Global Governance vs. American Sovereignty

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Empires have been built through­out his­to­ry and most even­tu­al­ly fell when the empire got too large or too tyran­ni­cal. There has always been, and prob­a­bly always will be, a ten­sion between con­sol­i­dat­ing pow­er at the top or decen­tral­iz­ing pow­er to the peo­ple. Our Found­ing Fathers gave us a high­ly decen­tral­ized Repub­lic with most pow­er vest­ed in the states and with the peo­ple. Over time our fed­er­al gov­ern­ment has shift­ed this ever so slow­ly to cen­tral­ized pow­er at the top. The Found­ing Fathers wrote lan­guage into the Con­sti­tu­tion to guard against this loss of sov­er­eign­ty of the states.

Most Amer­i­cans hope to pass on to their chil­dren and grand­chil­dren a nation of laws with defined, secured bor­ders and a com­mon lan­guage. Some in our coun­try and in our gov­ern­ment are mak­ing deci­sions con­cern­ing our future and have a far dif­fer­ent Amer­i­ca in mind.

Steps tak­en dur­ing the last three admin­is­tra­tions, large­ly with­out approval of the Amer­i­can peo­ple, have erod­ed our eco­nom­ic sov­er­eign­ty. Amer­i­cans need to ask our­selves: “Do we want a sov­er­eign nation of self- gov­erned peo­ple with secure bor­ders and the rule of law or do we want to join a “New World Order” and sub­ju­gate our­selves to inter­na­tion­al orga­ni­za­tions that are beyond our laws and the vot­ers?”

The term glob­al­iza­tion is how we dis­cuss this con­flict of visions and is used in two ways: as glob­al­iza­tion with a small “g” and Glob­al­iza­tion with a cap­i­tal “G”. The for­mer is a fact; the lat­ter is a polit­i­cal ide­ol­o­gy.

Small “g” glob­al­iza­tion is the real­i­ty that tech­nol­o­gy, orga­ni­za­tion­al advance­ments, and glob­al politi­co-eco­nom­ic sta­bil­i­ty are increas­ing the lev­el of inter­ac­tion among nations, and as a result, for­mer­ly iso­lat­ed peo­ple are rapid­ly learn­ing what works best, aban­don­ing ways that inhib­it human devel­op­ment, and adopt­ing ways of free­dom and progress.

Small “g” glob­al­ism is a good thing, lift­ing many out of pover­ty and oppres­sion. The chal­lenge of glob­al­iza­tion is glob­al gov­er­nance. How do we man­age com­merce and pro­tect human rights and the envi­ron­ment in our high­ly inte­grat­ed and rapid­ly devel­op­ing world with­out jeop­ar­diz­ing the polit­i­cal sov­er­eign­ty of nations and the per­son­al lib­er­ty of indi­vid­u­als?

Lead­ers com­mit­ted to cap­i­tal “G” Glob­al­ism believe that the sov­er­eign­ty of nations is a bad thing. Their goal is to dis­solve all nation­al bound­aries, blend all cul­tures, and merge all nations into one big political/economic sys­tem.

Mak­ing a claim like this used to be con­sid­ered “con­spir­a­cy the­o­ry.” Now it’s dis­cussed open­ly. One of the rea­sons those in the grow­ing U.S. trade pol­i­cy reform move­ment call for a mora­to­ri­um on trade agree­ments is that these agree­ments go far beyond address­ing the chal­lenge of small “g” glob­al­ism. They move us toward cap­i­tal “G” Glob­al­ism. They unnec­es­sar­i­ly include stip­u­la­tions that sub­or­di­nate the U.S. to glob­al gov­er­nance orga­ni­za­tions that vir­tu­al­ly nul­li­fy the polit­i­cal author­i­ty of our local, state, and nation­al gov­ern­ments to make and enforce our own poli­cies rel­a­tive to trade, envi­ron­men­tal pro­tec­tion, and more.

Glob­al com­merce and gov­er­nance can be bet­ter accom­plished with­out over­step­ping the U.S. Con­sti­tu­tion, pulling Amer­i­ca into “entan­gling alliances”, and sur­ren­der­ing America’s sov­er­eign­ty. If America’s lead­ers desire to embrace cap­i­tal “G” Glob­al­ism, they should lay these issues hon­est­ly before the Amer­i­can pub­lic for open dia­logue and debate, rather than sub­tly and incre­men­tal­ly merg­ing the U.S. into a glob­al­ist com­mune with­out the thor­ough­ly informed con­sent of the Amer­i­can peo­ple.

As informed cit­i­zens it is our duty to ask our elect­ed rep­re­sen­ta­tives which side they are on: An Amer­i­ca as a sov­er­eign nation act­ing as a good world cit­i­zen exer­cis­ing good faith with our neigh­bors and pro­mot­ing peace and pros­per­i­ty for all nations. Or, do they sub­scribe to the the­o­ry that our nation should no longer serve the peo­ple of Amer­i­ca, as our con­sti­tu­tion states, but rather sub­ju­gate our nation to world orga­ni­za­tions? If Amer­i­cans were allowed to vote for a plat­form based on the above, they would pick sav­ing our nation’s sov­er­eign­ty almost unan­i­mous­ly.