“UN Embassies” Coming To A City Near You

By Patrick Henningsen
Courtesy Of "Global Research"

The UN is currently expanding beyond its traditional citadels in New York City and Geneva,  dispatching brand new missions to the various global ‘regions’ which many believe will join a new ‘global government’ over the coming decade. The UK appears to be paving the way, hosting the first ‘UN House’ in a key oligarchical seat of power – located in Edinburgh, Scotland.

In keeping with its altruistic public relations narrative, its missions will be erected under the guise of “helping to raise awareness of the UN’s work on issues including child welfare, women’s rights and climate change”, according to a recent report by the BBC.

In essence, this new ‘UN House’ constitutes a UN Embassy, as its own sovereign territory located within the United Kingdom.

The present United Nations international body was formed after the Second World War, and financed by luminaries like John D. Rockefeller, Jr, before its headquarters opened on January 9, 1951. It continues to receive hundreds of billions of dollars per year from its member states, with the United States of America injecting the largest sum into the UN system, totaling over $6.34 (figure available from 2009).

Wherever its outposts are located, the UN enjoys numerous diplomatic privileges and special immunities for its workers.

During the UN’s Kosovo mission in 2004, reports saw the rapid growth of sex-trafficking and forced prostitution rackets enabled by key UN administrators and NATO peacekeeping soldiers who took over the Balkan province in 1999. According to the Guardian’s accounts at the time, “UN police, and western aid workers operated with near impunity in exploiting the victims of the sex traffickers”. This is just one example of many, whereby anyone working for, or corporates affiliated with the UN were granted immunity, and allowed to conduct illegal and destructive activities falling far outside of the norms of local and international law, in many cases – with little or no accountability.

The popular public narrative for its function is as a ‘international peace keeper’, but with hundreds of conflicts raging globally at an almost constant rate, critics of the UN will rightly questions its peace keeping credentials, and often ask whether or not the UN is simply a political device which facilitates Anglo-American and European financial, military, and pharmaceutical interests worldwide, as well as seeding its own UN socialisation, educational and collectivist ‘green’ agendas like Agenda 21 globally, not only in the developing world – but also in developed countries like the US and Great Britain.

Critics also claim the UN is nothing more than a global ‘gravy train’ for thousands of career bureaucrats, NGO’s and their associate contractor companies, who feed off of the UN’s thousands of social engineering and economic development programs annually.

In addition, UN organisations like the World Health Organization (WHO) have overseen the distribution of dangerous vaccines in many economically vulnerable areas worldwide, prompting many to question whether WHO is indeed responsible for outbreaks of viruses in those very regions.

PR will be a key part of the UN’s brand new Edinburgh mission. The UN’s press department claims that its new UK mission will help the organisation to “play its part in tackling global poverty, inequality and injustice”, somewhat inferring that individual nation states could be ill-equipped to achieve such socially progressive goals.

Aside from its obvious PR, recruitment and social education, residents might rightly ask:

Will the UN be running its social programs for the UK from its new Edinburgh base of operations?

If a ‘One World’, global government is to be ushered in as a result of some future catastrophic event like a 911, a mass biological or radiological, or a WWIII scenario, then the UN will certainly be the template for such a momentous transition.

This article just in…

UN House Scotland Opens In Edinburgh

A new centre which aims to become the voice of the United Nations in Scotland has opened in Edinburgh.

Sept 20, 2012

UN House Scotland brings together agencies raising awareness of the UN’s work on issues including child welfare, women’s rights and climate change.

Based in Hunter Square, the centre also acts as a resource centre for academics, students and members of the public interested in UN affairs.

The shared facility is the first of its kind in the UK.

It includes representatives from eight UN-affiliated organisations currently working in Scotland.

Among them is the United Nations Association (UNA) Scotland, whose convenor Gari Donn said: “By combining our activities under the umbrella of UN House Scotland, we hope to raise public awareness of the work of the UN on issues that concern and, in many cases, directly affect the people of Scotland.

“Essentially, our aim is to become the voice of the UN in Scotland.”

External Affairs and International Development Minister Humza Yousaf said: “The agencies and organisations who will work here already make a significant contribution to civic life in Scotland.

“By bringing their combined expertise and experience together, their impact can only be enhanced.

“The establishment of a UN House in Edinburgh is a recognition of Scotland’s long and proud history as a nation with an international approach and a concern to play its part in tackling global poverty, inequality and injustice.”

See BBC article here

Congress To Examine Plan For UN To Regulate Internet

By Brendan Sasso
05/26/12 08:10 AM ET
Courtesy Of "The Hill"

House lawmakers will consider an international proposal next week to give the United Nations more control over the Internet.

The proposal is backed by China, Russia, Brazil, India and other UN members, and would give the UN’s International Telecommunication Union (ITU) more control over the governance of the Internet.

It’s an unpopular idea with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in Congress, and officials with the Obama administration have also criticized it.

“We're quite concerned,” Larry Strickling, the head of the Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration, said in an interview with The Hill earlier this year.

He said the measure would expose the Internet to “top-down regulation where it's really the governments that are at the table, but the rest of the stakeholders aren't.”

At a hearing earlier this month, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) also criticized the proposal. He said China and Russia are "not exactly bastions of Internet freedom."

"Any place that bans certain terms from search should not be a leader in international Internet regulatory frameworks," he said, adding that he will keep a close eye on the process.

Yet the proposal could come up for a vote at a UN conference in Dubai in December.

Next week’s hearing is expected to bring more attention in the U.S. to the measure, which would give the UN more control over cybersecurity, data privacy, technical standards and the Web’s address system. It would also allow foreign government-owned Internet providers to charge extra for international traffic and allow for more price controls.

The House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Communications and Technology will hold the hearing and hear testimony from Robert McDowell, a Republican commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC); David Gross, a former State Department official; and Sally Shipman Wentworth, the senior manager of public policy for the nonprofit Internet Society.

The Internet is currently governed under a “multi-stakeholder” approach that gives power to a host of nonprofits, rather than governments.

Strickling said that system brings more ideas and flexibility to Internet policymaking.  

“We lose that when we turn this over to a group of just governments,” Strickling said.

In an op-ed earlier this year in The Wall Street Journal, McDowell warned that “a top-down, centralized, international regulatory overlay is antithetical to the architecture of the Net.”

“Productivity, rising living standards and the spread of freedom everywhere, but especially in the developing world, would grind to a halt as engineering and business decisions become politically paralyzed within a global regulatory body,” McDowell wrote.

He said some governments feel excluded from Internet policymaking and want more control over the process.

“And let's face it, strong-arm regimes are threatened by popular outcries for political freedom that are empowered by unfettered Internet connectivity,” McDowell wrote.