Global Goals of the Clinton Administration
President Bill Clinton appointed his Rhodes scholar
roommate and fellow draft dodger, Strobe Talbott, as his
personal foreign policy adviser and later to the number-two post in the State Department. Talbott had spent 22
years as a writer for Time Magazine (July 20, 1992), where he enthusiastically predicted that "nationhood as we know it will be
obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global
authority." He wrote that "national sovereignty wasn't
such a great idea," and he rejoiced in the coming "birth of
the Global Nation."(1)
The Talbott types in the Clinton Administration know
that Americans will never willingly replace sovereignty
with "a single global authority," so they instead talk about
global governance, a global village, a global neighborhood, a global commons, a global economy, a reinvigorated United Nations, and an expanded NATO. Instead
of advocating a "single" global authority, the globalists
are moving us incrementally into a variety of global
entities with interlacing tentacles of control. They use
two principal techniques to increase the power of global
organizations at the expense of American freedom to run
our own affairs: treaties and international conferences.
Three types of treaties endanger our individual rights and
Treaties to Regulate Human Behavior
No human behavior is beyond the scope of these
impudent treaties and the UN committees they would
authorize to monitor our personal actions and our schools.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of
the Child(2) would set up a broad array of children's rights
against their parents. This treaty is a major goal of the
Children's Defense Fund, the chief lobby group for those
who want the government "village" to take over the
raising of children. This U.N. Treaty prescribes that the
education of the child shall include global education,
multiculturalism, feminism, and radical environmentalism,
and would probably require us to set up a national system
Article 43 sets up a Committee on the Rights of the
Child consisting of ten "experts" to monitor "the realization of the [treaty's] obligations." In 1995, the Committee released its report on the United Kingdom and gave us
a preview of the international busybodyism in store for us
if we ever make the mistake of ratifying the treaty. This
UN Committee expressed its concern that Britain isn't
spending enough taxpayer funds for social programs, that
British parents are allowed to withdraw their children
from sex education in school, and that spanking is allowed.(3)
The United Nations Convention on the Elimination
of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women(4) would
be a massive interference with U.S. laws and with our
federal-state balance of powers, as well as have an
unlimited capacity for legal mischief. It purports to
abolish discrimination against women "in the political,
economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field," which
means that the UN would govern private relationships,
"customs and practices."
This treaty would require us "to modify the social and
cultural patterns of conduct of men and women" and to
give assurances that we are following UN dictates about
"family education." It would require us to ensure "the
elimination of any stereotyped concept of the roles of men
and women at all levels and in all forms of education . . .
by the revision of textbooks . . . and teaching methods."
Those are longtime feminist goals.
The treaty would obligate the federal government to
take over all family law, including marriage, divorce,
child custody, and property. And, of course, a UN
committee of 23 "experts" would be created to monitor
our compliance with the treaty.
Both of these treaties were rejected by Presidents
Reagan and Bush, but have become pet projects of Bill
and Hillary Clinton and Madeleine Albright.
A third treaty to regulate human behavior is now
being prepared at the Hague and will be presented next
year. It would set up a new world court with power to
conduct criminal trials of individuals.
Treaties to Regulate Our Economic Life
The World Trade Organization was rammed
through Congress in 1994 as part of the lengthy treaty
called GATT.(5) The World Trade Organization functions
in Geneva as a sort of United Nations of Trade, with a
legislature (where we have one out of 117 votes -- the
same vote as Cuba or Haiti), a multinational bureaucracy
accountable to no one, and a supreme court of trade that
ruled against the United States in its first case.
Another treaty designed to control our economic life,
the Law of the Sea Treaty,(6) was emphatically rejected
by President Reagan in the 1980s. However, old treaties
don't die, they don't even fade away, and Clinton is trying
to revive it. It is a scheme to force American businesses
to sink billions of investment dollars down on the ocean
floor, and then turn the seabed's riches over to a global
This treaty would create an International Seabed
Authority with sovereignty over three-fourths of the
earth's surface. The one-nation-one-vote procedure
would assure that decisions would always be dominated
by the Third World which has contributed nothing to the
tremendous technology and financial investment necessary to bring those riches to the surface.
Unfortunately, Clinton persuaded the Republican
Senate to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention(7) in
1997. This treaty purports to ban chemical weapons, but
the dangerous countries most likely to use chemical
weapons (Libya, Syria, Iraq, North Korea, China, Iran
and Russia) either won't sign the treaty or have indicated
they will not be bound by it. This unverifiable and
unenforceable treaty will increase, not eliminate, the risk
of chemical weapons use.
Of course, this treaty creates a new international
bureaucracy. Headquartered in the Hague, it is now
planning its regulatory and reporting burden to impose on
every U.S. company that produces, processes, or consumes a scheduled chemical.
Treaties to Regulate Energy and Property
These treaties usually masquerade under the pretense
of protecting the environment. The 1992 Convention on
Biological Diversity (Biodiversity), an 18-page treaty
with 1,140 pages of explanation attached, planned to set
aside buffer zones and corridors connecting habitat areas
where human use by Americans would be severely
restricted. It would subject U.S. property owners to
international review and regulation.
President Bush refused to sign the Biodiversity
Treaty. However, Al Gore (see his book Earth in the
Balance(8)) persuaded Bill Clinton to sign it, and the
Clinton Administration tried to ratify it in 1994. The good
news is that, due to the action of alert patriots, the Senate
rejected it. The bad news is that the Clinton Administration is implementing it anyway through the President's
Council on Sustainable Development, claiming that we
must "fulfill existing international obligations." Unknown
to most Americans, the Clinton Administration has
already put 47 large areas of land, called "Biosphere
Reserves," under control of the UN and prohibited
development in these areas. The area involved is larger
than the state of Colorado.
In 1993, our Senate ratified another treaty that came
out of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio called the Framework Convention on Global Climate Change. It called
for the economically developed countries to take "voluntary actions" to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (principally carbon dioxide) to their 1990 levels. The Climate
Control Treaty that Clinton is planning on signing in
Kyoto, Japan later this year would turn the voluntary
goals into "legally binding commitments."(9)
This treaty would bind the United States to reduce our
greenhouse gas emissions by 10 to 20 percent below our
1990 levels, while Western Europe would be able to
evade reductions by averaging among the EU countries
and because most of their energy is produced by nuclear
plants (which don't produce carbon dioxide). The 130
developing nations, including China and Mexico, would
have no limitations at all! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that U.S. fossil-fuel-burning plants would move
out of the United States to countries where there are no
such restrictions. Whole industries and a million U.S.
jobs would move overseas, making us a non-industrialized
The World Heritage Convention of 1972 granted
special powers to the corrupt UN agency called UNESCO
to designate selected American treasures as World
Heritage sites and develop regulations and policies
concerning their use. The United States doesn't even
belong to UNESCO because Ronald Reagan pulled us out
of it. Nevertheless, 20 World Heritage Sites have already
been claimed and marked by UNESCO, including Yosemite National Park, Yellowstone National Park, the
Grand Canyon, and even the Statue of Liberty in New
York harbor and Independence Hall in Philadelphia.(10)
All these treaties are dangerous attacks on American
freedom, our national security, our land ownership, and
our private property. Every one of these treaties involves
setting up a new global bureaucracy that would have
some kind of obnoxious control over American citizens,
or our families, or our schools, or our businesses, or our
use of natural resources and energy, or our land.
UN Conferences Promote Feminist Agenda
UN conferences are the other method used by the
Clinton Administration to take us along the road to global
governance. UN conferences pretend to be democratic
gatherings of diverse delegates from all over the world
who hammer out their differences and agree on plans of
action. Nothing could be further from the truth. The
conference managers write the reports and recommendations ahead of time and then manipulate the so-called
delegates to call it a "consensus." Although the result is
not submitted to our Senate for ratification or our Congress for legislation, the Clinton Administration implements it anyway through the executive branch.
Bella Abzug, the former Congresswoman who is now
head of the tax-funded Women's Environment and
Development Organization (WEDO), has surfaced as the
head of the very successful effort to use UN conferences
to serve radical feminist goals. First, she hijacked the UN
Conference in Cairo, which was supposed to be about
population, and used it for the feminist agenda.
Then, she was in her glory at the UN Fourth World
Conference on Women held in Beijing in September
1995.(11) She boasted at Beijing: "You made a contract
with the world's women, and that has to be enforced.
And how does it get enforced? By politics, by political
action." Of course, the American people made no such
contract; what she was talking about was the fabricated
"consensus" in Beijing.
Soon after the feminists returned from China in 1995,
UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright, who was the U.S.
Delegation chair in Beijing, spelled out the goals in a
document called "Bring Beijing Home." These included
"family responsibilities must be shared" (obviously, the
government should force husbands to do the dishes and
the diapers) and, of course, assuring abortion rights.
In May 1996, the Clinton Administration set up the
President's Interagency Council on Women chaired by
Hillary Rodham Clinton and HHS Secretary Donna
Shalala. Its mission is to "follow up on U.S. commitments made" in Beijing. The Beijing commitments are
now being implemented by the Clinton Administration
through a federal entity composed of high-level representatives from 30 federal agencies. It holds monthly
meetings, engages in outreach activities, conducts local
seminars, and uses a White House address.
Abzug has promulgated a 12-point "Contract with
American Women" that includes demands for affirmative
action, abortion, and ratification of the UN Treaty on
Women. She boasts that work is under way to promote
her platform in high schools, colleges and universities
through courses and seminars on Beijing's notion of
UN Conferences on Energy and Property
The principal UN conferences of this type were the
1992 Earth Summit in Rio (which produced the
Biodiversity Treaty and Climate Change Treaty), the
Istanbul Habitat Conference in 1996 (which was
designed to make the United States feel that we should
provide housing for people all over the world), and the
Rome Conference on Food in 1996 (which was designed
to make the United States feel that we should feed the
The code words of these conferences are "human
habitat" and "sustainable development." The people who
use these words have an agenda that includes putting
limits on American consumption, land use, transportation,
The people and groups promoting this and related
treaties have a particular world view. They think that our
high standard of living is destroying the earth and, of
course, Americans are the guiltiest. They say we've
exceeded our sustainable development and should go
back to being agrarian peasants. They want to drastically
restrict our use of automobiles, fuel, refrigeration, air
conditioning, and meat. They want to create bio regions
and put 50% of our land into wilderness. Their mindset
is to subordinate humans to the environment.
Other global conferences have produced "consensus"
on even more exotic ways to coopt American wealth for
global purposes. The 1995 UN World Summit for
Social Development in Copenhagen, Denmark discussed
imposing a global tax to give the UN its own flow of
money independent of Congressional appropriations.(13)
The Clinton-appointed head of the UN Development
Program, James Gustave Speth, called for a global tax on
international financial transactions. Naturally, all the UN
bureaucrats thought that was a smashing idea and they
began to orchestrate demands for it.
U.S. Armed Services under Global Control
The Reagan vision of military strategy was firmly
grounded in the principle of "peace through strength," that
is, having more weapons than any possible enemy so no
bad guys would dare to attack us. It worked -- Reagan
ended the Cold War without firing a shot! The Clinton
policy is just the opposite.
The Clinton Administration wants to lock us into a
perpetual interventionist policy under which American
servicemen and women will be sent to faraway places to
fight never-ending foreign wars disguised as "peacekeeping" operations.
In May 1994, Clinton signed a Presidential Decision
Directive, PDD 25, asserting his authority "to place U.S.
forces under the operational control of a foreign commander" and under the United Nations rules of engagement. It is the most unconstitutional transfer of power in
the history of America.(14)
In 1995, the Clinton Administration ordered American
troops to go on a so-called "peacekeeping" expedition to
Macedonia wearing the United Nations uniform. When
Army Specialist Michael New protested that this order
was illegal because it conflicted with his oath to the U.S.
Constitution, he was court-martialed.(15) His conviction
was a watershed event on the way to abandoning control
over American armed services.
When American soldiers were killed over Iraq, Vice
President Al Gore told their widows and orphans that
"they died in the service of the United Nations." That
wasn't a slip of the tongue; his words reveal the Clinton
Administration's plan to use our armed forces as UN
mercenaries all over the world at the whim of UN bureaucrats. And the worst part is that U.S. troops are sent to
faraway places where we have no national security
The Clinton Administration is well aware that the
United Nations is no longer popular with any Americans
except Ted Turner and Jane Fonda. Americans resent the
impudent demands that we pay alleged back "dues" when
we are already paying big dues plus over $3 billion a year
in "peacekeeping" operations. The Somalia, Haiti, and
Rwanda expeditions were very unpopular, especially
when a U.S. solider was dragged through the streets in
That's why the globalists chose NATO, rather than
the UN, to sponsor the Bosnian expedition, and Bosnia
is a good example of the future the Clinton globalists have
in store for us.(16) The Clinton Administration has just
announced that our troops will not be pulled out on the
promised deadline but must maintain a continuing presence in Bosnia. Why is anybody surprised! Everything
that has happened was wholly predictable. The fact that
Bosnia is a terrible failure does not phase the globalists in
the slightest because their game plan all along is to keep
us forever on an interventionist path with our troops under
The globalists have now come up with a new plan to
lock America into never-ending foreign wars that are none
of our business and keep American troops forever hostage
in Europe -- it's called NATO expansion.(17) All the
propaganda mechanisms are moving into high gear to tell
the American people that we must manifest "global
leadership," which means that our armed services will
serve as global policemen and global social workers,
while the U.S. taxpayers will play global sugar daddy.
Why should Americans commit to defend faraway
European borders that have been the locus of ethnic,
nationalist and religious disputes for hundreds of years?
Make no mistake: NATO is a life-and-death U.S. promise to go to war to protect any of the other members.
The principal purpose of NATO expansion is to
legitimize the President's ability to continue to engage
American troops in foreign quarrels without ever asking
permission from Congress, as the Constitution requires.
It's a sort of "back-door interventionism."
Global government is not just a pipe dream of starry-eyed dreamers. It is the world view and goal of the
Clinton Administration. Its advocates are all around us.
The attempt by the Clinton Administration to give
away the rights of American inventors is another example
of Clintonian globalism. The number-one argument used
to defend this giveaway is that we must harmonize our
system with the rest of the world. This particular sellout
wasn't even a treaty; it was just a private deal made
between Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown and the
Japanese Ambassador to give away a great and unique
American constitutional right.(18)
The National Education Association passes a resolution every year calling for global education in the schools.
Public school textbooks are filled with concepts about
world citizenship rather than American independence,
protection of the earth and biodiversity rather than human
rights, and definitions of family to conform to the feminist
agenda enunciated in Beijing.(19)
I received a letter from Walter Cronkite, the longtime
icon of television news, asking me to contribute to the
Campaign for Global Change. He urged a "global call"
for a reinvigorated United Nations, permanent UN
peacekeeping forces, an international Court, and a strong
Commission on Sustainable Development that would
restrict our property rights.(20) As Walter used to say,
"And that's the way it is."
When Bill Clinton delivered his acceptance speech at
the Democratic National Convention in New York City in
1992, the only person he mentioned besides his mother
and grandfather was his history professor at Georgetown
University's Foreign Service School, the late Carroll
Quigley, whom Clinton credited with helping to form his
own political outlook. Quigley was a liberal professor
known principally for his 1,300-page book called Tragedy
and Hope, published in 1966, in which he approvingly
described the small elite group which he said actually runs
the United States.(21)
Quigley labeled this group "the Network," and he said
it consists of men who are "cosmopolitan and international . . . close to governments . . . equally devoted to
secrecy and the secret use of financial influence in
political life." Professor Quigley taught his student from
Hope, Arkansas how to tap into the power centers of the
Network, the people who yearn to control the world
through the mechanisms of global governance. When Bill
Clinton became President, he surrounded himself with
people who share that vision.
Global treaties and conferences are a direct threat to
every American citizen. They are an assault on our right
to raise and educate our children as we see fit. They are
an attack on our ownership of our private property and on
American ownership of our national treasures. They are
an attack on our pocketbooks because, if the UN ever
gets taxing power, there is no limit to how much of our
money it can grab. They are an attack on the American
standard of living because their goal is to steal American
wealth and give it to the rest of the world.
Global treaties and conferences are an assault on the
soul and sovereignty of America because they mean that
young American men and women will be sent around the
world on phony "peacekeeping" expeditions.
The Senate should reject all UN treaties out of hand.
Every single one would be a diminution of our rights,
freedom and sovereignty. That goes for treaties on the
child, women, the sea, trade, chemical weapons,
biodiversity, and heritage sites. Congress should stop
financing UN conferences and put a stop to all Clinton
attempts to implement them through the bureaucracy.
Americans are not willing to have our property stolen
by envious dictators or our standard of living reduced by
those who whine about sustainable development. Americans are not willing to let Clinton turn our armed services
into global social workers or global cops.
Americans are not willing to be ruled by Strobe
Talbott's "global nation," or by Walter Cronkite's
"reinvigorated United Nations," or by Bill Clinton's
treaties and conferences.
If the rest of the world wants to enjoy the blessings of
liberty and prosperity, they can copy our system. We are
not going to compromise with theirs.
Additional information about these topics can be found in the following issues of the Phyllis Schlafly Report:|
June 1994, p. 3; Nov. 1996, p. 2
May 1995, p. 3
Jan. 1997, p. 2; Sept. 1990
June 1994; Oct. 1994; Nov. 1996
Jan. 1997, p. 3
Sept. 1992, p. 3
Sept. 1997, p. 3
Sept. 1997, p. 2
Dec. 1996, p. 3
Sept. 1997, p. 4
Nov. 1995, p. 3; Jan. 1997
Nov. 1995, p. 2; June 1994, p. 2
Nov. 1995, p. 2
Sept. 1997, p. 1
May 1997; July 1997
Jan. 1996, p. 3
Apr. 1971; Sept. 1992, p. 3