This post is in response to remarks on Honduras, and the concepts of “community” and the “responsibility to protect” at the blog “Diligite iustitiam” in its post “Holy See on UN Reform”.
“Diligite iustitiam” said:
"In this context, Mr. President, my delegation would like to remember here the Honduran people who continue to undergo suffering, frustration and hardships from the already too long political upheaval. Once more, the Holy See urges the concerned parties to make every effort to find a prompt solution in view of the good of the people of Honduras. [No Vatican recognition of the legitimacy of the current Honduran government?]"
The 2009 Honduran government was not merely “legitimate”, it was lawful.
A great deal of misunderstanding about Honduras was willfully broadcast in 2009. In July, 2009, I wrote a blog to explain the legal position: there was no military coup, the coup was by Manuel Zelaya upon the Honduran Constitution, and his ouster was constitutional and lawful as ordered by the Supreme Court of Honduras:
In August of 2009, the Congressional Research Service of the Law Library of Congress issued its Report For Congress, in which it analyzed other constitutional criteria, and came to the same conclusion as I did: the ouster was NOT a coup, it was lawful:
The self-appointed powers are building a world government by force. Zelaya was attempting to pave the way for a full-blown Central American Union, modeled on the EU as is UNASUR. A Central American Union is needed to link the northern and southern continents in a single EU-style western hemisphere. (It is the North American Union that I am fighting here in Canada.)
The Charter of the U.N. prohibits armed state aggression on other states.
If a nation refuses to be forced into a union and thus commit national suicide, other means are brought to bear. For example, defaming Honduras in the world press so it appears to be a banana republic or a rogue state that would benefit from "stabilization" by UN-forced submersion into a regional union on "security" grounds. See articles 52, 53 & 54 of the Charter of the UN.
Along the same lines, the "Responsibility to Protect" is another facade for launching unilateral wars of aggression on sovereign states whose political forms of government must be swept away to create or expand existing regional unions under the UN Charter.
These unions, provided for at articles 52, 53 & 54 of the UN Charter, are being used as a “ratchet” for consolidation of the world towards world government.
The extreme danger of such a policy of militarily invading sovereign states on this basis is founded in the fact that it is very easy for self-appointed powers working underground to finance and foment people-powered "revolutions" which they know a state will be virtually compelled to put down by force.
The hapless people are thus used as canon-fodder to set up a pretext for unilateral NATO or similar aggressive military action. In that light, Libya will end up attached to the EU, or to some other regional union modeled upon it, because the EU system is the basis of the incoming world government. The former SFRY has already met that fate; its "independent" remnants are obediently in line for EU attachment. As well, on the criminal use of international state recognition to destroy nation states while holding them defenceless (in this case, led by the Pontiff) see the writings of Professor Raju Thomas.
Michael Byers, writing in War Law, discusses the dangerous uses to which the so-called "Responsibility to Protect" can be applied. See his Chapter 9.
Says Byers, "most... proponents of the 'responsibility to protect' are motivated by a desire to prevent human suffering. However, by arguing for a new and largely self-judging exception to the UN Charter's prohibition on the use of force, they play into the hands of those who would seek exemptions for less benevolent ends."
Byers illustrates his point:
"British Prime Minister Tony Blair has provided the most worrying example of the potential for politically motivated abuse of a right to unilateral humanitarian intervention. In a speech in his Sedgefield constituency in March 2004, he explained how:
[B]efore September 11th, I was already reaching for a different philosophy in international relations from a traditional one that has held sway since the treaty of Westphalia in 1648; namely that a country's internal affairs are for it and you don't interfere unless it threatens you, or breaches a treaty, or triggers an obligation of alliance.
"This passage would likely be endorsed by... well-intentioned proponents of the responsibility to protect - were its application left abstract. But Blair proceeded to apply the concept retroactively to Iraq, stating specifically and emphatically: '[W]e surely have a responsibility to act when a nation's people are subjected to a regime such as Saddam's.'
Suddenly, a highly contentious war... was being rationalized, one year after the fact, with a doctrine that had already been widely rejected by most of the world's governments. Blair's invocation of a responsibility to protect undoubtedly related back to the all-too-apparent absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but it was also forward-looking. For Blair … in his Sedgefield speech ... also indicated a desire to change international law to extend the responsibility to protect to a broader range of circumstances... "
Byers continues to quote Blair:
The essence of a community is common rights and responsibilities. We have obligations in relation to each other. ... And we do not accept in a community that others have a right to oppress and brutalize their people."As morally appealing as this may be, Blair seemed unable to grasp what it means to live under the rule of law, particularly when the community subject to that law -- the international community, in this case -- has already established clear and firm rules. In Sedgefield, he went on to say, with no apparent sense of irony:
"I understand the worry the international community has over Iraq. It worries that the US and its allies will, buy sheer force of their military might, do whatever they want, unilaterally and without recourse to any rule-based code or doctrine. But our worry is that if the UN -- because of a political disagreement in its Councils -- is paralysed, then a threat we believe is real will go unchallenged."
This is a vision of power without accountability, exercised by supposedly benevolent leaders with the best interests of their subjects in mind. At the same time, it is reminiscent of a much earlier natural law approach to international law -- one that did not require broad-based consent and was instead imposed by the so-called 'civilized'. The prime minister, by reaching for the concept of community, was in fact relying on the international law of the crusaders and conquistadors -- which, in essence, was no law at all. Were Blair truly concerned about the plight of the world's oppressed, he would have done better to focus on the other, non-military aspects of the responsibility to protect."
The Byers quotes came from his pages 105-108 in chapter 9.
A more recent illustration of the dangers of a concept of "community" coupled with a "duty to protect" is the 2006 radio speech in French by Quebec Cardinal, Jean-Claude Turcotte (who was amongst the conclave that elected the current Pope Benedict XVI, who is now calling for world government).
In no minced terms, Cardinal Turcotte himself called for establishment of a world government -- and if necessary, WAR to impose it -- while rationalizing such WAR as being conducted on behalf of the world's poor, and underdeveloped third-world countries. This is how far someone both benevolent and imaginative can stretch Tony Blair's "broader range of circumstances"
Here is a link to the French tape of Cardinal Turcotte calling for WAR to impose world government:
Here is my translation:
Cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte interviewed on 20 December 2006 by Paul Arcand:
Then, at this point, we need a world government. In order to attain this, is it absolutely necessary to make war? I don't know. I deplore it, absolutely. Instinctively, I am against it. That's obvious, eh? But even so, there are still things in the world which, in a certain way, affect the basic problem that we have.
Because these questions even have effects on poverty. And even on... the fact that some countries remainless developed than others.
So then... how are we going to... I would not say, to have a oneness, or a kind of... common identity of everyone on earth. I don't know. But, all I know is that we must have it as the goal."
Are the Cardinal and the Pope evangelizing Christ... who said "the poor you will always have with you" ... or the Bolsheviks?
In that speech of Turcotte's, we have a Blair-like approach to an implied 'responsibility to protect', while also invoking 'community' by implication, and using it to rationalize WAR which is illegal under the UN Charter.
And this is necessarily a WAR against the developed world -- or, from what I know -- those parts of it as may refuse to commit suicide and join the EU, the template of the new world-government system being promoted by the Holy Pontiff.
However, the Pope’s call for reform of UN institutions to transform it into a world government is no surprise – the U.N. was declared in 1946 to be “the basis of the world government” by Canada’s Louis Stephen Saint Laurent, addressing the U.N.:
Every act of aggression committed since that date to destroy or disintegrate sovereign countries can only be interpreted in light of the desire to liquidate and merge them into regional blocs under one new system: the system of the world government. If that is the case, then all acts of aggression prior to that date must be viewed with circumspection in the same light, as designed to set up “the basis of the world government”.
In addition, in the Turcotte tape, all is blithely said while necessarily calling for the world's peoples and nations to destroy their unique identities to facilitate this merger into a single common global identity. The very concept of Nation derives first from the race of a people; and is then applied to political arrangements.
The Cardinal’s determination to eliminate the races, which are the basis of Nations and political states, without even bothering to substantiate the philosophical purpose behind his demand for global ethnic cleansing of the peoples to whom the existing states belong, and to whom their sovereignty belongs that is being stolen, is thus highly suspect. It is also genocide in the name of God.
And that racks up two major breaches of international law in one short speech from the good Cardinal: WAR in violation of the UN Charter, and GENOCIDE in violation of the same Charter plus international convention. 'Genocide' is defined in the 1948 Genocide Convention as the 'intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group'. Of course, if you can con them into destroying themselves on religious or ethical grounds, you might sidestep the charge.
Ultimately, the Cardinal desires WAR to eradicate everyone's National identity so a "global authority" (where have we heard that before) world government, can take over all power and all resources:
URBI ET ORBI MESSAGE
OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI
"[L]et the Child of Bethlehem take you by the hand! Do not fear; put your trust in him! The life-giving power of his light is an incentive for building a new world order based on just ethical and economic relationships."In the pursuit to create a single world power, has the Holy See bothered to condemn the UN’s Agenda 21, a plan which necessarily includes the mass murder of 90% of the world’s population in the next 30 years? Well, it must be mass murder, unless most of that 90%, who are well under retirement age, are lifted up in a rapture, carried off by aliens, wiped out in a lab-engineered fake pandemic, or on "ethical" grounds for the "common good" volunteer for euthanasia.
"[L]asciati prender per mano dal Bambino di Betlemme; non temere, fidati di Lui! La forza vivificante della sua luce ti incoraggia ad impegnarti nell’edificazione di un nuovo ordine mondiale, fondato su giusti rapporti etici ed economici. "
HABEAS CORPUS CANADA
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union
Download a free copy of the video clips in this post from MediaFire:
 http://www.mediafire.com/?mrhu1pcprlda7qy [1946 - Louis Stephen Saint-Laurent: World Government]