VOLUME 5, NUMBER 11 - OCTOBER 20, 2000


The United Nations Millennium Declaration


September, 6-8, of the year 2000, The United Nations Millennium Summit came and went. It was billed as the largest gathering of world leaders ever, with over 149 heads of State in attendance. The purpose of the meeting: "define the direction of the United Nations for the new millennium." As usual the media down played the importance of this event. Most articles or major media comments about the Summit speak to the "noble efforts" the UN will make in the new millennium to alleviate the problems that have plagued man since time began, but an examination of the Summit's Declaration reveals something entirely different.

Consider the following final paragraph of that Declaration:

One could hardly draft a statement more filled with human pride. Nowhere in the Declaration do we find a call upon the God of the universe for His aid and guidance in "our" undertakings.

Shall we take a look at some of those undertakings?

This has of course been a goal of mankind since our beginnings, and we have fought many wars to try to bring peace. The Christian knows that we will never have peace on this earth until the Prince of Peace returns and establishes His kingdom. The Devil's lie is that we can do it ourselves.

Here we see a major doctrine of the United Nations which, in essence, calls for the equality of results for all peoples. To better understand this doctrine imagine, if you can, a global "affirmative action" plan. This doctrine is further stated:

In commenting about one nation preparing to ratify the Protocol on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women Ms. Gastaut (Spokeswoman for the Co-Chairs of the Summit) said that if that Protocol enters into force it will allow individuals to file charges of non-compliance directly with the U.N. committee that monitors compliance with the Convention. This would totally by-pass local and national laws.

At first read, the above quote might seem to be simply a statement of compassion for the poor and downtrodden, but when read in light of other U.N. documents (such as Agenda 21) it takes on a whole new meaning. When viewed in the context of the U.N.'s socialist agendas, phrases like these mean that the industrialized nations of the world (those with the high standards of living and the high consumption patterns) are going to have to be downsized so that the poorer nations can have their standards of living raised (take from the haves and give to the have-nots).

Based on the U.N.'s premise that there is a limited supply of wealth in the world, a few nations cannot be allowed to wallow in the luxury of that wealth while the many are suffering deprivation, hunger and even starvation. It [the U.N.] has set itself up as the great equalizer, and once it has the power (through global taxation, an international court system and a standing U.N. army) it will use that power to enforce its edicts on nations like the United States, Great Britain, Canada, etc.

Again, on the surface this may seem to be an innocuous enough statement, but when viewed in light of other U.N. documents one realizes that the absolutes of the Christian, Hebrew and Moslem faiths will be totally incompatible with the form of tolerance being advocated. Other faiths are not to be simply tolerated but must be affirmed as having equal value with one's own. No true Christian, honest Jew or believing Muslim can accept this. Just as they cannot accept murder as a legitimate means of birth control nor homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle.

The key to understanding this quote is in understanding what is meant by the term "sustainable development." We might think that the standard of living we have attained in America is a sustainable standard of living. The U.N. does not. The phrase "the current unsustainable patterns of production and consumption" is aimed directly at nations like America. And if one delves deeply into U.N. writings one comes away with the understanding that "respect for nature" is synonymous with "worship of nature."

If the United Nations must play the central role who do you think will be making the rules?

Heretofore war within states was considered an internal matter that was exempt from U.N. interference. Clinton's NATO assault on Kosovo has changed that.

The tools it needs are, of course, funding (an international tax), a legal basis for action (the World Court and the International Criminal Court) and a standing army (the proposed--by our Congress no less--Rapid Deployment Strike Force.

Did you notice the call for arms control and disarmament? This would not apply to just military disarmament but would require the disarmament of the citizenry. And once again we see the push for the ICC (International Criminal Court), which could make you a criminal subject to U.N. justice if you should choose to use corporal punishment to discipline your child, or should refuse to allow your child free association with (let's just say pedophiles for example), since the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child opposes corporal punishment and grants children the right of free association.

We stand corrected. This statement does illustrate the epitome of human pride slightly better than the earlier quote. We would just like to offer another quote in response to this one: "For ye have the poor always with you;" (Matthew 26:11)

A little more of the same arrogance.

We hope you recognize that such a trading and financial system is anything but a free market. It would require total control (and even then could never work for any long period of time).

Parents are responsible to God for their children. This new system calls for the parent to acknowledge that the state has a responsibility for the children, partnering the state with the parent and leaving God out of the equation. We are already seeing some of the results of such partnering in places like Columbine High School. When the state replaces God as the sustainer, the master is no longer a loving master but soon becomes a tyrant.

If the Kyoto Protocol is ever adopted in the United States it will devastate our economy and reduce us to the level of some third-world country. It is first-and-foremost a means of transferring wealth from the industrialized nations to the undeveloped nations of the world...but, of course, it considers China as one of the undeveloped nations.

The goal of this would eventually set aside one-half of the land mass of the continental United States as animal preserves. Another 10% of our country would be designated buffer zones and corridors surrounding and connecting the core set-asides. The remaining 40% would be for human habitation with stringent regulations on how it could be used. Welcome to the United Nations' idea of what their brave new world is all about.

We have discussed this before, but Article 29 contains the crux of the matter..."Article 29, Section (3): These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

Most people have never heard of the International Parliamentary Union (IPU) and are totally unaware of its existence. It is "the world organization of parliaments of sovereign states. It was founded in 1889. The IPU supports the efforts of the United Nations, whose objectives it shares, and works in close co-operation with it. Over a hundred national parliaments are currently members of the IPU. Three international parliamentary assemblies are Associate Members." The United States, which does not have a parliamentary form of government, is also a member. We may publish more information on this organization in a later newsletter or in one of our other publications.

We have attempted to cover the major portions of the U.N. Millennium Summit Declaration in this newsletter. It was, of course, impossible to even print the entire Declaration (which may be accessed from the U.N.'s web site: www.un.org) much less comment on all its provisions. We have also tried to point out that a proper understanding of the positions made in this Declaration requires considerable knowledge of other U.N. documents.

The uninitiated will likely read most of this Declaration as a simple affirmation of the world's desire for peace and security and will not understand the cost at which such security must be purchased.


Go to next newsletter