Man, Freedom and Nations in Jeopardy
Growing influence of NGOs since 2010 elevated them to front row status in public private partnerships today. For this reason it’s imperative to know NGO history.
History and strong influence of NGOs
Posted on April 5, 2010 by Maryetta Ables
Everyone knows what a lobbyist is, but do you know what an “Adviser” is in Washington, D.C.? No matter whom we elect, no matter the person or party, if we don’t shine the light on who really is writing policy, we are in for a rude awakening.
The acronym NGO stands for Non-Governmental Organization. While NGOs go back to the early 1900s, the phrase “non-governmental organization” came into its current use with the United Nations Organization in 1945. It is in Article 71 of Chapter 10 of the United Nations Charter it established a consultative role for organizations which are neither governments nor member states. There is a conscious effort to replace the term NGO with a more politically-correct term — Civil Society Organization or CSO.
There is a major difference:
- NGO may apply to any non-profit organization.
- CSO designation applies only to those NGOs that are accredited by the United Nations and hold “consultative status” through The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
For-profit companies and organizations can also be accredited, but focus here is NGOs.
According to Our Global Neighborhood, the official report of the UN-funded Commission on Global Governance, [See Footnote 1 below] published in 1995, there were 28,900 international NGOs worldwide and hundreds of thousands of national NGOs. As of late 1994, only 980 were officially “accredited” by the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). However, these 980 accredited NGOs are affiliated with tens of thousands more NGOs in virtually every nation on earth. By virtue of their affiliation with accredited NGOs, these NGOs constitute what the UN describes as CSOs.
Non UN-accredited NGOs are described by globalists as “populist* organizations” and the globalists feel that these organizations can upset and even destroy the work of decades of their deliberations in a short period of time. That is the potential of the “Tea Party” grass roots movement currently on the rise in the United States.
*Populism is a political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against a privileged elite.
Background to aid in understanding CSOs. There are two levels of accreditation:
- Accreditation by ECOSOC confers what is called “consultative” status.
- Accreditation by a subsidiary organization of ECOSOC authorizes “observer” status at a specific UN conference or event.
For a current list and locations of CSOs with consultative status go to: http://esango.un.org/irene/index.html
The power of “observer” status was seen at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero. Of the more than 8,000 NGOs that swarmed to the NGO Forum held the week before the Earth Summit, 1,400 NGOs were accredited as “observers.”
NGOs with “consultative” and “observer” status are responsible for the following:
- Development of the global agenda, i.e., Agenda 21.
- Enactment of the policies at the international level.
- Converting international policy into national laws and regulations.
- Implementing the new policies, laws, and regulations on the ground.
The triumvirate, consisting of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature [IUCN], World Wildlife Fund [WWF] and World Resources Institute [WRI], is the driving force behind the rise of NGO influence at the UN and around the world.
The U.S. State Department contributes more than $1 million per year to IUCN. President Clinton issued Executive Order #12986 which grants this NGO certain diplomatic “privileges and immunities.”
The WWF reported 1995 income in the USA to be $138,874,116 and assets at $62,558,896. In recent years the WWF’s take increased:
- In 2003 it was $370,245,000
- In 2004 it was $468,889,000
- In 2005 it was $499,629,000
- In 2006 it was $549,827,000
- In 2007 it was $663,193,000
- That totals $2,551,783,000
WWF’s take in 2008 was not quite as good. They switched their accounting to Euros, in place of dollars and took in €447,251,000. That’s roughly $584,000,000.
Their total income since 2003 is just over $3.1 billion (this does not include 2009).
Note that the WWF took €73,938,000 ($104,320,000) in 2007 and €76,930,000 ($108,856,000) in 2008 from ‘Governments and Aid Agencies.’
The WRI is perhaps the world’s most influential think-tank. It produces the so-called scientific foundation for the global agenda and coordinates much of the activity of affiliated NGOs as well. Maurice Strong [See below Footnote 2]has been or is currently a director or officer of each of these NGOs.
Agenda promoters want you to believe NGO activity is spontaneous as is involvement of CSOs. However, NGO activity is organized and meticulously coordinated by the triumvirate.
NGOs organize into coalitions. Three of the more important coalitions are:
- CAN (Climate Action Network), which concentrates on climate change issues.
- BioNET, which concentrates on biodiversity issues. Note: UNEP and IUCN are among their affiliates. (See: http://www.bionet-intl.org/opencms/opencms/partners/memberships/memberships-affiliations.jsp)
- CitNet (Citizens Network for Sustainable Development), which concentrates on sustainable development issues.
Each of these coalitions is made up of hundreds of NGOs scattered around the world, connected by the internet.
One function of these NGOs is to urge their members to support specific policy measures as they are presented to Congress. Because they hold “consultative” status they are contractually required to support any item that is presented to them from their peers. They are also required to support individual candidates who support the overall agenda. The Sierra Club was deeply involved in the 1996 Congressional elections spending millions of dollars in support of candidates friendly to their cause. https://www.freedomadvocates.org/ngos-and-csos/
Commission on Global Governance recommendations in preparation for a World
Conference on Global Governance, scheduled for 1998, at which official world governance treaties are expected to be adopted for implementation by the year 2000.
There is no historic model for the system here proposed, nor is there any method by which the governed may decide whether or not they wish to be governed by such a system. Global governance is a procedure toward defined objectives that employs a variety of methods, none of which give the governed an opportunity to vote “yes” or “no” for the outcome.
Trusteeship over the global commons provides the basis to levy user fees, taxes and royalties for permits to use the global commons. Global commons are defined to be:
“the atmosphere, outer space, the oceans, and the related environment and life-support systems that contribute to the support of human life.”
This broad definition of the global commons would give the UN authority to deal with environmental matters inside the borders of sovereign states, and on privately owned property.
If you open the link, remember globalists always project the ‘opposite‘ of their true intentions to harness man’s consent. READ more at https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_globalization05.htm
Maurice Strong https://climatism.wordpress.com/2013/09/17/the-creator-fabricator-and-proponent-of-global-warming-maurice-strong/
Countries planet wide are being ensnared under globalization through public private partnerships, with dire implications for man and sovereign nations. https://ourgreaterdestiny.org/2018/07/new-government-model-p3s/
Sharing is consent to empower positive solutions. Thank you.
Doreen A Agostino
Without Prejudice and Without Recourse
Sent via hardwired computer.
All wireless turned off to safeguard life.