EUISS and World Governance: We Need Immigration and Climate Change As Arguments for Military World State Control
Friday, April 16, 2010
by Anders euro-med.dk
Summary: The EU Institute for Security Studies (EUISS) is the brain behind the EU’s military. It is centered around Bilderberger and Club of Rome member, Javier Solana, former NATO Secretary General and EU foreign minister (High Representative). EUISS’ annual publication 2009: “What ambitions for European defence in 2020”, contains interesting information: Swedish Tomas Ries writes that the ISS needs a European army to defend EU borders against massive poverty immigration. He calls it distasteful and immoral – but necessary! Furthermore, Ries writes that Europe needs to be able to wage war against countries (including Russia) with other views on the world than the EU’s New World Order views. Furthermore, this New World Order will usurp the right of deciding to occupy an area of a former sovereign state in the name of, e.g. climate or biodiversity! Nevertheless, the EU has started to fulfill its promise of free movement within the EU for Muslim Euro-Mediterranean partners, as promised in 2003. Furthermore, the EU has set up recruiting offices in Africa to recruit 56 million. Muslims + their families into the EU by 2050! At the same time, the EUISS writes in the report from its annual congress 2009, “Soft power”. Managing a Post-crisis World”, that it would be wrong to bar the Union from the outside world, because it is contrary to the sacred dogma of “unity in diversity.” But then comes the strange thing: It is stated, that there is no risk of confrontation between the great powers – for they are partners. Why else does the European Union want an army, then? Regionalization, it is said, is part of global governance. The Global Agenda (21) is generated by the linkage of the fight against the crises (climate, financial, immigration, development) – that the elite behind the New World Order has created itself for this very purpose. The G20 must be strengthened – and bought NGOs must have much more to say in support of the New World Order program – because this is New World Order “legitimacy”. Better is soft power – but make no mistake. The EU will put hard power behind if it does not succeed by soft means. The British Defence Ministry wrote that everybody must be linked to a verifiable network (chips, among others) – and it will be deemed suspicious to stay outside. It stipulated that it will be difficult for those who want to preserve their indigenous culture and beliefs. They will be considered radicalised – while this is obviously not true, for example of Muslim “neo-Europeans”. The UN has started to realize John F. Kennedy ‘s proposal from 1961 to abolish all armies and only maintain a UN world army of 50,000 men to oppress troublemakers against the New World Order. The NATO has usurped this role in 2008.
The EU has a very big democratic deficiency, to put it mildly – as seen clearly after the travesty about the Lisbon Treaty – and the tragedy about the Euromediterranean Process, which has been kept totally unknown to the Europeans – although it means that the European race and culture is being replaced by Arabs, Turks and Muslim negroes. On 22 Nov. 2009, the first permanent EU President, Hermann van Rompuy, the Bilderberger, said that 2009 was the first year of global governance with the G20 in the middle. “The Climate conference in Copenhagen is a step towards the global management of our planet”!!! On 20 Dec. 2009 the Telegraph reported that Gordon Brown was elaborating a plan to make the EU the world´s policeman to monitor every country´s emissions of the totally harmless CO2 – although the Chinese have rejected such a thing. The EU Parliament has been working for a UN Parliamentary Assembly since 1994. Look at the videos at the right margin of this blog – and you will see how EU leaders are roaring for a New World Order and world/global governance. The World government is here. And the EU is in it!
I have previously described the Institute for Security Studies (EUISS) as the brain of the EU. It is centered around the Bilderberger and Club of Rome member, Javier Solana.
The following describes how Solana and his think tank including the Rand-board member, Bilderberger and Trilateral Commisionist, Carl Bildt, Sweden´s foreign minister, Radha Kumar, Azzam Mahjoub, Rapporteur of Panel 3, (introduces the session), these Rothschild-puppets, keep talking about …democracy!
First let us see what the EU´s Institute for Security Studies has to say in its 2009 publication “What ambitions for European defence in 2020?” on the “hard power” of the ESDP-forces
Tomas Ries: Barrier operations – shielding the global rich from the tensions and problems of the poor. As the ratio of the world population living in misery and frustration will remain massive, the tensions and spillover between their world and that of the rich will continue to grow. As we are unlikely to have solved this problem at its root by 2020 – i.e. by curing dysfunctional societies – we will need to strengthen our barriers. It is a morally distasteful, losing strategy, but will be unavoidable.
Some alienated regimes will still exist in 2020 – the key uncertainty here being the Kremlin. If so, we will need to retain a capability to meet their deliberate challenges to our vision of the world. This will require hard military power… and possible direct military confrontation. Towards the less developed parts of the world generally, a capability to contain the transnational problems. This includes barrier operations against migration. This … will be increasingly necessary as long as the problems are not solved. If we do it wrong we risk collapsing into an impoverished and violently multipolar world of conflicting societies.
Militarily this includes ecological policing, controlling and enforcing ecological standards at home. By 2020 it may also… include more robust power projection requirements to protect remote rain forests, fish breeding areas or other critical global ecological assets that are deemed so essential for the global ecological system as a whole that they become a universal treasure,
beyond the sovereign jurisdiction of any single state.
EU´s Institute for Security Studies: “Soft power” Managing a post-crisis world. The Annual Congress 2009.
“The EU´s soft power is real power. For the European Union more than for any other international actor, it is the magnetism of its model of democratic integration that constitutes its principal strength. the Union should act as ‘Lighthouse Europe’, a beacon of stability and democratic values in our turbulent international system. But it must nevertheless be recognised that there is a prevailing mood of enlargement fatigue, even though enlargement is the preeminent instrument of European external policy;
To ensure democratic stability in the Balkans and among its neighbours, the European Union should pursue, in a different manner, the expansion of its arena of peace and democracy to its neighbours in the East and the Southern Mediterranean. A worrying question has also been raised: why does democracy in the East constitute an objective that has been clearly articulated by the Union, while this is not the case for the South? The countries in this region share the same democratic aspirations, even if the degree of hope or appetite for membership is different. In the Southern Mediterranean, the consistency of the Union’s international policy, and the values that the EU professes, are confronted with a decisive test.
Comment: They will never learn in the EU: Islam and democracy exclude each other according to the Koran. This is the same problem as with CO2: Although all real science says there is no global warming and no CO2–problem the EU goes on taxing and regulating as though there were! If their ideology says 2 + 2 is 7 – then it cannot be changed by logics.
Building a wall which would separate the EU from the world would be contrary to the fundamental principle of unity in diversity and would constitute a fatal error.
In order to avoid this, a coherent immigration policy is vital. However, see above.
Maintaining a policy of equilibrium between the East and South (one of the elements of the European compromise of 1989) is a vital necessity for the internal equilibrium of the Union and for the success of the Neighbourhood Policy.
The entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty presents a dynamic of which we must take full advantage in order to give a new impetus to the expansion of the EU to the Balkans and its relationship with Turkey.
It is necessary to bolster the Neighbourhood Policy (ideally a mechanism of inclusion), similar to those which enabled the success of democratic inclusion via (EU) enlargement.
Carl Bildt, illuminist, Swedish Foreign Minister, arch-bilderberger and Trilateral Commissionist and Trustee of the Board of the RAND. The Rand Corporation is the most important private research centre for military strategy and organization in the world. It is the prestigious voice of the American military-industrial lobby.
RAND is THE think tank most beholden to Tavistock Institute and certainly the Royal Institute of Foreign Affairs´ (Chatham House´s) most prestigious vehicle for control of United States policies at every level.
Its Founder was also the Founder of the Hudson Institute – both inextricably associated with the Councuil on Foreign Relations (CFR).
The discussion of the second panel highlighted the lack of consensus between the relevant actors – whether global or regional, old or new – regarding the principles and norms that should guide the behaviour of the international community in the spheres of war and peace. One common conviction nevertheless emerged during the discussion, with equal clarity: there is no real risk of confrontation?? between the principal great powers. The latter generally consider themselves to be partners rather than strategic competitors.
The debate on the Responsibility to Protect is essential for the definition of rules and norms that could serve as the basis for the legitimisation, by the international community, of a given operation, as well as for the conduct of military action proper.
It was also stated that regional cooperation remains one of the major components of effective multilateralism ; far from being something that can be neglected, it should on the contrary be integrated as a component of global governance in its own right (an idea dating back to the Brooking Institute 1942). This is clearly already the case in the European Union.
It is necessary to connect the different issues on the global agenda (21) – whether the response to the economic and financial crisis, and here, the environment, and here, conflict prevention, problems associated with migration and trade – and to link these up with the theme of development.
Does the G20 represent a new mechanism of ad hoc global governance, which might be repeated in other ‘G’s composed of the same states or others, on other global questions?
Finally, the radical changes in the United States’ foreign policy have been identified as a window of opportunity for the creation of a wide international consensus around the concept of effective multilateralism,sealing the ‘grand bargain’ which will allow international organisations to adapt to the necessities of global governance. Participation cannot take place without representation. From this panel’s discussions the following recommendations emerged:
The G20 represents progress in relation to the G8; however, it will be necessary to find ways to enhance its effectiveness, and to ensure that it takes account of topics that relate to global governance like energy, climate change and development, all of which were part of the G8’s agenda.
It is imperative – as the logical result of the dynamic ushered in by the G20 – that multilateral institutions such as the Bretton Woods organisations (the IMF and the World Bank) be reformed, if we want to give global governance its full legitimacy(!?!?). The reform of the Security Council could take place within this same dynamic.
The European Union should agree to significantly reduce its Member States’ representation in the G20.
For the Europeans, to speak with one voice in international organisations – beginning with the IMF and the World Bank – signifies more, and not less, power.
Regionalism should again feature among the priorities in the initiatives concerning global governance – not only as a necessary dimension for the strengthening of its legitimacy.
The voices of non-state actors should be more audible prior to decision-taking, as sources of both expertise and legitimacy, especially in the areas that concern them directly, such as disarmament, human rights, emigration and refugees, climate change and international justice.
EUobserver – Belgian Prime Minister Yves Leterme has said that joint economic governance among some or all EU member states is an inevitable consequence of the creation of the euro.
DCDC Global Strategic Trends Programme 2007-2034, by UK MoD, the Development, Doctrine and Concepts Centre (DCDC)
“The social tensions caused by intrusive global culture are likely to be most acute amongst those who seek to maintain their indigenous and traditional customs and beliefs, and feel threatened by changes. This is likely to lead to an increasing number of individuals and groups, many of whom form around single issues that differentiate them from wider society, becoming marginalized and possibly radicalized.”
Slowing of momentum towards greater political integration by the EU and likely economic and political divergence among its enlarged membership may result in a general weakening of its potential for situational development and coherence. This may render European states increasingly vulnerable to globalized challenges, such as economic competition, mass migration, terrorism, international crime and climate change. The potential for populism, revived nationalism and economic protectionism will remain high. Further momentum for greater political integration is unlikely unless stimulated by the re-emergence of a significant, tangible and immediate threat to European security.
During the next 30 years, globalization and especially the Information Revolution will significantly enhance the impact and utility of Soft Power. The EU has been markedly successful as a Soft Power attractor. ICT40 is likely to be so pervasive that people are permanently connected to a network or two-way data stream with inherent challenges to civil liberties; being disconnected could be considered suspicious.
The newest MoD paper, drawing influence from its predecessor, describes rapid changes in society that threaten to “radicalize” individuals who seek to maintain traditions and beliefs, while a global elite “…sits above the level of individual states and influences the global agenda…” By 2040 the MoD envisions a “global society” plagued with tensions brought about by globalization, and high technology exaggerates differences between haves and have nots.
Right: Radha Kumar (India), Warren Weaver Fellow, Rockefeller Foundation, 1996-7, Formerly Senior Fellow in Peace and Conflict Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, Advisory Group, Global Civil Society Project, London School of Economics
Radha Kumar, Azzam Mahjoub (a Tunesian economist). Why are such names planning my future – in the EU? Well, yes, of course. Radha is Rockefellers girl – and of course, an Arab has to be involved in the planning of our beloved Union for the Mediterranean, the regionalisation which the EUISS is so fond of – the road to the one-world state. The Lisbon Treaty seems to be an open gate not only to immigrants – but also to planners of EU´s future from Muslim countries. We were never asked whether we wanted the immigrants. We are not being asked about whom we prefer to plan our future. We are not being asked about the direction of that future: the one-world state governed by Muslims. This is not only undemocratic. It is outrageous.
Now it does seem that the EU´s Institute for Security Studies is getting concerned over the mass immigration: it demands balanced immigration from the East and the South – although it is impossible to see any good reason for the immigration from the Southern shores of the Mediterranean. The EUISS even foresees war against the mass immigration from the South – all the while the EU has set up recruiting offices in Africa to get 56 million of Africans into the EU – + their families by 2050. This is amateurish – and irresponsible to us. And it is immoral, considering the EUISS finds it necessary to wage war on them to keep them out of Europe. Are the lemmings getting scared at their own immorality?
Now why is it so important for the EU to build up its “hard power”. In the end there is only one good explanation: It needs an army to clamp down on future ethnic and cultural civil wars as well as rebellions against the rascals of the New World Order elite responsible for all the misery they are unleashing on us.
But it gets worse: These self-proclaimed rulers of the world may at any time appoint any one area to require climate or species-diversity protection – and occupy the area militarily without regard to what the previously souvereign nation says! All armies are to disappear – only the world government is to have an army of 50.000 men (= NATO) at its disposal. The idea is derived from Pres. Kennedy – and is being implemented. And such an army is to meet “Challenges to our view of the world” (New World Order)!!!
It is sad to read how all these ignorant and malicious people draw all sorts of horror scenarios to convince us that we can only live in security within the framework of their Agenda 21 under Rothschild’s world government, here. Their multicultural New World Order is the certain road to chaos, repression and civil war.