The notion of mutually assured destruction is a military strategy and national security policy wherein each side has enough weaponry to destroy the other side, thus ensuring mutual destruction in the event of war. But in the 21st century, mutually assured destruction is not limited solely to militarism. Our increasingly global economy has virtually assured that when one nation’s economy collapses, all economies suffer. As such, nations feel compelled to interfere in the economies of other nations to protect their own interests. What typically results is a loss of national sovereignty and an increase in the influence of the international community on the internal affairs of nations.
Ultimately, the agenda behind such a system is the achievement of global government.
This isn’t just some conspiracy theory to be written off. Most global government advocates are vocal about those aspirations.
SEIU’s Andy Stern, for example, said, “We created global trade, we created global finance. We created global companies, but we forgot to create a global government.”
Likewise, Jean-Claude Trichet, former President of the European Central Bank, touted the many “benefits” of global governance during a lecture at Bocconi University in April 2010. He concluded, “In my view, international interdependencies are too large for purely national or regional rules to be optimal and there is a clear need to strengthen global governance, in particular in the financial field.”
Just last week, Trichet recommended that the European Union could be strengthened by allowing European politicians to declare a sovereign state bankrupt and take over its fiscal policies.
And Gustave Speth, former head of the World’s Resource Institute, declared back in 1997, “”Global governance is here to stay. And driven by economic and environmental globalization, global governance will inevitably expand.”
Speth laid it all out for us. Using economic and environmental issues, global governance can be expanded. Think debt crises and climate change.
