THE GLOBAL NEW DEAL

The following is a July 14 column by Lt. Col. Oliver North (Ret.) North is a syndicated columnist, lecturer, and hosts a daily talk radio program on which I will be a regular financial commentator beginning next month.

ALASKA -- Benjamin Franklin described our "free press" as the guardian of American liberty. If that's true, we had better put out a contract for a new watchdog. On Saturday, July 1,

while the U.S. media was preoccupied with the price of gasoline, speculating on the seating arrangements for Camp David and worrying about who might or might not play in the All Star game, the United Nations General Assembly met in Geneva, Switzerland, to launch a plan that would dramatically reduce national sovereignty, limit the ability of nations to govern their own affairs, impose global taxes on developed countries, and cost Americans trillions of dollars. It should have gotten some attention in the U.S. media.

But it didn't. For whatever reason, almost nothing was reported to the American people about this remarkable conclave of representatives from 130 nations at what was billed as "The Second World Summit for Social Development." Unlike debates in Congress, 10 heads of state, 11 prime ministers, 7 vice-presidents and a seemingly endless swarm of top government factotums from around the planet came to the podium and spoke, nearly unanimously in praise for the United Nations, its agencies and international agreements, and in support for a dramatically increased role for the UN in administering social programs on a global scale.

The U.S. was represented at this little-reported confab by the Clinton Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala. We might as well have been represented by the delegation from Luxembourg. In her official remarks, Shalala embraced UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's vision for a "Global New Deal," proffered a lengthy litany of vacuous platitudes for Annan's madcap schemes and then descended into outright hypocrisy on the issue of respect for human rights. Shalala's rant was punctuated by wild applause when she demanded political rights and free expression around the world.

Apparently the HHS Secretary had forgotten, or the crowd chose to overlook, that she serves in an administration that had just returned a six-year-old boy to a brutal dictator, and

she also serves in the cabinet of a Chief Executive who routinely ignores grotesque human rights violations in Communist China. And when Shalala demanded UN intervention to control the "distribution of health care at the global level," the crowd went positively nuts--even though the concept of government-regulated medicine had been soundly rejected when Hillary tried to jam it down the throats of U.S. citizens.

Unfortunately, vague phrases like "global control" are commonplace for the internationalist crowd that gathered in Geneva. Their speech and writings are rife with deceptive, fuzzy-headed terms like "multilateral cooperative measures," and "global interdependence," and "global solidarity" when they seek to define specific goals and objectives in their "Global New Deal." Some read this phraseology for its entertainment value. And it might be laughable--except that there are increasing numbers of high-level officials in western democracies and even in the U.S. government who see these terms as appropriate expressions in an "enlightened" world view.

In fact, no representative of any government at the Geneva General Assembly session stood up to challenge those who advocate the dissolution of "nation-states" and abandoning national sovereignty and individual liberty as "archaic concepts." And because the UN operates in virtual secrecy without the scrutiny of a skeptical media, and acts through unelected, unaccountable diplomats answerable to no one, ludicrous ideas become credible concepts.

Thus in Geneva, no official arose to oppose the absurd core notion of the Global New Deal: that because so many other national governments are unwilling or unable to do so, the United Nations should provide a "basic income for all people."

The idea: Create a "UN currency." Establish a UN central bank and thousands of UN Branch Banks and an accompanying UN debit system. Distribute 250 "UN dollars" to every person in the world (more for those in poverty.) To ensure that all people on the planet benefit, a UN representative would be assigned to represent every 1,000 people. Your local UN representative will be responsible for entering all necessary personal information into the UN Global Computer System to ensure that you use your UN dollars for appropriate purposes.

The problem: How to pay for this loony idea.

The solution: A "global tax," collected by the UN on all financial transactions involving a currency exchange. Sound too crazy to be true? Well, consider this: The UN is planning another global conference for next year which will focus specifically on the subject of global taxes.

Interestingly enough, by next year, all international banks will have systems in place that could administer a currency transaction tax. The European Union, Canada, the U.K, Switzerland, and Finland have all expressed support for some kind of global tax to support the UN.

Several months ago, when he first advanced this madcap concept, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan asked, "Could the time be ripe for a Global New Deal?" Hopefully, in less than 210 days, we will swear in a new president who will turn to Annan and just say "NO!"  

to Home