Those who know what to look for these days should have no trouble recognizing the reality of an ongoing, behind-the-scenes effort to destroy the sovereignty of this country. As the process has accelerated during the past 12 years (the NAFTA era), we sometimes find open admissions by the archglobalists themselves.

In his book Memoirs, published in 2002, David Rockefeller, Sr. made the following remarks, startling in their very frankness: "For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

"Rethinking" National Sovereignty

It is against this background that we should read an article published in the Taiwan-based Taipei Times on February 21 entitled "State Sovereignty Must Be Altered in a Globalized Era." Just as David Rockefeller directed the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) for years, the new article's author, Richard Haass, is the organization's president. The CFR, often portrayed as just another "think tank," has long been one of the chief architects of the "more integrated global political and economic structure" Rockefeller spoke of. Progressive regionalization has proven to be its most workable method. Last year the CFR published Building a North American Community, which openly called for dissolving the borders between Canada, the United States, and Mexico and establishing "regional governance."

In the recent article, Haass concludes that "the time has come to rethink the notion" of national sovereignty. He calls for "new mechanisms ... for regional and global governance that include actors other than states." These include transnational corporations and non- governmental organizations (NGOs). "States," he said, "must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function. This is already taking place in the trade realm." In referring to actions taking place in the trade realm, of course, he means primarily those taking place at the World Trade Organization, but also doubtless those that are being implemented through the so-called free trade agreements: NAFTA, CAFTA, and the (stalled) FTAA.

In his recent article, Haass identifies one of the principles of national sovereignty that must be ceded: "the ability to control what crosses borders in either direction." (He does not discuss any other principles.) If even this one principle of sovereignty is ceded, we will no longer be able to call ourselves an autonomous country: we will have to bow to trade-community rules in terms of drug laws (both those that are currently legal as well as illegal), abandon national security efforts and allow others to determine our citizenship requirements because we won't be able to control immigration, give up rules that are intended to keep our foods and beverages safe, and forgo traffic and highway safety because we will not be able to control who is allowed to drive here or the safety of the vehicles they are driving. And this is just a partial list of negatives that will accrue by ceding just one little part of our sovereignty.

The rationale he gives for countries acceding to this loss of sovereignty is globalization. "Globalization," Haass tells us, "implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary." In other words, countries that don't accede will be embroiled in armed conflict.

Haass offers examples of once-sovereign states that were invaded by international bodies. "Afghanistan's Taliban government, which provided access and support to al-Qaeda, was removed from power. Similarly, the U.S. preventive war against Iraq that ignored the UN and was thought to possess weapons of mass destruction showed that sovereignty no longer provides absolute protection."

Haass also mentions climate change as a global issue and a reason for states to cede sovereignty. "Under one such arrangement, the Kyoto Protocol," he said, "which runs through 2012, signatories agree to cap specific emissions. What is needed now is a successor arrangement in which a larger number of governments, including the U.S., China and India, accept emissions limits or adopt common standards because they recognize that they would be worse off if no country did." Environmentalism is thus an instrument moving nations toward relinquishing sovereignty to world "governance."

How far does he propose to "alter" our concept of sovereignty? "Our notion of sovereignty must ... be conditional, even contractual, rather than absolute," he explains. "If a state fails to live up to its side of the bargain by sponsoring terrorism, either transferring or using weapons of mass destruction, or conducting genocide, then it forfeits the normal benefits of sovereignty and opens itself up to attack, removal or occupation.... The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalization, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy."

An Open Conspiracy

There we have it: another open call for world government by an insider--one which, moreover, commits a logical fallacy. The fallacy is called false dichotomy--arbitrarily narrowing the number of alternatives to force a conclusion. Either world government or anarchy? It seems to this writer that there is a third alternative: freedom--free enterprise under a constitutional republican form of limited government devoted to protecting life, liberty, and justly acquired property under the rule of law. The CFR (along with the Trilateralists, the Bilderberg Group, and others) has been working to destroy limited government since the CFR's inception in 1921.

So much for labeling as "conspiracy kooks" those of us who have been writing for years about the efforts of the CFR and similar organizations to dismantle our government.

Nowadays, as part of the plan, the internationalists would have us believe that the "rise to globalism" is nothing more than a historical accident--the product just of, e.g., changes in technology. However, the CFR, founded following the U.S. refusal to join the League of Nations, has been promoting globalism by stealth from the start.

Now to be sure, there are governments in the world whose sovereignty does not merit much respect, e.g., totalitarian regimes that brutally repress dissent. U.S. sovereignty, however, has its roots in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution--which limits government to a few, carefully specified functions, and governs by consent of the governed. Such ideas have given rise to American exceptionalism.

Disorder in the Courts

Globalist dogma, by speaking of sovereignty in a general way, runs roughshod over American exceptionalism, and is a direct threat to our constitutional form of government. We are already seeing evidence of American courts bowing to WTO decrees, and of Supreme Court justices appealing to foreign law when deciding crucial cases.

Justice Stephen Breyer (CFR) and former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (CFR), who both have kowtowed to "international rules" thereby paving the way for internationalism, ironically have both expressed doubts about the future of the Constitution. In the Lawrence v. Texas sodomy case back in 2003, they were part of the majority who decided that homosexuals have a "right" to privacy in their sexual behavior, overturning another Supreme Court ruling, Bowers v. Hardwick, of 17 years before on the grounds that the previous ruling did not accommodate "wider civilization," i.e., the world civilization CFR globalists advocate.

In a televised interview on ABC's This Week hosted by George Stephanopoulos, Breyer wondered aloud whether the Constitution would continue to be relevant in an "age of globalism." Will it "fit into governing documents of other nations"? Of course, if the justices actually did the jobs they were hired to do, the constitutionality of our laws would be determined by examining the Constitution. Justice Antonin Scalia, in a scathing dissent in the Lawrence case, called the reliance on a foreign law "irrelevant" and said "this court ... should not impose foreign moods, fads or fashions on Americans."

Derailing Globalism

If the Constitution is not used to derail the ongoing incursion of globalism into American political and economic life, then the future will see more and more power in America flowing away from the American people and into the hands of unelected bureaucrats accountable only to each other. Our rights will be eroded and then denied. For instance, private property rights will continue to be eroded under the auspices of such movements as sustainable development (another brain child of the UN crowd).

Our rulers in the age of advancing globalization will reside either in organizations whose loyalties are to socialist documents such as the UN Charter or transnational corporations whose only loyalty is to money. Many of the latter, of course, already have governments in their back pockets. Principled behavior is not among the strong suits of any of these organizations.

Many Americans still do not see what is right in front of them. Richard Haass's candid article in the Taipei Times should provide a reality check. Just imagine the positive effect of placing his admission in the hands of fellow citizens as well as our elected senators and representatives in Washington. Of course, everyone informed of Haass's remarks should also be encouraged to "Get US out!" of the United Nations--the long-standing campaign of the John Birch Society.

What was true when we torpedoed the planned world government under the auspices of the League of Nations is still true today: globalist plans for the world will not work without America's support.

Steven Yates, Ph.D., teaches philosophy at the University of South Carolina Upstate and Greenville Technical College.

COPYRIGHT 2006 American Opinion Publishing, Inc.

This material is published under license from the publisher through the Gale Group, Farmington Hills, Michigan.  All inquiries regarding rights should be directed to the Gale Group.