The tea party coverage that wasn't
WORLDNETDAILY - By Joseph Farah - July 5, 2009
... [T]he Independence Day tea party was an extraordinary event to begin with. Everyone knew there would be about 2,000 rallies around the country - that we could count. There were probably far more. Everyone knew that these demonstrations would attract between 50 people at the low end and 5,000 to 10,000 at the high end. The times were set. The date was set - a predictably slow news day on a holiday weekend.
Yet, to my utter amazement, having been in the news business for more than 30 years, not one news organization - broadcast, print or Internet - bothered to put together what we call a "roundup" of these local stories to give the events some national context.
Not even the Associated Press, the largest news-gathering organization in the world, one paid specifically by newspapers to perform this function, given that it is a non-profit cooperative of the newspaper industry and therefore having rights to all the copy produced by its members, bothered to put together a roundup story - even as late as 24 hours after all the tea parties were finished. ...
Read Full Report 

 

ACCURACY IN MEDIA - By Cliff Kincaid - July 7, 2009
Some in the media are calling it just a statement about "economic justice." But Pope Benedict XVI's "Charity in Truth" statement, also known as an encyclical, is a radical document that puts the Roman Catholic Church firmly on the side of an emerging world government.

In explicit and direct language, the Pope calls for a "true world political authority" to manage the affairs of the world. At the same time, however, the Pope also warns that such an international order could "produce a dangerous universal power of a tyrannical nature" and must be guarded against somehow.

The New York Times got it right this time, noting the Pope's call for a world political authority amounted to endorsement of a New World Economic Order, a long-time goal of the old Soviet-sponsored international communist movement. Bloomberg.com highlighted the Pope's call for a new world order with "teeth."

The Pope's shocking endorsement of a "World Political Authority," which has prophetic implications for some Christians who fear that a global dictatorship will take power in the "last days" of man's reign on earth, comes shortly after the United Nations Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis issued a call for global taxes and more powerful global institutions. U.N. General Assembly President, Miguel D'Escoto, a Communist Catholic Priest, gave a speech at the event calling on the nations of the world to revere "Mother Earth" but concluded with words from the Pope blessing the conference participants.

The controversial Papal statement comes just before a meeting of the G-8 nations and a scheduled meeting between the Pope and President Obama at the Vatican on July 10.

Sounding like Obama himself, Pope Benedict says this new international order can be accomplished through "reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth."

The "teeth" may come in adopting the global environmental agenda, which the Pope warmly embraces.

Sounding like Al Gore, the Pope said that one pressing need is "a worldwide redistribution of energy resources, so that countries lacking those resources can have access to them." He adds that "This responsibility is a global one, for it is concerned not just with energy but with the whole of creation, which must not be bequeathed to future generations depleted of its resources."

"The Church has a responsibility towards creation and she must assert this responsibility in the public sphere," he explains.

In a statement that sounds like an endorsement of a new global warming treaty, which will be negotiated at a U.N. conference in December, the Pope says, "The international community has an urgent duty to find institutional means of regulating the exploitation of non-renewable resources, involving poor countries in the process, in order to plan together for the future."

"The technologically advanced societies can and must lower their domestic energy consumption, either through an evolution in manufacturing methods or through greater ecological sensitivity among their citizens." he declares.

In terms of how this new "world political authority" should look, the Pope says that it, too, should have "teeth" in the form of "the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international forums." Pope Benedict declares that "such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights."

But the document, which is more than 30,000 words long, is contradictory in that it pretends that a world government can co-exist with freedom and democracy. For example, the statement calls for "a greater degree of international ordering, marked by subsidiarity, for the management of globalization." The term "subsidiarity" is usually defined as having matters handled by local authorities, not international bureaucrats.

In another example of double-speak, the Pope declares that "Globalization certainly requires authority, insofar as it poses the problem of a global common good that needs to be pursued. This authority, however, must be organized in a subsidiary and stratified way, if it is not to infringe upon freedom and if it is to yield effective results in practice."

He doesn't explain how it will be possible for citizens to influence or control this "world political authority" when they are under its bureaucratic control.

In the statement about how the New World Order could turn into a tyranny, the Pope is also contradictory, declaring that "...the principle of subsidiarity is particularly well-suited to managing globalization and directing it towards authentic human development. In order not to produce a dangerous universal power of a tyrannical nature, the governance of globalization must be marked by subsidiarity, articulated into several layers and involving different levels that can work together."

Against, he doesn't explain how people on the local or even national levels will be able to resist this tyranny.

In a strong endorsement of foreign aid, the Pope says that "In the search for solutions to the current economic crisis, development aid for poor countries must be considered a valid means of creating wealth for all."

But there must be more. He says that "...more economically developed nations should do all they can to allocate larger portions of their gross domestic product to development aid, thus respecting the obligations that the international community has undertaken in this regard."

This statement seems to be an urgent call for fulfilment of the U.N.'s Millennium Development Goals, which involve an estimated $845 billion from the U.S. over a ten-year period.

The Pope goes on to say that the social order should conform to the moral order, but the fact is that on moral issues such as abortion and homosexuality, the agenda of the United Nations is opposed to that of the Catholic Church. Even on capital punishment, there is disagreement. The U.N. opposes it while traditional church teaching (Section 2267 of the Catholic Catechism) allows it in certain cases. ...
Read Full Report

 

 

Pope calls for a "global authority" on economy
REUTERS [Thomson-Reuters] - By Philip Pullella - July 7, 2009
VATICAN CITY - Pope Benedict called on Tuesday for a "world political authority" to manage the global economy and for more government regulation of national economies to pull the world out of the current crisis and avoid a repeat.
The pope made his call for a re-think of the way the world economy was run in a new encyclical which touched on a number of social issues but whose main connecting thread was how the current crisis has affected both rich and poor nations. ...
Read Full Report

ACCURACY IN MEDIA (AIM) - By Cliff Kincaid - June 23, 2009
While our media sleep, the United Nations is proceeding, with President Obama's acquiescence, to implement a global plan to create a new international socialist order financed by global taxes on the American people.

The Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis and its Impact on Development that begins on Wednesday will consider adoption of a document calling for "new voluntary and innovative sources of financing initiatives to provide additional stable sources of development finance..." This is U.N.-speak for global taxes. They are anything but "voluntary" for the people forced to pay them.

The most "popular" proposals, which could generate tens of billions of dollars in revenue for global purposes, involve taxes on greenhouse gas emissions and financial transactions such as stock trades.

The document was agreed to at an informal meeting of expert "facilitators" and was made available on Monday afternoon at 3 p.m. It is doubtful that any changes will be made to it.

The conference was postponed from June 1-3 and will now take place June 24-26 at the U.N. in New York. While the "outcome document" has been watered down somewhat from the previous version, it still reaffirms attainment of the U.N.'s Millennium Development Goals, which would require the payment of $845 billion from U.S. taxpayers. A commitment to the MDGs was a stated objective of the Global Poverty Act, which Barack Obama had introduced as a U.S. senator. It requires the U.S. to devote 0.7 percent of Gross National Income to foreign aid.

Now, as President, Obama can bypass the Congress and simply direct his Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice to approve the U.N. conference document. Then the pressure will be increased on Congress to come up with the money and satisfy our "international commitments."  

This is the pattern that he followed in regard to more money for the International Monetary Fund (IMF). After agreeing at the G-20 summit to provide more money for the IMF, the Obama White House slipped the cash and credit into the recently passed emergency war funding bill. The Obama White House had added billions in cash, as well as a $100 billion line of credit, for the IMF.

Rep. Mike Pence commented, "This legislation, which includes $108 billion in loan authorizations for a global bailout, for the International Monetary Fund-at a time when this government has run up a $2 trillion annual deficit-I believe does a disservice to taxpayers and to those that defend us. Passing a $108 billion global bailout on the backs of our soldiers is just not right."

The U.N. conference document explains where all of this is leading-the destruction of the American dollar as the world's reserve currency and the build-up of global institutions such as the IMF and the U.N.

It declares that "We acknowledge the calls by many states for further study of the feasibility and advisability of a more efficient reserve system, including the possible function of SDRs in any such system and the complementary roles that could be played by various regional arrangements." SDRs are Special Drawing Rights, a form of international currency that enables global institutions like the International Monetary Fund to provide more foreign aid to the rest of the world. The U.S. pays for SDRs through its financial contributions to the IMF.

If implemented, the document would officially mark the end of the United States as the world's leading economic power.

Urging socialism as the solution to the crisis, the document states that "Insufficient emphasis on equitable human development has contributed to significant inequalities among countries and peoples. Other weaknesses of a systemic nature also contributed to the unfolding crisis, which has demonstrated the need for more effective government involvement to ensure an appropriate balance between the market and public interest."

The nerve center of this emerging new international socialist system will be the United Nations, a body that has developed a reputation for corruption and incompetence and whose "peacekeepers" have been implicated in sexual abuse and other human rights violations.

"The United Nations, on the basis of its universal membership and legitimacy, is well positioned to participate in various reform processes aimed at improving and strengthening the effective functioning of the international financial system and architecture," the document says.

"This United Nations Conference is part of our collective effort towards recovery," it adds.

The Obama Administration's unofficial point man in U.N. deliberations has been economist Joseph Stiglitz, who has been coordinating a "Commission of Experts" that has reported to U.N. General Assembly President Miguel D'Escoto, the notorious Communist Catholic Priest who received the Lenin Peace Prize from the old Soviet Union.

Stiglitz produced his own document which called for "the issuance of additional SDRs," "additional sources of funding" for global institutions, a new global reserve currency, and a new global credit facility. Key recommendations have been incorporated into the official U.N. conference document but Stiglitz and his "experts" provide far more details about them.

In terms of new funding sources, the document calls for "innovative sources of financing such as emission rights trading and financial transactions taxes..." The concept of "emissions trading" enables corporations to avoid limits on greenhouse gas emissions if they pay taxes to government. It is part of the "cap and trade" legislation that the liberals are now pushing on Capitol Hill. ...

The document notes that an international airline ticket tax is now in effect, as a result of the actions of the "Leading Group on Solidarity Levies" that now involves close to 60 countries and major international organizations. This money is going to fight global diseases.

The term "Solidarity Levies" is U.N.-speak for global taxes. ...
Read Full Report

 

 

DUTCHNEWS.nl - June 11, 2009
Dutch supermarkets are hoping to phase out the use of cash by 2014, the Financieele Dagblad reports on Thursday, quoting the retail board CBL.
The aim of the ban on cash is to make supermarkets less vulnerable to armed robberies, the paper says.
According to CBL research, 87% of customers support moves to stimulate the use of direct debit cards.
The Telegraaf reports that €10bn of supermarket total turnover of over €30bn last year was in cash. Supermarkets had to deal with 200 'incidents', ranging from a grab at the cash register to armed robbery, the paper said.
Other solutions will be found for customers who do not want to use direct debit cards, a CBL spokesman said. 'Technology is making enormous advances. Trials are also being done with payment by mobile phone, but you can also pay with a finger print or iris scan,' the spokesman said.
The Dutch consumers association said the move was 'going too far'.
Original Report

BLOOMBERG [Bloomberg L.P.] - By Oliver Biggadike and Ye Xie - June 27, 2009
The dollar declined the most against the euro in a month and dropped versus the yen after China repeated its call for a new global currency.
The Swiss franc declined against the euro and dollar this week as foreign-exchange analysts said the central bank sold its currency three times to support the economy. The greenback fell against most of its major counterparts after the People's Bank of China said yesterday the International Monetary Fund should manage more of members' foreign-exchange reserves.
"The dollar's status as a reserve currency is being questioned," said Benedikt Germanier, a foreign-exchange strategist in Stamford, Connecticut at UBS AG, the second- largest currency trader. "There are reasons to sell the dollar." ...
Read Full Report

America's richest people meet to discuss ways of tackling a 'disastrous' environmental, social and industrial threat
THE TIMES of LONDON [News Corporation/Murdoch] - By John Harlow  - May 25, 2009
Los Angeles -- SOME of America's leading billionaires have met secretly to consider how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world's population and speed up improvements in health and education.

The philanthropists who attended a summit convened on the initiative of Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, discussed joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.

Described as the Good Club by one insider it included David Rockefeller Jr, the patriarch of America's wealthiest dynasty, Warren Buffett and George Soros, the financiers, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, and the media moguls Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey.

These members, along with Gates, have given away more than £45 billion since 1996 to causes ranging from health programmes in developing countries to ghetto schools nearer to home.

They gathered at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, a British Nobel prize biochemist and president of the private Rockefeller University, in Manhattan on May 5. The informal afternoon session was so discreet that some of the billionaires' aides were told they were at "security briefings".

Stacy Palmer, editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, said the summit was unprecedented. "We only learnt about it afterwards, by accident. Normally these people are happy to talk good causes, but this is different - maybe because they don't want to be seen as a global cabal," he said.

Some details were emerging this weekend, however. The billionaires were each given 15 minutes to present their favourite cause. Over dinner they discussed how they might settle on an "umbrella cause" that could harness their interests.

The issues debated included reforming the supervision of overseas aid spending to setting up rural schools and water systems in developing countries. Taking their cue from Gates they agreed that overpopulation was a priority.

This could result in a challenge to some Third World politicians who believe contraception and female education weaken traditional values.

Gates, 53, who is giving away most of his fortune, argued that healthier families, freed from malaria and extreme poverty, would change their habits and have fewer children within half a generation.

At a conference in Long Beach, California, last February, he had made similar points. "Official projections say the world's population will peak at 9.3 billion [up from 6.6 billion today] but with charitable initiatives, such as better reproductive healthcare, we think we can cap that at 8.3 billion," Gates said then.

Patricia Stonesifer, former chief executive of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which gives more than £2 billion a year to good causes, attended the Rockefeller summit. She said the billionaires met to "discuss how to increase giving" and they intended to "continue the dialogue" over the next few months.

Another guest said there was "nothing as crude as a vote" but a consensus emerged that they would back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat.

"This is something so nightmarish that everyone in this group agreed it needs big-brain answers," said the guest. "They need to be independent of government agencies, which are unable to head off the disaster we all see looming."

Why all the secrecy? "They wanted to speak rich to rich without worrying anything they said would end up in the newspapers, painting them as an alternative world government," he said.
Original Report

See Also:

Commentary: World's Elite Make Population Control #1 Priority against Backdrop of Underpopulation Threat
...In sharp contrast to the ideas of the billionaires, a recent film containing the views of some prominent demographers has sounded the alarm on underpopulation rather than overpopulation.  Promoting the film 'Demographic Winter' at a recent event, celebrated columnist Don Feder said that the demographic problem of worldwide declining birthrates "could result in the greatest crisis humanity will confront in this century" as "all over the world, children are disappearing." ...
LifeSiteNews.com

THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE - By John W. Whitehead - March 4, 2009
During his two terms in office, George W. Bush stepped outside the boundaries of the Constitution and assembled an amazing toolbox of powers that greatly increased the authority of the Executive branch and the reach of the federal government.

Bush expanded presidential power to, among other things, allow government agents to secretly open the private mail of American citizens; authorize government agents to secretly, and illegally, listen in on the phone calls of American citizens and read our e-mails; assume control of the federal government following a "catastrophic event"; and declare martial law.

Thus, the groundwork was laid for an imperial presidency and a potentially totalitarian government--a state of affairs that has not ended with Barack Obama's ascension to the Oval Office, despite hopes to the contrary that President Obama would fully restore the balance between government and its citizens to a pre-Bush status quo. As Charlie Savage reports in the New York Times, "Signs suggest that the administration's changes may turn out to be less sweeping than many had hoped or feared--prompting growing worry among civil liberties groups and a sense of vindication among supporters of Bush-era policies."

The fact is that the problem is bigger than Obama or any individual who occupies the White House. Indeed, once the government assumes expansive powers and crosses certain constitutional lines, it's almost impossible to pull back.

Just consider some of the lines that have already been crossed.

The local police have, in many regards, already evolved into de facto extensions of the military. Dressed like Darth Vader look-alikes, the police have opted for the SWAT-team dress formally adopted by the federal agencies. Congressional legislation allows the U.S. military, by way of the Pentagon, to train civilian police. The Pentagon has also provided local police with military equipment such as M-16 rifles, bayonets, boats, vehicles, surveillance equipment, chemical suits and flak jackets, among other items. Thus, they are armed to the teeth.

We already have a federal police force comprised of Secret Service agents who are authorized to "carry firearms; make arrests without a warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence." A recent incident demonstrates the increased and immediate involvement of federal agents in local matters with the assistance of local police. Chip Harrison, a construction worker in Oklahoma, was pulled over by local police because of an anti-Obama sign proclaiming "Abort Obama, not the unborn" in his pickup truck window. The sign was confiscated by local police, and Harrison was informed that the sign could be considered a threat to the president. The local police contacted the Secret Service, who, within a matter of hours, came to Harrison's home and investigated the matter. So much for the freedom of expression.

According to the Army Times, we now have at least 20,000 U.S. military troops deployed within our borders to "help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack." I am not alone in believing that we are just one incident--be it a terrorist attack, a major financial blowout or a widespread natural disaster--away from martial law being declared in this country. And once that happens, the Constitution and Bill of Rights will be suspended and what government officials believe and do, no matter how arbitrary, will become law.

Our methods of communication are already being monitored--and, in some instances, shut down, abetted by the telecommunications giants, which act as extensions of the government. Thus, not only does the government have the ability to open and read our mail, it can also listen in on our phone calls and jam our cell phone calls. As the Washington Post reports, federal authorities already have the ability to jam cell phones and other wireless devices. Unbeknownst to the nearly two million people who attended the Obama Inauguration festivities, federal authorities jammed cell phone signals at specific locations. Such disruptions simply appear to be a dropped call or lost signal. Of course, such jamming could be conducted on a more extensive basis nationwide. This would prevent citizens from being able to communicate with one another or make appeals to their government representatives. Although jamming is technically illegal for state and local agencies, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) plans to introduce legislation to allow local police to "selectively" jam cell phones.

We already live in a surveillance state. There was a time when people could flee when the government got out of control. Now, with our every movement monitored by cameras on sidewalks, streets, ATMs, and in shops, offices, schools and parks, there truly is nowhere to hide. Moreover, equipped with high-powered satellites and massive databases, the government can track us using our cell phones, cars, credit cards, driver's licenses and passports.

For those who have been paying attention, such as former war correspondent Chris Hedges in his Truthdig article, "Bad News From America's Top Spy," it's clear that the groundwork for a seamless transition into martial law under a totalitarian state of government has been laid. And local law enforcement, which has already been serving as a de facto military force, will be the key to maintaining martial law under a police state. Given the interconnectedness of our federal, state and local agencies, you can be sure that all of this will happen quickly.

All that is needed is another threat to national security--a so-called "catastrophic event." Under the Bush administration, the danger was terrorism. Under the Obama administration, the economy is being posed as the greatest threat to national security.

This danger was made clear in a U.S. Army War College report issued last fall. As Hedges reports, "The military must be prepared, the document warned, for a 'violent, strategic dislocation inside the United States,' which could be provoked by 'unforeseen economic collapse,' 'purposeful domestic resistance,' 'pervasive public health emergencies' or 'loss of functioning political and legal order.' The 'widespread civil violence,' the document said, 'would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security.'" ...
Read Full Report

CYBERCAST NEWS SERVICE (CNSN.com) [Media Research Center] - By Pete Winn, Senior Writer/Editor - March 18, 2009
The U.S. Army has launched an inquiry into how and why active duty troops from Fort Rucker, Ala., came to be placed on the streets of Samson, Ala., during last week's murder spree in that tiny South Alabama community. The use of the troops was a possible violation of federal law.
 
"On March 10, after a report of an apparent mass murder in Samson, Ala., 22 military police soldiers from Fort Rucker, Ala., along with the provost marshal, were sent to the city of Samson," Harvey Perritt, spokesman for the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) at Fort Monroe, Va., told CNSNews.com on Monday.
 
"The purpose for sending the military police, the authority for doing so, and what duties they performed is the subject of an ongoing commander's inquiry--directed by the commanding general of U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, Gen. Martin Dempsey." ....
 
Under Whose Authority?
 The troops were apparently not deployed by the request of Alabama Gov. Bob Riley -- or by the request of President Obama, as required by law.

When contacted by CNSNews.com, the governor's office could not confirm that the governor had requested help from the Army, and Gov. Riley's spokesman, Todd Stacy, expressed surprise when he was told that troops had been sent to the town.
 
No request from President Obama, meanwhile, was issued by the White House--or the Defense Department.
 
Wrongful use of federal troops inside U.S. borders is a violation of several federal laws, including one known as the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, Title 18, Section 1385 of the U.S. Code. ...
Read Full Report

INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE [NYTimes Group/Sulzberger] - By Henry A. Kissinger - January 12, 2009


As the new U.S. administration prepares to take office amid grave financial and international crises, it may seem counterintuitive to argue that the very unsettled nature of the international system generates a unique opportunity for creative diplomacy.

That opportunity involves a seeming contradiction. On one level, the financial collapse represents a major blow to the standing of the United States. While American political judgments have often proved controversial, the American prescription for a world financial order has generally been unchallenged. Now disillusionment with the United States' management of it is widespread.

At the same time, the magnitude of the debacle makes it impossible for the rest of the world to shelter any longer behind American predominance or American failings.

Every country will have to reassess its own contribution to the prevailing crisis. Each will seek to make itself independent, to the greatest possible degree, of the conditions that produced the collapse; at the same time, each will be obliged to face the reality that its dilemmas can be mastered only by common action.

Even the most affluent countries will confront shrinking resources. Each will have to redefine its national priorities. An international order will emerge if a system of compatible priorities comes into being. It will fragment disastrously if the various priorities cannot be reconciled.

The nadir of the existing international financial system coincides with simultaneous political crises around the globe. Never have so many transformations occurred at the same time in so many different parts of the world and been made globally accessible via instantaneous communication. The alternative to a new international order is chaos. ...

The economic world has been globalized. Its institutions have a global reach and have operated by maxims that assumed a self-regulating global market. ...

International order will not come about either in the political or economic field until there emerge general rules toward which countries can orient themselves.

In the end, the political and economic systems can be harmonized in only one of two ways: by creating an international political regulatory system with the same reach as that of the economic world; or by shrinking the economic units to a size manageable by existing political structures, which is likely to lead to a new mercantilism, perhaps of regional units.

A new Bretton Woods-kind of global agreement is by far the preferable outcome. America's role in this enterprise will be decisive. Paradoxically, American influence will be great in proportion to the modesty in our conduct; we need to modify the righteousness that has characterized too many American attitudes, especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

That seminal event and the subsequent period of nearly uninterrupted global growth induced too many to equate world order with the acceptance of American designs, including our domestic preferences.

The result was a certain inherent unilateralism - the standard complaint of European critics - or else an insistent kind of consultation by which nations were invited to prove their fitness to enter the international system by conforming to American prescriptions.

Not since the inauguration of President John F. Kennedy half a century ago has a new administration come into office with such a reservoir of expectations. It is unprecedented that all the principal actors on the world stage are avowing their desire to undertake the transformations imposed on them by the world crisis in collaboration with the United States.

The extraordinary impact of the president-elect on the imagination of humanity is an important element in shaping a new world order. But it defines an opportunity, not a policy. ...
Full Report Posted on the Be Alert! Blog

Read Full Report

UK's Brown: Now is the time to build global society
REUTERS [Thomson-Reuters] - November 9, 2008
LONDON - The international financial crisis has given world leaders a unique opportunity to create a truly global society, Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown will say in a keynote foreign policy speech on Monday.
In his annual speech at the Lord Mayor's Banquet, Brown -- who has spearheaded calls for the reform of international financial institutions -- will say Britain, the United States and Europe are key to forging a new world order.
"The alliance between Britain and the U.S. -- and more broadly between Europe and the U.S. -- can and must provide leadership, not in order to make the rules ourselves, but to lead the global effort to build a stronger and more just international order," an excerpt from the speech says. ...
According to a summary of the speech released by his office, Brown will set out five great challenges the world faces.
These are: terrorism and extremism and the need to reassert faith in democracy; the global economy; climate change; conflict and mechanisms for rebuilding states after conflict; and meeting goals on tackling poverty and disease. ...
Read Full Report