogers Freeper Stand Watch Listen "...The new 'Strategic Concept' will restate that the defence of members' borders remains the alliance's core function. However, a US desire to include in its revision a new commitment by the alliance ­ to protect common interests and to act jointly against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) ­ is seen as opening the door to further out-of-area missions. In the early 1990s some members of the US Congress urged NATO to go "out of area or out of business". More recently, President Clinton has said that tomorrow's alliance must "defend against threats to our collective security from beyond [NATO] borders ­ [including] the spread of weapons of mass destruction, ethnic violence, and regional conflict".....There are some indications, however, that NATO is paying more attention to security issues in Asia: US-led NATO military exercises have been carried out in Kazakhstan; former US National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brezsinski has urged a broad NATO-European Union security system with Asia...."

Xinhua 4/22/99 "…One of the key points of the strategy will be new missions for the alliance [NATO] -- involving military operations outside the alliance territory, or interfering in the internal affairs of the non-NATO countries….Analysts believe that NATO's new strategy is the principal part of the U.S. global strategy, which is to keep its dominance and build a single-polar world order in the 21st century…..Running against the international norms and the charter of the United Nations, NATO's new strategy, which was manipulated by the U.S., poses great threat to the world peace and serious challenges to the United Nations. It will certainly meet opposition from peace-loving countries, analysts say…."

Christian Science Monitor 4/21/99 Benjamin Schwarz Freeper Stand Watach Listen "...EXCERPTS "Advocates of US intervention in the Balkans label their critics with the dreaded "I" word - isolationist. It's the latest in a trend started four years ago, when President Clinton's then National Security Adviser Anthony Lake branded those who objected to US globalism "neo-know-nothing-isolationists." Such name-calling squelches reasoned debate and mischaracterizes a view many of America's wisest thinkers embraced. First, it's important to define what neo-isolationism is not. That vocal sector of the Republican right, which holds that the UN presents a challenge to US sovereignty, is hardly "neo-isolationist." These Republicans, like the foreign policy establishment of both political parties, believe the US must continue to dominate international politics. Their view is therefore triumphalist; and in its chauvinistic assertion of US power is the opposite of a neo-isolationist perspective. "..."

National Journal 4/17/99 Stuart Taylor Jr. Freeper Stand Watch Listen "...EXCERPTS "It is inarguable that NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia-- provoked by atrocities in a civil war in a sovereign nation that has not attacked any NATO member--is hard to square either with the United Nations Charter or with the 1949 treaty that created NATO itself. But for Americans, there is a more fundamental question: Can it be squared with the Constitution? That document reserves the power ''to declare war'' to the Congress. And although the meaning of this phrase has evolved over time, the framers clearly intended to bar Presidents from doing what President Clinton has done: sending U.S. forces into hostilities abroad without explicit votes of approval from both House and Senate. (The Senate, in a nonbinding vote on March 23, approved U.S. participation in NATO ''military air operations and missile strikes''; the House, in a March 11 vote, authorized only a ''peacekeeping operation, implementing a Kosovo peace agreement,'' which later fell through.)" ..."

stratfor.com 4/22/99 Freeper henbane "...British Prime Minister Tony Blair's assertion that NATO would defend Montenegro against Serbian aggression raises some interesting questions. . . .Blair's comments, coming just days before the Washington NATO summit, seems to have created a new policy for NATO by treating Montenegro as a separate nation subject to aggression. If that is the case, then NATO has clearly shifted from a policy of protecting the Albanians to a policy of both toppling Milosevic and dismembering Yugoslavia. That won't fly with much of NATO, let alone the Russians. Blair and Clinton seem to be constantly expanding NATO's mission. At some point, the danger is that the locomotive will uncouple from the train...."

Electronic Telegraph 4/23/99 Hugo Gurdon Freeper Prince Charles "...In a talk entitled Doctrine of the International Community, Mr Blair hinted at a new role for Nato, turning it into the military arm of a new world order rather than a purely defensive alliance. He said: "If we can establish and spread the values of liberty, the rule of law, human rights and an open society then that is in our national interest too...."

Chicago Tribune 4/23/99 Rob D. Kaiser and Michael McGuire "...Setting forth a new foreign policy framework for a post-Cold War world, British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Thursday unveiled a bold international doctrine to justify Western military intervention against renegade regimes such as those in Iraq and Yugoslavia..... "We may be tempted to think back to the clarity and simplicity of the Cold War," he told his audience of 1,400 business and financial leaders, academics and local officials at the Hilton Hotel and Towers. "But now we have to establish a new framework." ....Labeling his approach a "Doctrine of International Community," Blair also proposed a set of new international rules to ease the world into the 21st Century. He called for an overhaul of the world financial system and a drive toward free trade. He also argued for a more efficient United Nations, organizational changes in NATO, better cooperation on the environment and a re-examination of Third World debt. As the NATO leaders prepared to address the Kosovo problem during their summit in Washington, Blair said that on some occasions, human rights are more important than national sovereignty. "Non-interference has long been considered an important principle of international order. And I do not suggest we jettison it lightly," he said. "One state should not feel it has the right to change the political system of another or foment subversion or seize pieces of territory to which it feels it should have some claim. But the principle of non-interference must be qualified in important respects. "Acts of genocide can never be a purely internal matter," Blair said, citing the Serbs' forced expulsion of ethnic Albanians from Kosovo and white minority rule in South Africa as examples of threats to international security....Blair said the world has changed in a more fundamental way, and while globalization has transformed economies and working practices, the process is not just economic. It also is a political and security phenomenon, he said. "We live in a world where isolation has ceased to have a reason to exist," he said. "By necessity we have to cooperate with each other across nations." ..."

WorldNetDaily,sm 4/23/99 John Doggett "...Summit leaders will discuss an American initiative that will allow NATO to respond to threats of nuclear weapons or non conventional terrorism from countries outside Europe or the United States, officials said. The initiative will develop joint logistics and improve interoperability command, control, and communications facilities, and develop detection of chemical and biological weapons. According the Thursday's New York Times: "Kosovo has brought NATO into the never-never land," said David Gompert, vice president of Rand who was on the National Security Council in the Bush administration. "It has brought us into a situation where a regime that slaughters its own people is no longer sovereign and where the United Nations Security Council is no longer a requirement." .....In 1992, Strobe Talbot, who is now Clinton's No. 2 National Security Advisor, said the idea of a nation-state didn't make sense anymore. Once he became president, Clinton supported the Convention on Bio-diversity that they produced at the U.N.-sponsored Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The treaty treated America as an ecological miscreant and protected third world countries that are destroying their rain forests. In 1995, Hillary lead a delegation to the U.N.'s Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, China. This conference proposed new U.N. guaranteed rights for children. One of these "rights" would allow the U.N. to remove your child from your home if your 10-year-old didn't want to obey you. In 1997, the Clinton Administration supported the Kyoto global warming treaty...In 1998, the Clinton Administration supported creation of an International Criminal Court in Rome. The International Criminal Court (ICC) treaty says that the U.N. can enter any nation and remove its leader if the U.N. decides that the leader is a "war criminal." It also creates a permanent criminal prosecutor's office. Clinton's reps backed away from the treaty when supporters of the ICC claimed that it could overrule decisions of the United States Supreme Court. ...They have supported creating a global income tax, taxing all international banking transactions, taxing all stock market transactions, and taxing all proceeds of underseas mining. The tax on international banking transactions alone would generate a trillion dollars for the U.N.....If the move to change NATO's charter succeeds, it wouldn't take much for it to become the military arm of the U.N. If the move to give the U.N. independent taxing authority succeeds, the U.N. would become a global government with unprecedented power and wealth. And Bill Clinton could be in charge of the whole ball of wax...."

Reuters 4/24/99 Randall Mikkelsen "...As the air war against Yugoslavia enters a second month, NATO leaders Saturday will adopt a new mission for the alliance that draws on the example of the Kosovo conflict while its outcome remains in doubt. The leaders are to spend the second day of their three-day summit adopting a new ``strategic concept'' that enshrines NATO's broader job of intervening beyond its borders to halt regional crises or to meet other threats to its members' security....``The new concept is going to talk about NATO's core mission, but recognizing new challenges such as regional conflicts, such as weapons of mass destruction, such as (nuclear) proliferation and transnational threats such as terrorism,'' Hammer said. ``We're not creating a global cop here ... there is a basic understanding that NATO will act in a greater European area,'' a U.S. official said...."

NewsMax 4/24/99 JR Nyquist "...The Western alliance is inching toward an abyss -- either a confrontation with Russia or a split within NATO. These are the dangers courted by President Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Their strategy? To bomb the Yugoslav army until it can no longer offer effective resistance to a ground invasion. Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, his country under bombardment, is given no alternative but to withdraw the Yugoslav army from Yugoslav territory, making way for a NATO occupation. Milosevic now appears willing to accept an international peacekeeping force on Yugoslav soil, providing that NATO pulls back from the border and stops the air assault. But President Clinton will not agree to Milosevic's compromise. What is wrong with that compromise? It appears that President Clinton wants the crisis to continue, if not intensify....Blair further declared that NATO forces would enter Yugoslavia with or without Milosevic's permission. "We are all internationalists now," said Blair, "whether we like it or not."....Meanwhile, Russian mobilizations continue on land and sea. The Ukrainian and Russian navies are presently engaged in training exercises. Dozens of warships have been mobilized. At the same time, Russian diplomats are courting Israel, Greece and France -- feeling out weaknesses in the West's global position. Russia's ally, President Jiang Zemin of China, has once again called on the People's Liberation Army to brace for a possible war. There is "regional tension and unstable elements," he said earlier this month. "The world is not safe."..."

USIS 4/24/99 "...President Clinton says the North Atlantic allies have reached a consensus to consider military intervention in regional and ethnic conflicts outside the territory of NATO members. "For five years now, we have been working to build a new NATO, prepared to deal with the security challenges of the new century," Clinton told reporters in Washington April 24, the second day of the NATO summit. "Today we reaffirmed our readiness in appropriate circumstances to address regional and ethnic conflicts beyond the territory of NATO members." The President refused to say how far NATO would consider projecting its power, saying it was not a geographical issue.

 

AP 4/25/99 "....NATO promised a larger and more flexible military force ready for the first time to engage in conflicts in problems areas beyond the boundaries of the alliance's members. NATO's new blueprint, its first update since 1991, will prepare the organization ``to deal with the security challenges of the new century,'' President Clinton said. ``We have reaffirmed our readiness ... to address regional and ethnic conflicts beyond the territory of NATO members,'' Clinton said....."

4/28/99 Henry Lamb: Worldnetdaily.com Freeper Thanatos "...The NATO Summit brought together the chief executives of 19 nations who assumed the authority to ignore the NATO Charter and the U.N. Charter and inflict war upon a sovereign nation. Milosevic's inhumanity to the Kosovars is despicable; it is, however, far less threatening to the future of civilization than the unauthorized action taken by NATO. The American experience has demonstrated to the world that the first principle of self-governance should be that government power arises from, and is limited by, the consent of the people. Milosevic does not recognize this first principle; neither does NATO. The U.S. Congress, the voice of the people, did not declare war on Yugoslavia; NATO did. Mr. Clinton's election to be the chief executive officer did not empower him to become the voice of the American people. His election empowered him only to execute the laws enacted by the U.S. Congress. He has usurped congressional authority by committing American troops to the illegal war in Yugoslavia...."

WorldNetDaily 4/30/99 Alan Keyes Freeper laz "...I hope we will be able to awaken those Americans particularly who are in the Republican Party and conservative ranks to the true nature of this war. Clinton, Blair and the rest have put a false humanitarian face on it, but under the phony mask of humanitarianism is the reality of a globalist objective -- the establishment of global sovereignty in derogation of our national sovereignty and to the destruction of the Constitution. If we want to live under the system of self-government the Constitution provides, then we have to defend against this assault -- the abdication of our national sovereignty involved in this undeclared and illegitimate war...."

Omaha World-Herald 4/29/99 "...Javier Solana, the secretary general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, made a provocative statement on NATO's 50th anniversary: "We are moving into a system of international relations in which human rights, rights of minorities are . . . more important even than sovereignty." If true, that would be a dramatic departure. A policy of respecting the sovereignty of the nation-state has most of the time governed relations among nations for more than three centuries..... NATO was formed to keep the Soviet Union from infringing on the free nations of Europe. The Soviet Union trampled on human rights. An estimated 10 million Soviet citizens were killed during the reign of Josef Stalin. People in its puppet states were suppressed and brutalized. A wall was built to keep people in East Berlin, and those who tried to escape were killed. But as bad as the human rights situation was in the Soviet empire, NATO's policy did not include bombing or invading the Soviet Union to make it change its human rights policy. Its sovereignty was respected. Likewise, the sovereignty of China is respected, despite its appalling human rights record. There's also the question of practicality. It's one thing to start a human rights war with Yugoslavia, quite another to engage a superpower, as the Soviet Union was, or a major regional power, as China still is...."

Stratfor Inc 4/27/99 "...What has emerged from the NATO summit concerning Kosovo is pure gridlock. Three basic decisions were made: first, there will not be a ground war; second, there will not be a major redefinition of negotiating terms; and, third, there will be an intensified air war. Having bluffed and been called, NATO, rather than reshuffling the deck, has decided to keep pushing in money, hoping that Milosevic will eventually fold his hand. The only new element to emerge is an agreement to embargo oil shipments to Yugoslavia. That decision in itself was shocking. Consider the extraordinary fact that NATO even considered going to war with Serbia without having established a blockade. That absurdity was compounded when it looked for a few days like NATO could not generate unanimity on the subject of a blockade...."

Stratfor Inc 4/27/99 "...This is not to say that the NATO officials and its military officers are in denial. They are painfully aware of the deep problems they are facing. The denial is being generated by the institution itself. What is now obvious is that there will not be an institutional solution to the crisis. By this we mean that NATO, as an institution, which involves decisions by nineteen governments and operates on the bases of consensus, cannot generate a vision for either winning or concluding the war. NATO can neither shift its military strategy nor diplomatic strategy without losing the consensus its decision-making is predicated upon. Therefore, NATO is locked in to the existing policy that isn't working because flexibility has become impossible...."

Stratfor Inc 4/27/99 "...Try as Prime Minister Blair might to brand Milosevic, he is not a threat to civilization. If every charge leveled against him were completely true, then he would be a vicious, genocidal thug. But he would still not be a threat to civilization in the sense that Hitler or Stalin was. He just doesn't have the battalions. Since he is not a fundamental threat to the whole, NATO simply doesn't have the political consensus, decision making structure or flexibility to craft strategies, operations and tactics in real- time. That is the weakness of any multinational grouping and why NATO cannot function as the speechmakers in Washington might wish. To put it simply, since NATO is not sovereign, it cannot make sovereign decisions...."

International Herald Tribune 4/30/99 Joseph Fitchett "...Concern about the conflict in Kosovo helped to spur decisions at the NATO summit meeting last weekend to help Europe prepare itself, at least on paper, to fight such wars on its own. A series of decisions by the 19 allied leaders pushed ahead an agreement that would allow the European allies to borrow expensive military equipment from the United States, including spy satellites, cargo planes and perhaps even precision-guided cruise missiles, for independent use in conflicts in which Washington did not want to get involved. If this spurs Europeans to step up military cooperation and develop more mobile, better-equipped armed forces over the coming decade, Europe would gain military clout to back up its diplomatic ambitions in smaller Kosovo-type conflicts or peacekeeping operations. ''That would be the most important step in the balance of power in and around Europe since the collapse of Soviet military strength,'' a French diplomat said Thursday. The United States would still dominate global issues, but a NATO that contained a stronger European component, and yet did not threaten the alliance's character as a trans-Atlantic venture, would give Washington a powerful regional ally....The deal, which alliance leaders described as ''building the European Security and Defense Identity within the Alliance,'' turned on a fundamental trade-off between Washington and the key European capitals. The United States plays a central role in this evolution because it is the only country with the sophisticated military equipment that enables NATO to perform in Kosovo and that the Europeans would need to borrow for independent missions. As spelled out in documents issued by the summit participants, NATO - in practice, the United States - recognizes a ''presumption'' that Europeans, operating as the European Union, will get the U.S. military capabilities needed for an EU-led operation...."

Chicago Sun-Times 4/29/99 Robert Novak "....The "new strategic concept" adopted by the alliance at its 50th anniversary celebration propels the U.S. military into unlimited responsibilities for policing a new world order. Without consulting their parliaments, governments of 19 democracies committed themselves to intervene by force in any sovereign country whose government NATO does not like. Having embarked on its first full-scale military operation, what was created as a defensive alliance against the Soviet Union now is set for multiple Kosovos--all depending on American military prowess. This breathtaking transmogrification of NATO into global police officer hardly was noticed by members of Congress. An exception is Republican Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, who ponders whether the NATO treaty has been changed so much that it requires Senate ratification....A peculiarity of the summit was Bill Clinton's passivity compared with Tony Blair's ebullience. The British prime minister, reflecting Western Europe's left-of-center tone, spelled out "a new doctrine of international community." Blair made it clear that the West now recognizes no bar to intervention in the domestic affairs of a sovereign country. Michael Mandelbaum of Johns Hopkins University asserted on PBS this week that "in order to carry on these missions, NATO would have to engage regularly in the kind of war it's now fighting in Yugoslavia, and not just in Europe but elsewhere." ..."

Washington Post 5/04/99 Graham Fuller "...The world had better get used to what's going on in Kosovo, because it represents the wave of the future. We require drastic reconsideration of policies as we rethink issues of minorities, borders and national sovereignty. The simple reality is that in the next century minorities will be increasingly unwilling to live within borders -- to which they have been arbitrarily assigned by history -- when the conditions seem intolerable. More than ever before they will demand a voice over what peoples will rule them and how. Lots of states simply employing force are destined to founder. But the key will be good governance: If the states cannot provide good governance, their minorities may expend some blood or treasure to gain maximum autonomy or independence. The challenge for the world then becomes: How hard will the community of nations fight to preserve borders and territorial sovereignty of states that are brutal, incompetent or failing? Our international order since the Treaty of Westphalia has rested on the basis of sovereignty of nations and "sanctity" of borders -- that is, until the borders are changed by one or another event. Borders are generally treated with reverence. Yet how does one explain to a Tibetan that he is required to live within the borders of a China that practices culturicide simply because the British Empire signed a treaty with the Ching Dynasty forming a buffer against the Russian Empire? Such arguments are quite surreal to people abused or denied rights by despotic leadership....."

Agence France Presse 5/6/99 "...Nelson Mandela used one of his final addresses as South African president Thursday to call for a "new world order" and justice for the poor, but avoided references to China's human rights violations. Security was tight as a frail-looking Mandela addressed a capacity crowd at Beijing University for almost one hour, touching on issues ranging from economic globalization to the NATO bombing of Kosovo. "The interdependence of our economies and a global economic system...sees a widening gap between the richer and poorer parts of humanity," he said. "We must ensure that globalization benefits not only the powerful but also those whose lives are ravaged by poverty," he said, to applause from the audience, of which just a small minority were students. He stressed his hope that Asia and Africa would shape a "new world order" to promote equality, safeguard world peace, and reflect "democratic norms of our age in the decision-making structures of world bodies."..."

stratfor.com 5/10/99 "...2119 GMT, 990510 Western European Union foreign and defense ministers have agreed to work toward the establishment of a European defense organization within the next 18 months. Next month a plan for the organization will be submitted to European Union leaders for their approval. The notion of a strong WEU has always been tied to and often overwhelmed by the question of its relationship to NATO, but in this case the proposal apparently has NATO's blessing. At the meeting, NATO secretary General Javier Solana said, "An important factor in ensuring a more equitable transatlantic partnership will be the development of the defense capabilities of the European allies." As STRATFOR reported last November, the idea of integrating the Western European Union as the full-fledged military arm of the European Union gained steam when British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that the UK was willing to consider means by which Europe could react to crises when the U.S. was reluctant to commit itself [see STRATFOR's Nov. 17, 1998 Global Intelligence Update]...."

5/14/99 Interfax Freeper Thanatos "...Russia "is greatly worried about an actual division of countries into categories, with one group of select nations that loves to describe itself as 'the world community' imposing its conditions on the others," acting Deputy Foreign Minister Yevgeny Gusarov said in Moscow on Friday as he was opening a roundtable discussion of 'The NATO Operations in Yugoslavia and the International Security System'. The recent notion of "clubs of countries" has been transformed into "groupings," Gusarov said. This is inconsistent with the construction of a Euro-Atlantic security system without division lines, Gusarov said. "What is going on in Yugoslavia is leading to consolidation of division lines and the erection of new barriers," he said...."

Christian Science Monitor 5/14/99 Kevin Platt "...Nato's bombing campaign in Yugoslavia and its accidental targeting of Beijing's embassy in Belgrade are triggering calls by the Chinese Army for increased defense funding. Last Friday's attack, which killed three Chinese journalists and wounded 20 diplomatic personnel, "is reinforcing China's sense of vulnerability in the face of overwhelming US and NATO military might," says a senior Chinese official. Fear mixed with rage animated four days of often violent protests outside US diplomatic outposts across China. During virtually every Chinese newscast this week, waves of Chinese troops are shown angrily punching the sky as they denounce the Belgrade bombing. The state-controlled media here are still calling the bombing a premeditated attack, after delaying for three days publishing President Clinton's explanation of the incident as a tragic mistake and his apologies for the loss of life. On Monday the Chinese leadership said that it was suspending high-level military contacts with the US and participation in international talks on weapons proliferation. The embassy bombing, says a Western military analyst who asked not to be identified, "is throwing fuel on the fire of Chinese fears of NATO's expansion and its new military doctrine of intervening in a sovereign state on human rights grounds."..."

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years.... It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectuals elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national determination practiced in past centuries." -David Rockerfeller: 1990, Baden, Baden Germany at a UN conference (MRC 5/16/99)

The Daily Republican/LA Times 5/17/99 Michael Lind Freeper hope "...Through the smoke of villages burned by Serbs in Kosovo and cities bombed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization across Yugoslavia, a conflict over the basic norms of world order can be discerned. The U.S. and its allies claim that the right of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo to a high degree of self-determination justifies foreign interference in Yugoslavia's domestic affairs. Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic insists this is an invasion of a sovereign state. Belgrade is backed by Russia and China, both fearful of a precedent being set for outside intervention in rebellious provinces like Chechnya and Tibet. The fight in the Balkans, then, is more than a war between nations; it is a war between the principles of self-determination and sovereignty....."

 

NewsMax 5/18/99 Linda Bowles "...Chinese ambassador Li Zhaoxing looked like a prison camp commander extracting a written confession from a prisoner as he stood over Bill Clinton in the Oval Office. His scowl was menacing as he watched the president sign a book of condolences for victims of the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade..... Given China's domestic tyranny and repression of its own people, the brutalization of Tibet, the persecution of Christians, the theft of U.S. nuclear and military secrets, armed threats against Taiwan, the transfer of nuclear and missile technology to rogue nations who hate America, the trashing of the American embassy in China, the terrorization of our ambassador and his family, and the illegal funneling of millions of dollars to the Clinton-Gore re-election campaign, you have to wonder why we are not the ones demanding an apology and breaking off negotiations. By our actions, we have effectively ceded the moral high ground to one of the most tyrannical dictatorships on the planet Earth. What happened to us? How did we wind up in this weak and humiliating posture? The answer is simple. What happened to us was "collateral damage."... It is the damage done to international relationships and to the image of America as the moral leader in the post Cold-War world. On April 25, following a 50th anniversary summit, NATO issued a Washington Declaration. In effect, NATO formally announced its intention to preemptively deal with human rights violations and perceived threats beyond the borders of its member nations. Surely, it was no surprise that the non-NATO world reacted with apprehension and resentment. Why would they not? NATO had just thrown down the gauntlet.....Throughout the non-NATO world, America is increasingly seen as an aggressor nation, the new "Evil Empire," demonstrably unfit to preach to other nations about human rights and democratic freedoms. The perception grows that America has fallen from grace and lost its image as the light and hope of the world. The view is taking hold that the American people have scrapped their Constitution, abandoned their founding principles, and put themselves in the heavy hands of an elite band of liberal globalists....."

www.scmp.com 5/18/99 Reuters "...President Bill Clinton has outlined his views on US military intervention, saying mass ethnic violence must be stopped but smaller conflicts or wars fought for different reasons were out of bounds. "We can't stop every war. People have a right even to fight sometimes," Mr Clinton told a group of Democratic supporters on Sunday. "But on the eve of the 21st century, we should say: 'You know, you don't have to like each other around the world, but we won't tolerate mass killing based on religious and racial and ethnic differences,' " he said. ..."

The Deccan Herald 5/20/99 New Delhi "...China has stated that a new international order has to be established on the basis of five principles of peaceful coexistence. To this end it suggests commonality of views with India on the crisis in Yugoslavia, and its opposition to the NATO airstrikes. "China and India share extensive common views and interests on many regional and international issues. Both stand for the establishment of a new international political order on the basis of the five principles of peaceful co-existence and oppose NATO's airstrike against Yugoslavia.".... That this view is being taken seriously by the government of India is evidenced from the fact that India is now considering taking the initiative on the issue. Senior level meetings have forced the conclusion that this statement requires some action..... It brought together ambassadors from six (five actually, the Chinese Ambassador was in Beijing), Libya, Cuba, Iraq, Russia, China and Yugoslavia on a common platform to discuss and elaborate individual country's views on the Kosovo crisis...."

 

http://www.newsday.com/ap/rnmpwh19.htm 5/20/99 AP Freeper Thanatos "....The House moved Thursday to give Congress veto power over U.N. land designations, with supporters saying that such international actions threaten the property rights of Americans. The bill, opposed by the administration and with poor prospects in the Senate, would require congressional consent before any federal land can be included in an international land reserve. It is aimed specifically at two U.N. programs -- biosphere reserves and World Heritage areas...."

EWTN 5/23/99 Freeper marshmallow "...Donor countries promised more than US$6.2 billion in "humanitarian aid, soft loans, and debt relief" to the stricken nations of Central America * In this round of meetings, it is expected that donor nations and multilateral organizations will ask for a variety of concessions from the Central American nations. These could take the form of concessions on the environment, social questions like women's rights, and on population reduction...."

The Washington Post 5/28/99 Charles Krauthammer "...But at the very core of this scandal lies a policy and an idea. The policy is euphemized as "engagement." (Seven years ago, candidate Clinton called it "coddling.") It is a policy of openness, embrace, trade, exchanges by an administration that trumpets China not as a potential rising adversary, not as a source of instability in the Pacific, but as a "strategic partner" of the United States. And underlying that policy is an idea: globalism, the notion that we are entering a new era -- a high-tech, Internet, info-highway, McDonald's-in-every-capital era -- in which borders and sovereignty are becoming obsolete. In such an era, the old power politics of the nation-state are equally obsolete. Under the new dispensation, to view other great powers as potential enemies is to be mired in Cold War old-think. Rising powers such as China are to be seduced into civility by a welcoming, nurturing, supporting American embrace..... The power of this fanciful new-era globalism has allowed the Clintonites to be insouciantly lax in every aspect of their dealings with China: espionage, technology transfer, open unregulated trade. They find it hard to understand that other nations, in particular those with histories infinitely longer and richer than ours, could have a worldview that might differ...."

Iran Daily News 5/29/99 "...European socialist leaders, including British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Germany's Gerhard Schroeder, were meeting here Thursday to boost their campaign for the European elections, AFP reported. "This meeting will illustrate what we socialists want to accomplish together for Europe, a Europe in favor of jobs and improved social conditions," French Socialist Party secretary-general Francois Hollande said. In addition to Schroeder and Blair, the other socialist heads of government expected to attend the meeting were French Premier Lionel Jospin, Italy's Massimo d'Alema, Portugal's Antonio Guterres and Austrian Chancellor Viktor Klima. Jospin was to meet separately with Blair prior to the congress. They along with their counterparts were each to deliver a speech beginning at 1800 GMT on their party platform ahead of the June 13 vote, preparations for which have been overshadowed by the Kosovo crisis...."

 

San Jose Mercury 6/1/99 Charles Krauthammer Freeper hope "...The power of this fanciful new-era globalism has allowed the Clintonites to be insouciantly lax in every aspect of their dealings with China: espionage, technology transfer, open unregulated trade. They find it hard to understand that other nations, in particular those with histories infinitely longer and richer than ours, could have a worldview that might differ..........It is a pity that China does not share Clinton's woolly globalism. It is a scandal that he is oblivious to that reality. That is the real China scandal...."

STRATFOR's Global Intelligence Update 6/1/99 "...The news from around the world is about war, political intrigue, and espionage. The obsession with free and fair trade, global interdependence, and economies without borders has evaporated over the past year or so.What we are experiencing is the reassertion of traditional understandings of nationalism and of national security and the decline of the ideology of globalism. The return of conflict among nations to the center stage of history and in the daily newspaper is the important news. The nation-state, far from declining, is vigorously reasserting itself, with the inevitable accompaniment of bullets and blood....Perhaps what is most startling about it is that we should be startled at all, for the return of national security at the center of global concerns is merely the return of the world to its natural order. After a decade of hearing about the decline of the nation-state and the triumph of globalism, the fact is that the nation-state and nationalism are vibrantly alive. It follows from this that concern for the security of the nation has superceded the globalist visions of "the world without borders" and the transcendence of politico-military issues by denationalized economic entities and forces.....This is startling only in the context of some of the things that were being said less than a decade ago. In the minds of some, the end of the Cold War marked the end not only of an era in history, but of a fundamental, millennial shift in how the world worked... The dynamics of economic life, this theory went, had taken us to a point where international trade had created an intensifying interdependence among nations. Markets were so intimately tied together that the disruption of any one market would disrupt all other markets. This made war and even deep-seated political conflict unthinkable, since war and conflict would inevitably disrupt economic and commercial relations which, in turn, would wreak havoc on not only the combatants, but also on third parties who would be affected by any hot or cold war.....The event that shattered this view of the world was the Asian economic meltdown....Second, and perhaps more important, was the dog that didn't bark. According to globalist theory, the integration of world financial markets meant that a major downturn in any one market would inevitably have substantial effects on all markets. That simply didn't happen....The Asian collapse challenged globalist theory while at the same time resurrecting Asian nationalism....We mean by nationalism something much simpler and more profound. First, we mean the resurrection of the idea that there is a shared fate within nations, and that being an Egyptian or Japanese or American is a profoundly important, defining component of someone's personality which, in turn, defines a shared interest and fate among compatriots. In its extreme form, it means that dying for one's country makes rational sense in a way that economists simply don't understand. Second, we mean that the nation is not simply an arena for economic activity, but is, in addition, a political and a military entity..... That means that nations do not simply engage in economic activity, but that they engage in politics, war, and espionage - a host of things. What defines a nation is its place in the world and its people. Everything, economics, politics, and security derive from the nation's geopolitical reality. A place needs to be exploited and defended. Hence economics and war go hand in hand.....When we step back and view the world carefully, it is clear that we have returned from the land of globalist fantasy. This doesn't mean that we have returned to the Cold War. That is over and buried. However, the essential characteristics of the Cold War - a dangerous place filled with political intrigue, espionage, and warfare - have returned. To be more precise, the essential reality of the world has reasserted itself. This is not a passing phase. It is the way things are. This means that every country's leadership will be asking about providing for the national security - as a precondition for providing for the national prosperity. The countries that ask that question first and best will have a tremendous advantage over those who avoid the question..."

The Associated Press 6/3/99 "...A copy of the Kosovo peace plan approved by the Serb parliament today, obtained by The Associated Press from parliamentary sources..... 1: Imminent and verifiable end to violence and repression of Kosovo. 2. Verifiable withdrawal from Kosovo of all military, police and paramilitary forces according to a quick timetable. 3. Deployment in Kosovo, under U.N. auspicies, of efficient international civilian and security presences which would act as can be decided according to Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter and be capable of guaranteeing fulfillment of joint goals. 4. International security presence, with an essential NATO participation, must be deployed under a unified control and command and authorized to secure safe environment for all the residents in Kosovo and enable the safe return of the displaced persons and refugees to their homes. 5. Establishment of an interim administration for Kosovo ....6. After the withdrawal, an agreed number of Serb personnel will be allowed to return to perform the following duties: liaison with the international civilian mission and international security presence, marking mine fields, maintaining a presence at places of Serb heritage, maintaining a presence at key border crossings. 7. Safe and free return of all refugees and the displaced under the supervision of UNHCR and undisturbed access for humanitarian organizations to Kosovo. 8. Political process directed at reaching interim political agreement which would secure essential autonomy for Kosovo, with full taking into consideration of the Rambouillet agreement, the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and other states in the region as well as demilitarization of the Kosovo Liberation Army. The talks between the sides about the solution should not delay or disrupt establishment of the democratic self-governning institutions. ...."

6/3/99 UK Times Charles Bremner "...GALVANISED by the conflict in Kosovo, Tony Blair and other European leaders today lay the foundations for a common defence policy that will enable the European Union to mount military operations in countries near its borders. The defence accord, described by the Government as historic, falls well short of creating a combat-ready "European army". The pact to be settled at the Cologne EU summit envisages European troops being used to intervene in crises to keep the peace and offer humanitarian aid under the aegis of Nato, but without American involvement. An EU capacity to field forces separately from the American-led alliance is seen as vital to equipping the Union with the diplomatic and security muscle that it has long lacked...."

Reuters 6/3/99 "...European Union leaders on Friday appointed NATO Secretary-General Javier Solana as the EU's first foreign and security policy czar at a summit that gave the 15-nation bloc unprecedented defence powers, diplomats said...."

Knight-Ridder Washington Bureau 6/5/99 Joyce M. Davis "...``When this ends, it's the end of NATO in its current form,'' said Stephen Fischer-Galati, a University of Colorado history professor and an expert on Eastern Europe. ``I am quite convinced that the Europeans are going to establish their own security organization, keeping the United States at a safe distance.'' .....William Stuebner, a specialist in international law at the congressionally funded United States Institute of Peace in Washington, D.C., says the bombing is bound to have an effect on conflicts around the globe and on U.S. relations with other countries. ``We can spin this all we want and say that we've won, but there will be serious repercussions from NATO's actions in Yugoslavia,'' he said. U.S. ties to China and Russia became strained, as both countries opposed the bombing, and China even suffered casualties when its embassy in Belgrade was bombed. Both Chinese and Russian officials fear that NATO has become so bold that it could decide to interfere in their internal affairs, Stuebner and other analysts say Early on, the NATO offensive stirred China's worst fears about U.S. willingness to use military power to get its way. Beijing argued that NATO was a pawn of the United States and that the Kosovo crisis was an internal matter for Yugoslavia to resolve. What really bothered Beijing, China specialists say, was the precedent set by NATO's action..... Many in Russia believe they face a more immediate threat, with NATO already at their borders....``The most important result (of the Kosovo crisis), which was foreseeable from the first day of the conflict, was that many countries who don't have nuclear weapons will take a new look at this option,'' said Martin van Creveld, professor of military history and strategy at Hebrew University of Jerusalem. ``They will say to themselves, `We want to make certain that nothing like this ever happens to us.' Suppose I were an Indonesian, Algerian or Nigerian: All these countries have severe ethnic problems.'' ..."

New York Times 6/7/99 William Safire ".... What are the lessons the West is learning in trying to stop national criminality? "1 Never tell the criminals what you will not do.... 2. When you decide to strike, strike decisively.... 3. Do not place a higher value on the lives of warriors than on the lives of civilians...4. Do not overestimate the courage of an army and paramilitary that kills the unarmed.... 5. Remember that in any alliance, some allies will be more allied than others..... 6. Do not let mistrust of the leadership's competence becloud faith in the rightness of a cause.... 7. Do not let the loser win..... 8. Don't try to mix oil and water in patrolling the peace.

Human Events 6/4/99 Scott Park "....Conservatives in the House, on May 20, beat back several United Nations land management programs that they say threaten property rights in the United States,by passing a bill designed to put American sovereignty before the whims of international bureaucrats. Under the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act (HR 883), which after much debate was approved by voice vote, Congress would have to first specifically approve any area in the United States that is subject to an international land-use nomination, classification or designation....."I believe Congress should not abdicate its responsibilities for land management to international groups whose members have no concern for protecting individual property rights and American interest," said former Ambassador to the United Nations Jeane Kirkpatrick. And former Secretary of the Interior Don Hodel, whose earlier casual remarks had also been quoted, said the programs represent a threat to U.S. sovereignty. "During the Reagan Administration, these programs were honorary and benign in nature," Hodel wrote to Rep. Richard Pombo (R-Calif.). "However, like so many United Nations programs, this one has fallen subject to mission creep. It has become a proxy for international attempt to override national sovereignty. I believe [the bill] is a necessary and resonable safeguard for American citizens against overreaching, unelected, unaccountable domestic and international bureaucracies."..."

6/7/99 UK Telegraph Freeper Thanatos "...THE Clinton White House was considering its long-term commitment in the Balkans yesterday amid cautious optimism that the policy of bombing Slobodan Milosevic into submission had succeeded. Senior members of the administration began to prepare America for a drawn-out peacekeeping operation in Kosovo to stabilise a region one official called "a cancer in the middle of Europe". "We are going to stay engaged in this until this part of Europe looks like the rest of Europe," a senior State Department official said. "We are not talking about troops for two years. We are talking about a long-term engagement in the region." ..."

American Spectator 6/99 John B. Roberts II "...On the morning of March 29, 1999, the sixth day of NATO's bombing campaign against the Serbs, American diplomats throughout the Office of the High Representative (OHR) in Bosnia-Herzegovina received an unusual message from their colleague in Tuzla. It was Foreign Service officer Thomas R. Hutson's last official e-mail to his associates. Hutson's message was a bombshell. He was openly attacking Clinton's Kosovo policy. "My personal reasons for retiring now have only been strengthened by the ill-conceived decision of NATO to bomb the Serbs," Hutson wrote. "This decision has unified the Serbs as no other event I have witnessed in my observation of the area for nearly three decades." "As for its impact on Bosnia and Herzegovina," he warned, "I fear that it has driven a stake into the heart of the Dayton accords." His e-mail closed with a quote from Abba Eban: "Diplomacy should be judged by what it prevents, not only by what it initiates and creates...Much of it is a holding action designed to avoid explosion until the unifying forces of history take humanity into their embrace."...Hutson tried first to shape policy from the inside. During a briefing on resettlement of Bosnian war refugees, Hutson alerted NATO Supreme Commander Wesley Clark to the difficulties of dealing with the Serbs. Using a Turkish word, inat, to describe the Serb temperament, Hutson told Clark the Serbs could not be bombed into submission. Inat, Hutson says, means irrational. The Serbs' attachment to Kosovo as a symbol of national independence is like a Texan's view of the Alamo. NATO would not easily force the Serbs to allow Kosovo to secede from Yugoslavia and join with Albania, the goal of the Kosovar liberation movement since the early nineties.....When he met with Albright, Holbrooke, and Fuerth in 1995 Hutson may have thought they were simply uninterested in his political solution to preserve the Yugoslav Federation and prevent war. He didn't realize the three were leading advocates of a new and radical use of military intervention around the globe. In the early nineties, when Clinton was still governor of Arkansas, they formed part of a small foreign policy elite convened by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace to change U.S. foreign policy after the Cold War. Reports signed by all three recommended a dramatic escalation of the use of military force to settle other countries' domestic conflicts. Ironically, an institution dedicated to "International Peace" set the stage for Clinton's interventionist policies in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo, triggering the most widespread deployment of U.S. troops since the Second World War...."

Los Angeles Times 6/8/99 James Pinkerton "...Quick quiz: Who once sang, "Imagine there's no countries"? You're right if you answered John Lennon. Now how about this: "Nationhood as we know it will be obsolete." Was that the next line of "Imagine," the late Beatle's 1971 utopian anthem? No, those words were written by Strobe Talbott, deputy secretary of State for this particular nation, when he was still a columnist for Time magazine, on July 20, 1992. Yet, even if he can't carry a tune, attention should be paid to Talbott. He is more than a paper-pusher: He was the top U.S. negotiator in the Kosovo peace talks, spending some 50 hours negotiating last week with Russia's Balkans envoy Viktor S. Chernomyrdin and Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari to strike the accord, which as of this writing is still discordant...Talbott has left a plentiful paper trail: In addition to 20 years of work for Time, he has written, co-written or edited nine books about the Soviet Union and the Cold War. One theme runs through most of them: that Ronald Reagan, described in "Deadly Gambits" (1984) as a "befuddled character," deserves most of the blame for the nuclear arms race of the 1980s. Indeed, in 1990, as his magazine dubbed Mikhail Gorbachev "Man of the Decade," Talbott credited Gorbachev with revolutionizing not just the U.S.S.R. but the rest of the planet: "The Gorbachev phenomenon may have a transforming effect outside the communist world, on the perceptions and therefore the policies of the West." ....If nothing else, Talbott expressed himself plainly: "All countries are basically social arrangements, accommodations to changing circumstances . . . they are all artificial and temporary." He pointed to the then-emerging European Union as a "pioneer" of "supranational" regional cohesion that could "pave the way for globalism." ...."

Fox News 6/8/99 "...A U.S. proposal to defend democracy throughout the Western Hemisphere was shelved Tuesday after Mexico and other nations in the Organization of American States (OAS) said it smacked of interventionism. The measure, which had been set to be adopted at the OAS's annual general assembly meeting in Guatemala, would have allowed OAS members to turn to a "Group of Friends'' to help prevent political crises such as a coup..... "Every action by the OAS has to be based on the principle that each country needs to find its own solution for its problems,'' Peru's Foreign Minister Fernando de Trazegnies told delegates Tuesday. "When somebody suddenly storms my house and comes in, I don't consider him a friend,'' de Trazegnies said...."

Xinhua 6/9/99 "....a high-ranking russian official said here wednesday that moscow opposes nato's new strategy because it means that the military alliance can meddle at will in the internal affairs of any country under various pretexts. during a meeting in the kremlin with zhang wannian, vice-chairman of the central military commission of china, vladimir putin, secretary of the russian security council and director of federal security service, said both russia and china advocate a multi-polar world rather than a uni-polar one championed by the united states...."

The Daily Republican 6/10/99 Jan Oberg "...A new Cold War is approaching.And there is a larger framework. The Ukrainian parliament has voted unanimously to revert the country to its former nuclear status. On April 30, a meeting of the Russian National Security Council approved the modernisation of all strategic and tactical nuclear warheads. It decided to develop strategic low-yield nuclear missiles capable of pin-point strikes anywhere in the world. The defence ministry authorised a change in nuclear doctrine. Thus Russians feel humiliated through the 1990s, but go along with most US/Western demands because of its frail leadership, its economic weakness - it can hardly pay for its own troops to be deployed in Kosovo for years ahead - and its dependence on the West. And in Beijing, the bombing of the Chinese Belgrade embassy has resulted in a shift away from the no-first-strike principle. Add the spy accusation, human rights policies and WTO negotiations and we begin to see the contours of a new Cold War. Russia, China and India - and others - have learnt not to trust the stated peaceful aims of the West. Many countries with secessionist minorities are likely to anxiously wonder when they will get the treatment Yugoslavia did...."

UPI Spotlight 6/11/99 "...Following his nationally televised address on the Kosovo conflict, President Clinton headed (Thursday evening) to a Democratic party fund-raising dinner, where he told donors, "This is a night you can be proud of your country." Clinton also promised more such actions around the world in places where people are attacked for their racial, ethnic or religious background, saying, "If we can stop it, we intend to stop it."..."

newsmax.com 6/9/99 Carl Limbacher and Caron Grich "...In April, a new strategic concept was adopted by the NATO alliance at its 50th anniversary celebration in Washington, D.C.. The new initiative "propels the U.S. military into unlimited responsibilities for policing a new world order," according to syndicated columnist Robert Novak. One Senator told Novak that the shift in NATO policy is so dramatic that it might be necessary to submit the revisions to Congress for ratification, since the move formalizes the new U.S. role as global policeman.....Novak noted that British Prime Minister Tony Blair seemed extraordinarily enthusiastic about NATO's expanding role; which is a great bargain from Blair's standpoint if the current division of labor holds. The U.S. is currently shouldering about 80% of the Balkan war effort today. Blair regaled the gathering with his own theories about " a new doctrine of international community." According to Novak, "He made it clear that the West now recognizes no bar to intervention into the domestic affairs of a sovereign country." Meanwhile, Clinton sat passively as the Brit outlined their alliance's new ambitions. Perhaps the President knew the Prime Minister had said too much, inadvertently lifting the veil on the West's designs beyond Kosovo -- which may one day lead all the way to the Caspian Sea....."

6/10/99 SCMP Willy Wo-Lap Lam "...Beijing has adopted a two-pronged policy to ensure that national security is in line with its perception of an enhanced anti-China containment policy by the West. The Communist Party hierarchy is also committed to maintaining the "multi-polar" nature of the world order, meaning putting limits on the powers of the United States. After the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, President Jiang Zemin has held marathon sessions with advisers from areas including diplomacy, defence and foreign trade. One recommendation by the experts is that China must ensure peace and good neighbourliness along its borders. The past few weeks have seen dozens of meetings between Chinese officials and their counterparts from neighbouring states. The latter range from regional powers such as Russia and Pakistan to small countries including North Korea, Nepal, Laos, Burma, as well as former Soviet countries bordering Xinjiang. Several visiting delegations, including those from Russia, Pakistan and Laos, were led by military officers. PLA generals have been active on foreign trips or meeting civilian foreign dignitaries in Beijing..."

Toronto Sun 6/11/99 Matthew Fisher "...Having gone to war over Kosovo, NATO will now be expected to intervene whenever a sovereign country misbehaves and loses the trust of its people. But given how the Kosovo experience tarnished NATO's good name among doubting Thomases such as Greece, Italy and Germany, it is difficult to see how it will be able to muster such a coalition again. Like the boy who cried wolf, it may be a case of NATO being unable to fight when the day finally comes that western geo-political interests are really at stake....."

AP 6/11/99 "...China, which vehemently opposed NATO airstrikes since they began, heaped more scorn on the alliance today and claimed credit for leading the world to a peace agreement for the Kosovo crisis. Beijing argued that sovereignty is more important than human rights. In its opposition lay a deep-seated fear that NATO had set a precedent for armed intervention without U.N. approval...."

SF Chronicle 6/13/99 Christopher Layne "....Understanding Globalization By Thomas L. Friedman Farrar, Straus & Giroux; 394 pages....Friedman's book is interesting, breezy and a good read. The drawback of this rather breathless account of globalization, however, is its analytical superficiality. As a journalist, Friedman lacks the deep knowledge of both history and international politics necessary to place this trend du jour in its proper context. Indeed, there is nothing new about globalization. In fact, by most measures, the international economy was more globalized before World War I than it is today. Today's so-called globalization is, as Friedman admits, really Americanization; that is, the spread of American ideals, culture, and political and economic institutions....Even in today's era of globalization, international economic relations take place within a political framework. Globalization, like any system of international economic openness, depends on a stable geopolitical environment maintained by the military prowess of a dominant power -- the United States today, England in the 19th century. To put it bluntly, globalization depends on American hegemony. .....There is a second, more profound danger lurking in this hegemonic strategy. Since the beginning of the modern international system (circa 1500), the history of world politics largely has been that of successive states striving for hegemony -- and being defeated. Indeed, if there is a single, clear geopolitical lesson, it is this: Hegemonies always fail. The reason is simple: When one state becomes overwhelmingly powerful, it threatens others. Consequently, countervailing centers of power form to balance a hegemony's unchecked, overweening power...."

6/10/99 SCMP Willy Wo-Lap Lam "...Beijing has adopted a two-pronged policy to ensure that national security is in line with its perception of an enhanced anti-China containment policy by the West. The Communist Party hierarchy is also committed to maintaining the "multi-polar" nature of the world order, meaning putting limits on the powers of the United States. After the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, President Jiang Zemin has held marathon sessions with advisers from areas including diplomacy, defence and foreign trade. One recommendation by the experts is that China must ensure peace and good neighbourliness along its borders. The past few weeks have seen dozens of meetings between Chinese officials and their counterparts from neighbouring states. The latter range from regional powers such as Russia and Pakistan to small countries including North Korea, Nepal, Laos, Burma, as well as former Soviet countries bordering Xinjiang. Several visiting delegations, including those from Russia, Pakistan and Laos, were led by military officers. PLA generals have been active on foreign trips or meeting civilian foreign dignitaries in Beijing..."

Agence France Presse 6/14/99 "...The Kosovo conflict has prompted Russia to seek "strategic partners" in the form of China and India, Russian First Deputy Defense Minister Nikolai Mikhailov here Monday. Mikhailov made the comment during a visit to this far eastern port city by Chinese General Zhang Wannian, vice president of China's Central Military Commission. "The events in Yugoslavia have inevitably forced us to take steps to strengthen Russia's defensive capacity and find strategic partners," Mikhailov said noting that "these partners are China and India." .....China plans to continue buying the most up-to-date Russian military equipment, notably in the aviation and radar sectors, according to sources in the Russian defense ministry quoted by the Interfax news agency. Beijing could also purchase submarines, ships and cruise missiles from Moscow. The two countries plan to spend an estimated five to six billion dollars through 2005 in joint research and development projects in the military sector, Interfax reported. ..."

ITAR-TASS 6/14/99 Yevgenia Lenz "...Colonel-General Zhang Wannian, Deputy Chairman of the Central MIlitary Council of the People's Republic of China (PRC), who has stayed at the main base of Russia's Pacific Fleet since June 12, is due to arrive in Komsomolsk on Amur on Monday. Over there, he is to tour a number of defence plants which will probably fill orders to be placed by the Chinese army as well. Meanwhile, a source at the Pacific Fleet headquarters has told Itar-Tass that during meetings between General Zhang and Admiral Mikhail Zakharenko, Commander of the Pacific Fleet, the sides "achieved full mutual understanding on problems of mutual concern". In the second half of this year, a naval squadron of Pacific Fleet ships is to pay an official visit to one of the ports of the PRC...."

ITAR-TASS 6/14/99 Monday Yevgenia Lenz "...Nikolai Mikhailov, Russia's First Deputy Minister of Defence and State Secretary, in his remarks during talks between Colonel-General Zhang Wannian, Deputy Chairman of the Central Military Council of the People's Republic of China, and the Command of Russia's Pacific Fleet, has stated that "Russia's strategic cooperation with China and India will rise to a qualitatively new level soon". The Russian Defence Ministry official pointed out that "the events in Yugoslavia prompted the adoption of necessary measures in the strengthening of Russia's defence capability and in a quest for strategic partners in accomplishment of this important task. China and India are such partners now"...."

ITAR-TASS 6/15/99 Boris Savelyev "....Moscow and Beijing considered military cooperation issues at a Tuesday meeting between commanders of Russia's far eastern military district and a Chinese delegation led by Deputy Chairman of China's Central Military Council Col. Gen. Zhang Wannian..... The visiting Chinese delegation has been guided through the Komsomolsk company which is ready to complete a large order for modern warplanes. Although no contract has been signed yet, the company already has six aircraft on assembly line. Ishayev told reporters that in his view, "the modern world should be either multi-polar or at least bi-polar, in order to oppose the powerful NATO bloc from the deterrent standpoint, because NATO is seeking to replace the UN Security Council and other UN bodies. " ...."

Stratfor 6/14/99 "...NATO and the United States have been dealing with men like Viktor Chernomyrdin.... Their credibility there [in Russia] is nil. In negotiating with the West, they operate from two imperatives. First, they are seeking whatever economic concessions they can secure in the hope of sparking an economic miracle. Second, like Gorbachev before them, they have more credibility with the people with whom they are negotiating than the people they are negotiating for. That tends to make them malleable. NATO has been confusing the malleability of a declining cadre of Russian leaders with the genuine condition inside of Russia. Clearly, Albright, Berger, Talbott, and Clinton decided that they could roll Ivanov and Chernomyrdrin into whatever agreement they wanted. In that they were right. Where they were terribly wrong was about the men they were not negotiating with, but whose power and credibility was growing daily. These faceless hard-liners in the military finally snapped at the humiliation NATO inflicted on their public leaders.....Machiavelli teaches the importance of never wounding your adversaries. It is much better to kill them. Wounding them and then ridiculing and tormenting them is the worst possible strategy. Russia is certainly wounded. It is far from dead. NATO's strategy in Kosovo has been to goad a wounded bear. That is not smart unless you are preparing to slay him. Since no one in NATO wants to go bear hunting, treating Russia with the breathtaking contempt that NATO has shown it in the past few weeks is not wise. It seems to us that Clinton and Blair are so intent on the very minor matter of Kosovo that they have actually been oblivious to the effect their behavior is having in Moscow. They just can't get it into their heads that it's not about Kosovo. It is not about humanitarianism or making ourselves the kind of people we want to be. It's about the Russians, stupid! And about China and about the global balance of power...."

Universal Press Syndicate 6/14/99 Joseph Sobran "...William F. Buckley Jr. observed the other day that we are headed for an eventual crisis with China over Taiwan, which Communist China has never ceased claiming as its own. He notes that "somewhere down the line, whatever the policies of the Taiwan government -- short of capitulation -- the crisis will come. It can only be met by absolutely straightforward pledges, of a kind that kept the Soviet Union at bay in Europe." He adds a provocative thought: "The road to that point can best be prepared not merely by thunderous diplomatic declarations, but by giving to Taiwan such weapons as are still useful in self-defense, and by encouraging nuclear parity in Japan." Encouraging Japan to go nuclear? We've come a long way from Pearl Harbor. But Mr. Buckley has a point. In the post-Cold War world, a nation- state may soon have to possess nuclear weapons in order to ensure its own sovereignty. The reason is not far to seek. Strong countries have always attacked weak ones, and nuclear weapons have vastly increased the ratio of strength to weakness. This is why the United States can now invade and bomb small countries without the slightest fear of retaliation. If Slobodan Milosevic had nukes, does anyone think the U.S. would be bombing Yugoslavia?..."

WorldNetDaily.com 6/17/99 Jon Dougherty "…Ethnic issues have always been complicated and sensitive. As these issues are the internal affairs of a country, no external forces should interfere with them. Each country should formulate correct ethnic policies in accordance with its own national conditions and properly deal with its own ethnic issues, so as to maintain ethnic unity, social stability, and economic development."

It's been a long time since I've either heard or read about any public official speaking such words of wisdom. While you might be able to guess the origin of such a statement -- Kosovo -- you may have a more difficult time figuring out who said it. I'll tell you who it was. Those are the words of Chinese Premier Li Peng, who made the statement after discussing regional and global interests with his diplomatic counterpart from India.

That's too bad, because once upon a time you would have heard American officials making similar statements when it came to whether or not the United States should interfere in the internal affairs of another country. Not anymore, though….. When our press talks about Slobodan Milosevic and the Serbs, we are subconsciously led to believe that all Serbs -- not just Milosevic -- are bad people. So it is with Americans -- if our government attacks a sovereign country for no reason other than political expediency, or undermines another nation's economic policies while talking about equality in the marketplace, the people of that nation tend to hate all of us, not just Bill Clinton and Congress…."

NewsMax.com 6/18/99 Ollie North "…Tony Blair, Bill Clinton's new best buddy, was shocked. The June European Parliamentary elections seem to have rejected the vaunted "Third Way" globalists in the Blair government. The conservative Tories overwhelmed Blair's hand-picked Labor Party liberals by a margin of 36 percent to 28 percent. This victory is all the more significant when you consider that the Labor Party has dominated the political landscape of Great Britain since it came to power in April 1997. In fact, as Brits went to the polls this month, Tony Blair's approval ratings had never been higher, thanks to his "leadership" in NATO's Balkan Blunder. But Blair's personal popularity wasn't enough to save the day when it came to standing up for the Union Jack. For the first time since Margaret Thatcher sent the fleet to win back the Falkland Islands in 1981, British sovereignty is a major issue in British politics. This conservative resurgence is based on the simple premise that national identity, autonomy and independence are more important than the New World Order policies Tony Blair has been espousing since he and his liberal Laborites came to power…."

Augusta Chronicle 6/21/99 Editorial "...In a recent voice vote, the U.S. House of Representatives struck a blow against creeping globalism by giving Americans more control over their land. The vote sharply curbs the United Nations' authority to designate certain areas of the U.S. as ``World Heritage Sites'' and ``Biosphere Reserves.'' There are currently 83 such U.N. land designations in our country and many more sites are under consideration. Although the executive branch has to approve the U.N.'s action, the land-designation pact still tramples on the rights of local communities, state elected officials and even Congress. The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act is designed to restore those rights. This was not the first time the House passed the measure. Last year a similar bill was sent to the Senate, but then it was buried by an obstinate committee chairmen. This year the outlook is far better...."

Inside China Today 6/23/99 Rueters "...China compared the United States to Nazi Germany on Tuesday and said NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia reflected Washington's ambition to become "Lord of the Earth". "If you ask which country wants to become 'the Lord of the Earth' as the then Nazi Germany had tried to, there is only one answer," said a commentary in the People's Daily, the flagship newspaper of China's ruling Communist Party. "It is the hegemonism-pursuing United States." In likening the United States to Nazi Germany, the newspaper cited its massive defense budget, the bombing of Yugoslavia without U.N. sanction and the killing of civilians during the air campaign in Yugoslavia. ...."

WorldNetDaily.com 6/23/99 Henry Lamb "...Two primary targets are now in the cross hairs of the global tax-mongers: carbon and currency exchange. Carbon taxes are being designed to modify social behavior while the tax on currency exchange is designed to increase U.N. revenue from about $11 billion per year to $1.5 trillion per year. A revenue stream, independent of the voluntary contributions of member states, is all that prevents the United Nations from imposing, and enforcing, its vision of global governance. Momentum is building for global taxation schemes to provide that independent revenue stream. More than two-thirds of the American people support the idea of a global tax on foreign currency exchange, and a whopping 79 percent want a global tax on carbon. These numbers were collected by the ATI Foundation, and reported by the Washington-based Commission to Fund the United Nations. The numbers likely reflect the pollster's skill at asking misleading questions, rather than a true reflection of the American attitude toward global taxation. Nevertheless, support for various forms of global taxation is growing, pushed by well-funded organizations such as the Commission to Fund the United Nations; the United Nations Association U.S.A., Friends of the Earth; and a host of other environmental organizations...."

South China Morning Post 6/26/99 Willy Wo-Lap Lam "...Beijing and Moscow have agreed to pool resources in the development of military-related high technology. The unpublicised accord was finalised while the Vice-Chairman of the Central Military Commission, General Zhang Wannian, was in Moscow this month. Diplomatic sources in Beijing said yesterday that while the leadership had turned down Moscow's invitation for forming a military alliance, the joint development of weapons technology was a big step forward in defence ties. "Both countries will co-ordinate development of a number of weapons systems," a source said. "Beijing will provide most of the funds and Moscow the bulk of the expertise, including personnel."...A PLA expert said priority would be given to development of hardware including missiles and submarines. The expert said that before the Kosovo crisis, the leadership of President Jiang Zemin had been reluctant to significantly upgrade military ties with Moscow. "After the air strikes against Serbia began, [Russian President] Boris Yeltsin told Beijing that unless China and Russia joined forces, the American military machine could not be stopped...."

London Electronic Telegraph 6/25/99 Hugo Gurdon "....Posted on 06/25/1999 07:38:09 PDT by arcane THE Supreme Court removed federal powers in three decisions seen yesterday as an historic turning point in the way America is governed. The rulings, which shocked many constitutional scholars, mean individuals cannot force a state to comply with laws made by the US Congress. The rulings reverse the expansion of federal power over the 50 states, for the court's five-to-four conservative majority has told Washington that if it wants its laws enforced it must go to court itself. .... The Supreme Court has overturned about 150 federal laws since being set up by the constitution 212 years ago. But by this week's decisions, some experts say, it has thrown into dispute the constitution's decree that the laws of the United States - that is of Congress - are the "supreme law of the land"...."

AP 6/28/99 "...Although ethnic cleansing won't be tolerated, NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia shouldn't be considered a precedent for future intervention by the alliance elsewhere, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said Monday. "Every circumstance is unique,'' Albright told the Council on Foreign Relations. "NATO is a European and Atlantic - not a global - institution.'' Her comments reflected a subtle shift in the White House's thinking about the role of NATO in the aftermath of its 11-week bombing of Yugoslavia. Before the Kosovo crisis, the administration had been pressing NATO members to consider expanding the defensive alliance's reach beyond Europe as a way of maintaining an important post-Cold War role in the world....."

Itar-Tass 6/27/99 "...NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe Wesley Clark does not exclude the Alliance's operations similar to the one in Yugoslavia in future. The success of NATO in Kosovo is a decisive precedent for the next century, Clark said in an interview with the German Welt am Sonntag newspaper on Sunday. The warfare against Yugoslavia showed the central role of the North Atlantic Alliance in the provision of peace and human rights in Europe, he said. When NATO enters the new century, the might it has shown in Kosovo will help it in future ventures, the General noted. The readiness to use the armed forces will remain necessary in future to protect fundamental values of the international community, and there are values worth fighting, Clark noted. The military force is the ultimate method but it must be used determinedly and unitedly as need be, and the Alliance will do that in future, Clark said.

Stratfor 6/29/99 "...In an address to the Council on Foreign Relations on June 28, U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright said NATO's air strikes in Kosovo should not be used as a precedent for intervention in other conflicts. "Every circumstance is unique," said Albright. With regards to NATO intervention in future conflicts, Albright added, "I would caution against any such sweeping conclusions." She called NATO a European and Atlantic alliance and expressed the hope that NATO intervention in Yugoslavia would deter future conflicts. Albright's comments reflect an evolving analysis, in Washington, of the Kosovo conflict and its ramifications. Washington's public spin of Operation Allied Force was that NATO, unanimous in aim and approach, successfully bombed Yugoslav forces into submission. And while this unmitigated victory temporarily aroused hostility in Russia and China, both Moscow and Beijing have more to gain from cooperating with the West than from confronting it, and will soon come around. The reality now tacitly acknowledged by Albright is somewhat different. First, NATO most certainly was not and is not unanimous regarding either the goals of the Kosovo campaign or the methods employed to achieve it.....Washington has been forced to reconsider its official spin that NATO successfully bombed Yugoslavia into submission. Bomb damage assessment inside Kosovo has shown just how little damage NATO inflicted on Yugoslav forces, raising the question of just why Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic did capitulate. The point is, Milosevic did not capitulate, but rather accepted a compromise settlement that NATO later successfully, if duplicitously, spun into an unmitigated victory in Kosovo... Finally, Russia and China - each with a host of their own "Kosovos" in which Western involvement would be most unwelcome, are not simply "getting over" their hostility to U.S. hegemonic behavior in Kosovo. Far from it, the two have accelerated plans for their strategic alliance...."

Boston Globe 7/1/99 Michael Kelly "...WASHINGTON: The Clinton Doctrine is still barely more than a glimmer in a proud papa's eye, born as it was in the usual existential fashion of this White House on June 20, in the moment, on television. ''Mr. President,'' asked CNN's Wolf Blitzer, ''is there, in your mind, a Clinton Doctrine?'' You bet, said legacy-minded he: ''While there may well be a great deal of ethnic and religious conflict in the world ... whether within or beyond the borders of a country, if the world community has the power to stop it, we ought to stop genocide and ethnic cleansing.'' On June 22, addressing NATO troops in Macedonia, Clinton elaborated: ''If somebody comes after innocent civilians and tries to kill them en masse because of their race, their ethnic background, or their religion and it is within our power to stop it, we will stop it.'' The Clinton Doctrine is a perfectly Clintonian doctrine: It is unprecedentedly sweeping. It appears to commit the United States to the task of redressing grave crimes against humanity worldwide, even within the boundaries of sovereign states and even when no American interests are involved...."

8/22/98 Donna Bryson AP ".``Irrespective of the motive of these strikes,'' Pakistani Foreign Minister Sartaj Aziz told his senate Friday, ``the act of violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of these Islamic countries cannot but be a matter of grave concern to the people of Pakistan who justifiably feel outraged.'' But Aziz was also quick to note his country's firm opposition ``to terrorism in all its manifestations.'' ."

Hindustan Times 8/22/98 "No matter how outraged world opinion was over the mindless terrorist attacks on the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, there is unlikely to be widespread support for the American air strikes on supposed terrorist bases in Afghanistan and Sudan.In this respect, Washington prefers to have it both ways-use the UN to mount such raids when it seeks a veneer of legitimacy or bypass the world body and strike out on its own when it feels that a display of its strength is needed-either to divert attention from a domestic scandal or to intimidate those, especially the Islamic fundamentalists, who are implacably hostile to it."

Sacramento Bee 7/21/99 Greg Gordon "...A senior State Department official told a Senate subcommittee Tuesday that the United States will refuse to sign a treaty creating an International Criminal Court unless actions such as the recent NATO bombing of Serbian factories are immune from prosecution....."

Insight Magazine, Aug. 9th edition, P. 46 7/29/99 Walter Williams "...Last October, by nearly a sixty percent majority, Louisianans approved Amendment One to their state constitution. Amendment One declares: "The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free and sovereign state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction and right pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled." Amendment One would be unnecessary if the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court didn't have disdain for the constitution. What the citizens of Louisiana seek already is part of the protections found in the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Tenth Amendment reads, "The powers not delegated to the united States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are held in the deepest of contempt and disrespect by the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court. Why? Because these amendments were written to protect against consolidation of power by the federal government. Dismissal of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments allows Congress to control our schools, mandate speed limits and require employment and college-admissions quotas, as well as other forms of Washington tyranny. Today, little states can do nothing without Washington's permission. That was not the Framers' vision....."

Jane's Defence Weekly 8/4/99 Bryan Bender "...The US Department of Defense's (DoD's) first major study on how to adapt to defence industry 'globalisation' cannot find a consensus on necessary reforms. Even defining the concept is proving to be difficult, sources said. The defence industry exists in a new international environment in which the proliferation of technology and industrial cross-border co-operation continue to rise. The Pentagon, led by Deputy Defense Secretary John Hamre, wants to fashion a new policy ­ one that safeguards security while embracing the new global environment. The Defense Science Board (DSB), a senior Pentagon advisory panel, submitted a draft of its findings to Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology Jacques Gansler last week, defence officials said.The report is not expected to be complete for some time, according to a spokesman. Sources involved in the undertaking told Jane's Defence Weekly that the breadth and scope of the issue is making it very difficult for the panel to agree on a way forward...."

American Spectator 8/99 Jeremy Rabkin "...As Kosovar refugees began streaming back to their homes in June, critics of the NATO "air campaign" had to acknowledge that it accomplished more than we expected. But along with the human misery and physical devastation, there are some shredded legal principles that still need tending. There is, to start with, the question of whether we now understand international law to give open license to this sort of humanitarian intervention, when the intervening power makes no claim to be acting in self- defense nor to be repelling aggression across an international boundary. President Clinton seems to think it does. "But never forget if we can do this here," he told an audience of American troops preparing to enter Kosovo in late June, "we can then say to the people of the world, whether you live in Africa or Central Europe or any other place, if somebody comes after innocent civilians and tries to kill them en masse because of their race, their ethnic background or their religion, and it's within our power to stop it, we will stop it." The implication of this Clinton Doctrine is that it is all a matter of power-- "our power," as he put it. The qualification may mean that we will only act when we have the "power" to do so without taking many (or any?) casualties of our own. That, in turn, may mean we will rely on high-level bombing regardless of the "collateral damage" that might result. Oddly, much of the world now seems prepared to embrace this open-ended bombing commitment from Washington..... "

Wall Street Journal 8/6/99 Bob Davis "...During his two recent trips through Europe, President Clinton has propounded a Clinton Doctrine of military intervention that amounts to the following: Tyrants beware. "If somebody comes after innocent civilians and tries to kill them en masse because of their race, their ethnic background or their religion," Mr. Clinton told North Atlantic Treaty Organization troops in Macedonia in June, "and it's within our power to stop it, we will stop it." But the Russians and some European allies worry that Mr. Clinton is pledging to deputize the U.S. military as a global cop. Meanwhile, critics at home deride Mr. Clinton's ideas as mushy-headed idealism. "It's foreign policy as social work," says Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican running for the Republican presidential nomination.....But Mr. Clinton's open-ended embrace of humanitarian intervention has worried foreign-policy experts inside the administration and out. "We don't want to give the impression of making empty promises," says Mr. Berger, the Clinton national security adviser......Indeed, Richard Haass, director of foreign-policy studies at the Brookings Institution, warns that the administration may come up with so many qualifiers to the Clinton Doctrine that it will become meaningless. After the U.S. withdrew from Somalia in 1993 when 18 U.S. Rangers were killed, the administration released a policy document to guide future peace-keeping operations. It had so many requirements, says Mr. Haass, that it was a guide for inaction......"

Orlando Sentinel 8/8/99 Charley Reese "...The United States has 20 United Nations World Heritage sites. It has 47 U.N.-designated Biosphere Reserves encompassing 51 million acres. You are probably more familiar with these sites as U.S. national parks, U.S. historical sites or national forests. This happened because the United States signed and ratified the United Nations World Heritage Treaty in 1972. It allows a president, without congressional approval, to designate something a World Heritage site or Biosphere Reserve. Though the treaty gives the United Nations no direct authority to manage these sites, it does obligate the United States to manage them in compliance with U.N. standards.

I don't like this. Sovereignty, as a political term, means simply nothing higher. A sovereign nation, for example, answers to no one but itself. To manage parts of its own territory in accordance with U.N. standards, rather than its own, is a surrender of sovereignty. When we think about and remember all that we love about the United States, we think of it as sovereign nation. We do not think of it as merely a part of something else. It was not the United Nations that fought the British and drafted the Constitution with its beautiful Bill of Rights. It was not the United Nations that fought the wars that have kept this nation free. It was, however, the United Nations that was in charge of botched or unnecessary wars in Korea, Somalia, Iraq and now the Balkans. The United States ought to withdraw from the United Nations, and it should ask the United Nations to move out of New York City to some foreign city such as Mogadishu in Somalia or Brazzaville in the Congo. Those would be appropriate cities for a bunch of international bureaucrats whose main aim in life seems to be to live the good life at the expense of their own poor people back at home...."

Rockefeller Brothers Fund website ..."In October, 1996, at the Fund's Pocantico Conference Center, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund joined with the World Bank to host an unusual meeting of foundation executives, leaders of major humanitarian organizations, and officers of large multilateral institutions. Entitled "Building a Constituency for Global Interdependence," the meeting focused on the participants' shared concern about the erosion of American support for the policies, programs, and agencies of cooperative international engagement....The first product of the Global Interdependence Initiative is an RBF publication, Global Interdependence and the Need for Social Stewardship, which argues that at the heart of any constituency-building effort for increased global cooperation must be a model of international engagement in which military security, economic growth, and social stewardship-the promotion of health, social stability, human potential, and environmental protection-are seen as mutually reinforcing expressions of American interests and values."

 

ecologic magazine 11/97 Henry Lamb "...But what, exactly, is it about the American system of government that makes it the best system yet devised? If it is, in fact, the best system yet devised, why do so many people -- especially Americans -- criticize it, and constantly try to change it. The answer is simple: because they can. The bedrock on which our Constitution -- and our system of government -- is founded is the realization that people are born free. At birth, they are endowed by their creator with the right and the ability to choose individually what actions they will take. Each person is empowered to direct his own life. Each person is sovereign unto himself. Individual people, working in concert, voluntarily agree to impose upon themselves a measured limitation of their freedom. The U.S. Constitution articulates that agreement and measures the power sovereign individuals bestow upon the institution of government. Those people who wrote the Constitution, and those who subscribe to it, agree to be bound by the laws produced by the institution of government because it is they, the individual people, who are the government. Upon this bedrock realization, the people of America built a great nation because they were neither dependent upon government nor limited by it. ..."

ecologic magazine 11/97 Henry Lamb "...But the American system of government is changing. The U.S. Constitution -- even with its enumerated powers -- is being ignored. New forces, external forces, are exerting influences that challenge the bedrock realization of individual sovereignty, and are eroding the legislative process as the mechanism for the creation public policy..... The power of the American people over its government is an obstacle to the objectives and agenda of the United Nations. Therefore, a mechanism has been devised to diminish the power of the legislative branch of government at every level. Public policy is being made by carefully selected individuals, rather than by duly elected officials...."

ecologic magazine 11/97 Henry Lamb "...The UN philosophy is not invading America with black helicopters and blue-helmeted soldiers. It is invading America through the Convention on Climate Change, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on Chemical Weapons, Agenda 21, the President's Council on Sustainable Development, Ecosystem Management, American Heritage Rivers Initiative, Goals 2000, and an endless stream of policy recommendations that are being implemented without the benefit of legislative debate and authorization. The invasion of UN philosophy cannot be stopped by bullets or retreat to a survival community in the mountains. It will be stopped by individuals exercising their individual sovereign power to limit and control their government...."

International Herald Tribune 8/12/99 Milada Anna Vachudova "...The European Union's plans to bring peace and prosperity to the Balkans through the Stability Pact for Southeastern Europe will fail if EU governments do not change the way they think about EU enlargement. During the last decade, they have not treated association and accession to the EU as a powerful tool for promoting democracy and economic reform in post-Communist Europe. Instead they have dwelled on their own domestic opposition to enlargement and on the cost of absorbing new members. But the prospect of joining the EU is already promoting reform in East-Central Europe as governments work to meet the entry requirements. The goal of membership has put Hungary and Slovakia, for example, on the road to liberal democracy and greater prosperity by helping reformers to get elected and by encouraging elected governments to pursue reform. This can work in the Balkans, too, but only if leaders and citizens come to believe that their states have a real chance of eventually becoming EU members. For stability to prevail, moderate politicians must first win power in the southeast European states. Western carrots and sticks cannot make extremists behave like moderate democrats. Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia, Franjo Tudjman in Croatia and Vladimir Meciar in Slovakia all drove their countries into poverty and isolation, turning their backs on the benefits of playing by Western rules....."

AP 8/11/99 "...The United Nations' chief prosecutor is pressing for joint trials of suspects in the 1994 Rwandan genocide, a move she says would help shrink a large backlog of cases. Louise Arbour, who also oversees the tribunal for war crimes in the former Yugoslavia, has openly criticized the pace of the Rwandan court. The court began work in 1995 and has completed only four trials. It has 38 jailed suspects awaiting trial for participating in the Hutu-dominated army's slaughter of more than half a million minority Tutsis and moderate Hutus. Arbour said Monday that joint trials of four to five suspects at once would be cheaper and more efficient. It would mean key witnesses would only have to appear once in the court, located in remote northern Tanzania...."

2/25/99 Janet Reno EPF411 "...Reno, in evening remarks February 24 to an international forum on fighting corruption, said the increasing sophistication of criminal elements requires mutual access to evidence, witnesses and fugitives. New bilateral and multilateral agreements are needed "to create a seamless web for the prompt location, arrest and prosecution of international fugitives in appropriate venues," Reno told delegates from nearly 90 countries attending Vice President Al Gore's "Global Forum on Fighting Corruption and Safeguarding Integrity Among Justice and Security Officials." It is of critical importance that international criminals who corrupt public institutions and then exploit national borders to escape justice are denied safe havens, she added. "Corruption, especially judicial and law enforcement corruption, is one of the most invidious threats to the political and economic health of a nation and its peoples," Reno stated...."

Chicago Sun-Times 8/11/99 John O'Sullivan "...President Clinton took time off from scandals earlier this year to promulgate a new foreign policy doctrine. Exactly why is not clear.... Be that as it may, Clinton made the Kosovo war the basis of his doctrine in a series of speeches. NATO's intervention, he claimed, was not just about Kosovo. It was a new kind of war, waged not for selfish reasons of national interest but to shape a new and more benign international order. Under this proposed dispensation, most states would be multiethnic, multicultural federations in which ethnic nations would enjoy limited cultural autonomy rather than full national sovereignty. Lest you think I exaggerate, here are two excerpts from his speeches:

* "Finally, we must remember the principle we and our allies have been fighting for in the Balkans is the principle of multiethnic, tolerant, inclusive democracy. We have been fighting against the idea that statehood must be based entirely on ethnicity."

* "If we were to choose this course [either independence or partition for Kosovo], we would see the continuous fissioning of smaller and smaller ethnically based, inviable [sic] states, creating pressures for more war, more ethnic cleansing, more of the politics of repression and revenge. I believe the last thing we need in the Balkans is greater balkanization."

Since most existing states--France, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Germany, the Czech Republic and most of central and eastern Europe--are in fact ethnic nation-states, the Clinton doctrine would seem to require considerable international upheaval. And since most multiethnic, multicultural federations are either recently defunct (the Soviet Union, the former Yugoslavia) or face periodic ethnic strife or threats of secession (India, Belgium, Canada, the United States itself), there is no guarantee that this upheaval would be followed by a lasting harmony of multicultural nationhood...."

http://www.stratfor.com/asia/specialreports/special49.htm 8/13/99 "...This shift in international policy, conscious or unconscious, stems from the United States' adoption of the concept of a New World Order based on global economic cooperation and prosperity that would overshadow and eventually outweigh regional conflicts. The argument is that as countries work toward economic unity in the global marketplace, living standards will rise and the triggers of conflict will fade..... In Asia, there are several examples of this strategy being played out. The example of the Pakistan-India clash in Kashmir earlier this year demonstrates this tendency to adopt the idea that the belligerent is always wrong.....The current China-Taiwan tensions are another indication of this way of thinking. The U.S. sided with China, despite strained relations, when Taiwan issued its state-to-state remarks. However, as China reportedly began building up its military forces and preparing for a possible invasion of the smaller outlying islands of Taiwan, the U.S. was quick to state its support of Taiwan in the event of a military action by China. Interestingly, the U.S.'s own policy of siding with the aggrieved party made it necessary to kowtow to China following the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade...... However, while the long-term goal is the cessation of conflict in favor of economic growth, the New World Order concept fails to take into consideration the legitimacy of deeper divisive issues. As it is founded on the concept that economics outweighs all other concerns, it results in the delegating of long-standing border disputes, blood feuds, religious and ethnic differences and even political differences as problems that will simply fade away with the dawning of a globalized market system. The resulting foreign policy becomes more inclined to be reactive, stamping out aggression whenever it appears, regardless of whether the aggressor is the traditional ally or enemy. However, in putting out all these brushfires, the real problems aren't solved, but instead remain smoldering, ready to flare up again.

This trend also places the foreign policy of the United States and other nations in a position to be more easily manipulated by a good PR campaign. Whoever appears to be the victim gets the support..."

WorldNetDaily 8/13/99 Anne Williamson "...Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a valuable, a most sacred right -- a right which, we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. -- Abraham Lincoln ...The talented con man that is Bill Clinton and his downmarket Lady MacBeth, Hillary Rodham, have further presumed to bribe the electorate by unleashing the greatest expansion of cash, credit and government favor in U.S. history, thereby debasing the population generally. With the citizenry distracted by plenty and the concomitant rise in both personal debt and taxation levels, and the media's post-Cold War transformation into Big Government propagandists nearly complete, liberty's gates have been left open to tyranny. It is into this very breach that on Aug. 7 the SNC rallied. And this nascent band of businessmen and former RNC activists find themselves well armed with but a single piece of paper -- the U.S. Constitution. "For 134 years the American people have been led to believe that the right of secession had been overturned by a 'verdict of arms,' but that isn't true," SNC Chairman George Kalas remarked. "It is true the shot fired at Fort Sumter was a mistake since it provided the pretext for the Southland to be invaded by foreign troops, but the right of secession realized through the ballot box remains an essential part of our constitutional order." American liberty and federalism gain definition only by virtue of the right of secession. In its most elemental meaning, the Constitution is an assertion that "yea" can legally have no binding meaning if "nay" is forever disallowed. Without that, the 50 states' relationship to the union would be one of perpetual servitude. Instead, the Constitution affirms that only the dispersion and division of power flowing from the people upward through the sovereignty of each of the 50 states can provide a proper check upon the federal government. Clyde C. Wilson, a University of South Carolina historian and editor of the John C. Calhoun Papers, has stated the case with eminent clarity: Federalism is not when the central government graciously allows the states to do this or that. That is just another form of administration. True federalism is when the people of the states set limits to the central government. Fundamentally, federalism means states rights. The cause of states rights is the cause of liberty. They rise or fall together....History is full of riddles and ironies, and what could be more true to the quixotic nature of mankind's story than formerly defeated Southern secessionists saving a federal union by their very presence having made it once again harmonious and accountable? A mostly satisfied Quebec attests to just that possibility, and explains why this Yankee was more than glad to leave a sizeable chunk of her heart in Dixieland. Anne Williamson has written for the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Spy magazine, Film Comment and Premiere. An expert on Soviet-Russian affairs, she is currently working on a book, "Contagion: How America Betrayed Russia." ..."

AP 8/14/99 Edith Lederer "...The issue that dominated three weeks of negotiations on the world's first permanent war crimes tribunal wasn't even on the agenda: What will it take for the United States to join the court? With the answer hanging in limbo, more than 100 countries made "good progress'' on key legal issues during the second round of preparatory negotiations for the International Criminal Court, said Philippe Kirsch, chairman of the preparatory commission. The meeting ended Friday. But it was the private talks between U.S. Ambassador David Scheffer and national leaders that generated the most interest. Scheffer is trying to find a legal solution that will enable Washington to sign the treaty creating the tribunal. The United States was one of seven countries that last year voted against establishing the tribunal. The treaty was approved by 120 other countries and has since been signed by 84 of those and ratified by four. American officials felt the treaty yielded too much prosecutorial power to the new court, leaving U.S. troops and citizens vulnerable to politically motivated prosecutions..... The Clinton administration wants an exception from investigation or prosecution by the court for personnel involved in official military actions. Richard Dicker, associate counsel for Human Rights Watch, said an exception for official acts would render the court "null and void'' and allow the Saddam Husseins of the world to get away with crimes against humanity. "It is a loophole the size of the Grand Canyon that any rogue state would drive right through,'' he said....."

Newsweek 8/15/99 Michael Hirsh Gregory Vistica "...Bill Clinton really didn't want to get involved, not in another Asian hot spot, not over another disputed province, Kashmir. But when Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif flew to Washington last month to plead for U.S. help, the president decided that relations between the world's two newest nuclear powers, India and Pakistan, were so edgy they needed closer attention. His concern grew last week, when Indian MiG-21s shot down a Pakistani plane, killing 16. Though U.S. officials deny they are "mediating" - India refuses to consider Kashmir an international issue - Clinton plans to visit South Asia early next year to take what he calls a "personal interest" in resolving the tensions. Sharif got his wish - and his man. Like it or not, America is being cast as the world's globocop, especially since its mighty display of air power in Yugoslavia. But those who imagine that the U.S. emerged from Kosovo as the unquestioned enforcer of world peace haven't been watching Asia. Simultaneous crises are erupting in a 4,000-mile arc from South Asia to Taiwan and the Koreas in the east, and U.S. officials are finding the tensions more intractable than ever. Worse, even the Asians are beginning to wonder how ready or able Washington is to quell them...."

Boston Globe 8/19/99 Mark Weisbrot "…In just a few months thousands of environmentalists, steel workers, longshoremen, AIDS activists, farmers and others will descend on Seattle in a ''mobilization against globalization.'' They will hold marches, protests, teach-ins, and conferences. The occasion? The World Trade Organization is holding a meeting of ministers from its 134 member countries to talk about launching a new round of trade talks…. The new bureaucracy of the WTO was given the authority to determine whether national laws on such matters as environmental protection and food safety violate international trade rules. In other words, the burden of proof has shifted: for example, if our Environmental Protection Agency wants to regulate the content of gasoline in order to reduce pollution, it must be careful not to infringe upon the rights of foreign producers. This principle was actually tested when Venezuela, on behalf of its gasoline producers, challenged EPA regulations on gasoline quality at the WTO. In 1997 the WTO ruled in their favor. The EPA subsequently changed its regulations, weakening its ability to enforce federal air quality standards. Another WTO ruling last year undermined our Endangered Species Act. We have attempted to protect endangered sea turtles from extinction by requiring that shrimp fishing boats install devices that allow the turtles to escape the nets. The law applied to all shrimp sold in the United States, but the WTO ruled that this was unfair to other countries…."

Original Sources 8/17/99 Mary Mostert "…Clearly the unspoken concern here is that the International Criminal Court, which is designed to do on a international basis what the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia has been doing - targeting military and elected leaders of the former Yugoslavia for war crimes - could end up a indicting and trying Bill Clinton. Moves to indict him, Madeleine Albright and Tony Blair for their bombing of Yugoslavia and for allowing the KLA to implement its long held desire to seize control of Kosovo and evict or kill all non-Albanians, are gathering steam. On 22 February 1993 the Security Council, on the insistence of and with the promised financial support of the Clinton Administration, decided to establish the 'International Tribunal for Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia Since 1991' (short: International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia). Its task is to try people "suspected of war crimes and violations of international humanitarian law committed on the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991." Based at the Peace Palace in The Hague, the Netherlands, the tribunal "passes judgment, on behalf of the world community, on crimes which by their nature and scope are a concern to the entire world. The Tribunal will investigate a matter, if necessary in the absence of the accused, in a manner which is both independent and authoritative." Now why, do you suppose, the United States is against a concept on an international basis that it was demanding implementation of a mere six years ago where Yugoslavia and Slobadan Milosevic were concerned? US Senate Foreign Relations Committee spokesperson Marc Thiessen explained. He warned that the Clinton administration wants an exception from investigation or prosecution by the court for personnel involved in official military actions. The United States wants "a clear recognition that states sometimes engage in very legitimate uses of military force to advance international peace and security," he explained…."

Original Sources 8/17/99 Mary Mostert "…'Articles 18.1 and 18.4 of the International Tribunal for Serious Violations of Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia created in 1991. Article 2 of the statute gives the Tribunal the power "to prosecute persons committing or ordering to be committed grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention including the following:(a) willful killing;(c) willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health;(d) extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly." Article 3 .gives the Tribunal "the power to prosecute persons violating the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to:(a) employment of poisonous weapons or other weapons to cause unnecessary suffering;(b) wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;(c) attack, or bombardment, by whatever means, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings;(d) seizure of, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, historic monuments and works of art and science." Article 7 provides for individual criminal responsibility of "A person who planned, instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise aided and abetted in the planning, preparation or execution of a crime referred to in articles 2 to 5 of the present Statute, shall be individually responsible for the crime. "2. The official position of any accused person, whether as Head of State or Government or as a responsible Government official, shall not relieve such person of criminal responsibility or mitigate punishment. …"