// Statements coming from Gordon Brown seem to openly admit what has long been denied. The super imperial world is being constructed behind the curtain W/O our consent. Will you continue to allow it? Andrew Grice in Delhi Gordon Brown has [...] Related posts:
  1. Brown’s secret talks on ‘new world order’
  2. Out of the ashes: A New World Order
" />

UN transformation proposed to create ‘new world order’

 

Statements coming from Gordon Brown seem to openly admit what has long been denied. The super imperial world is being constructed behind the curtain W/O our consent. Will you continue to allow it?

Andrew Grice in Delhi

Gordon Brown has begun secret talks with other world leaders on far-reaching reform of the United Nations Security Council as part of a drive to create a “new world order” and “global society”.

The Prime Minister is drawing up plans to expand the number of permanent members in a move that will provoke fears that the veto enjoyed by Britain could be diluted eventually. The United States, France, Russia and China also have a veto but the number of members could be doubled to include India, Germany, Japan, Brazil and one or two African nations.

Mr Brown has discussed a shake-up of a structure created in 1945 to reflect the world’s new challenges and power bases during his four-day trip to China and India. Last night, British sources revealed “intense discussions” on UN reform were under way and Mr Brown raised it whenever he met another world leader.

The Prime Minister believes the UN is punching below its weight. In 2003, it failed to agree on a fresh resolution giving explicit approval for military action in Iraq. George Bush then acted unilaterally, winning the support of Tony Blair.

UN reform is highly sensitive and Britain will not yet publish formal proposals for fear of uniting opponents against them. Mr Brown is trying to build a consensus for change first.

His aides are adamant that the British veto will not be negotiated away. One option is for the nations who join not to have a veto, at least initially. In a speech in Delhi today, the Prime Minister will say: “I support India’s bid for a permanent place – with others – on an expanded UN Security Council.” However, he is not backing Pakistan’s demand for a seat if India wins one.

Mr Brown will unveil a proposal for the UN to spend £100m a year on setting up a “rapid reaction force” to stop “failed states” sliding back into chaos after a peace deal has been reached. Civilians such as police, administrators, judges and lawyers would work alongside military peace-keepers. “There is limited value in military action to end fighting if law and order does not follow,” he will say. “So we must do more to ensure rapid reconstruction on the ground once conflicts are over – and combine traditional humanitarian aid and peace-keeping with stabilisation, recovery and development.”

He will call for the World Bank to lead the fight against climate change as well as poverty in the developing world, and argue that the International Monetary Fund should prevent crises like the credit crunch rather than just resolve them.

Arriving in Delhi yesterday, Mr Brown said he wanted a “partnership of equals” between Britain and India as he called for closer trade links and co-operation against terrorism. He announced £825m of aid over the next three years – £500m of which will be spent on health and education.

Mr Brown is to bring back honorary knighthoods and other awards for cricketers from Commonwealth countries. He said: “Cricket is one of the great things that bind the Commonwealth together. It used to be that great cricketers from the Commonwealth would be recognised by the British nation I would like to see some of the great players in the modern era honoured.”

Read Andrew Grice atindependent.co.uk/todayinpolitics

Security Council membership

The UN Security Council’s membership has remained virtually unchanged since it first met in 1946.

Great Britain, the United States, the then Soviet Union, China and France were designated permanent members of the UN’s most powerful body.

Initially, six other countries were elected to serve two-year spells on the council – in 1946 they were Australia, Brazil, Egypt, Mexico, the Netherlands and Poland.

The number of elected members, who are chosen to cover all parts of the globe, was increased to 10 in 1965. They are currently Belgium, Burkina Faso, Costa Rica, Croatia, Indonesia, Italy, Libya, Panama, South Africa and Vietnam.

Decisions made by the council require nine “yes” votes out of 15. Each permanent member has a veto over resolutions.

The issue of UN reform has long been on the agenda. One suggestion is that permanent membership could be expanded to 10 with India, Japan, Germany, Brazil and South Africa taking places. Any reform requires 128 nations, two-thirds, to support it in the assembly.

—–

Please spread very widely before it is too late. General Joe

 
 
  • SsssS

    It is NOT the UN that needs to be ‘transformed’,to create a
    NWO.It is the present ‘Controllers’ of this Planet,that need
    to be replaced.

  • SsssS

    And the 'Controllers' are the following groups:

    1.Illuminati Bloodlines / Anunnakis

    2.'Inner-Earth' Orionites / Zetans

    3. The 'Yes-Men'(and women),who 'work' for them.

  • Hassan

    This is half crap, all you have done is cut and paste – giving India a veto is impossible to avoid (just look how large it is and how many people are living there). However one thing you pasted was interesting, any reformation of the IMF will only result in more power for the banking cabal PERIOD!!. People have to see through this crap of "humanitarianism",only inocents(a word used by Keynesian freaks to describe those dubbed by vague humanitarian calls) fall for this rubbish about saving Africa through reforming trade it will onlly make situations worse and give more power to globalists…

    British History is based on self interest(from slavery to the eventual emancipation of slavery,and even other social evils "they have gotten rid of").Any reformation would only help the shadow British empire.

    As for rejecting Pakistan, Brown is preparinng for the re-establishment of a united sub continent subordinate to-and taking direct orders from the English speaking world.This is seen in the way that America has established a pipeline through Afganisatn and Pakistan signalling the first step at eroding Pakistani and Afgani National sovereignty as planed by the clud of Rome.This may also have something to do with recent disputes with Tibetans.During the British Raj in India they wished to gain terriotory in Tibet so they incited revoluton in Tibet against Chinese rule(jst like Lawrence of Arabia).So an independent Tibet would become subordinate to the government taking orders from the English speaking world.

    Links
    http://www.savethemales.ca/160303.html

    http://oldthinkernews.com/Articles/oldthinker%20n…

    And wacth endgame by Alex Jones

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=107032905…

    P.S Sorry abour being rude in the begiining but plase try to comment on in some detail atleast what you post next time (goes for all of you ok).