The "global democratic revolution": behind the false flag of a worldwide campaign of liberation, the Bush administration and its allies are strengthening the institutions of global governance—including the UN

New American, The, July 11, 2005 by William Norman Grigg

"There comes a time," pronounced Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in an April 28 address in Santiago, Chile, "when the spark of freedom flashes in the minds of all oppressed people, and they raise their voices against tyranny. The Community of Democracies must match the bravery of these men and women with the courage of their own convictions. We on the right side of freedom's divide have an obligation to help those on the wrong side of that divide."

Rice's imagery recalled President Bush's second inaugural address, in which he claimed that his administration had ignited "a fire in the minds of men"--a phrase, significantly, first used to describe the embryonic Communist revolution in 19th century Russia. From the president on down, administration officials have extolled the vision of a U.S.-led "global democratic revolution," an open-ended campaign to upend autocratic regimes throughout the Middle East and elsewhere.

Although the Bush administration's global crusade is commonly perceived to be an outgrowth of the post-9/11 "war on terror," it actually represents a continuation of the globalist foreign policy of the Clinton and Bush I administrations. And as with those earlier campaigns, the Bush administration's crusade is helping to strengthen institutions of global governance.

"Empire of Liberty"?

Secretary Rice had traveled to Santiago to address the opening plenary session of the Community of Democracies. "To advance our democratic consensus, all free nations must insist that upholding democratic principles is the surest path to greater international status," stated Rice. "The Community of Democracies is one of a growing number of international organizations that make democracy an actual condition for membership."

"The democratic character of states must become the cornerstone of a new, principled multilateralism," she continued. "International organizations like the Community of Democracies can help to create a balance of power that favors freedom." One way to accomplish that end, she stated, "is to work through the United Nations Democracy Caucus to support reform of the United Nations. In particular, we should encourage the creation of a legitimate human rights body within the United Nations." She also urged support for the UN Democracy Fund, a new multilateral foreign aid program proposed by President Bush in a September 2004 address to the UN General Assembly.

It's not difficult to imagine the torrential outpouring of indignant abuse that would ensue from conservative commentators were such proposals offered by a president named Bill Clinton, and a secretary of state named Madeleine Albright. But because of the administration's unearned reputation for unilateralism, what would then have been denounced as wooly-headed globalism is now celebrated as visionary patriotism.

"With the rekindling of his Christian faith, President Bush clearly sees the purpose of the United States and its global mission through the United Nations," rhapsodized former State Department official Patrick Mendis in a June 1 Washington Times column. "For this mission, America needs to support the reform-minded president to advance his global agenda because he manifests himself as an instrument of [a] higher power as reflected in our credo, annuit coeptis, 'providence has favored our undertakings.'"

To accomplish this supposedly sacred mission, continues Mendis, we need "a global body" that acts upon "universal values that are essentially enshrined in the American founding documents--which are indeed spiritual .... Now is the time to support Mr. Bush and our congressional leaders to see a greater destiny that has begun in the Middle East and elsewhere. Our intentions are neither colonial nor imperial but to transform the global body into an 'empire of liberty.'"

The Community of Democracies and the United Nations Democracy Caucus are just two avenues through which the Bush administration seeks to build a UN-centered "empire of liberty." Another route is offered by the annual Jerusalem Summit.

Participants at the Jerusalem Summit have included religious, political, academic, and military luminaries from the U.S., Europe, and Israel. Prominent neo-conservative figures such as former Defense Department adviser Richard Perle have also attended, as have conservative commentators such as Alan Keyes, Cal Thomas, and Joseph Farah. Most of the participants have been vocal critics of the United Nations, often to the point of calling for the organization's abolition. Yet they apparently see nothing amiss in endorsing the creation of an alternative world body that would perform the same functions and promote the same principles as the UN--as long as membership in that new organization is restricted only to "democratic" nations, and it displays its commitment to "moral clarity" by endorsing and promoting the Bush administration's "Global Democratic Revolution."

A "Democratic" World Body

"The civilized world would be better off were the United Nations in its present form to disappear," opined Isi Leibler, senior vice president of the World Jewish Congress (and an organizer of the Jerusalem Summit) in an op-ed column. "Such views are being increasingly expressed by many people, including sober analysts of the international scene."