Share on FacebookShare on LinkedInTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponPin on PinterestShare on TumblrDigg thisFlattr the authorEmail this to someone

Everyone knows what a lobbyist is, but do you know what an “Adviser” is in Washington, D.C.? No matter whom we elect, no matter the person or party, if we don’t shine the light on who really is writing policy, we are in for a rude awakening.

The acronym NGO stands for Non-Governmental Organization. While NGOs go back to the early 1900s, the phrase “non-governmental organization” came into its current use with the United Nations Organization in 1945. It is in Article 71 of Chapter 10 of the United Nations Charter. It established a consultative role for organizations which are neither governments nor member states. There is a conscious effort to replace the term NGO with a more politically-correct term — Civil Society Organization or CSO.

There is a major difference:

  • NGO may apply to any non-profit organization.
  • CSO designation applies only to those NGOs that are accredited by the United Nations and hold “consultative status” through The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)

(For-profit companies and organizations can also be accredited, but we are only writing of NGOs here.)

According to Our Global Neighborhood, the official report of the UN-funded Commission on Global Governance, published in 1995, there were 28,900 international NGOs worldwide and hundreds of thousands of national NGOs. As of late 1994, only 980 were officially “accredited” by the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). However, these 980 accredited NGOs are affiliated with tens of thousands more NGOs in virtually every nation on earth. By virtue of their affiliation with accredited NGOs, these NGOs constitute what the UN describes as CSOs.

Non UN-accredited NGOs are described by globalists as “populist organizations” and the globalist feel that these organizations can upset and even destroy the work of decades of their deliberations in a short period of time. That is the potential of the “Tea Party” grass roots movement currently on the rise in the United States.

Here is some background to aid in understanding CSOs. There are two levels of accreditation:

  • Accreditation by ECOSOC confers what is called “consultative” status.
  • Accreditation by a subsidiary organization of ECOSOC authorizes “observer” status at a specific UN conference or event.

For a current list and locations of CSOs with consultative status go to: http://esango.un.org/irene/index.html

An example of the power of “observer” status was seen at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero. Of the more than 8,000 NGOs represented at the NGO Forum held the week before the Earth Summit, 1,400 NGOs were accredited as “observers.”

NGOs with “consultative” and “observer” status are responsible for the following:

  • Development of the global agenda, i.e., Agenda 21.
  • Enactment of the policies at the international level.
  • Converting international policy into national laws and regulations.
  • Implementing the new policies, laws, and regulations on the ground.

History

The modern NGO story begins with the creation of the United Nations. One month after the UN Charter went into force, Julian Huxley signed the document that created the United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, the well-known UNESCO.

Two years later, the same Julian Huxley was instrumental in creating the International Union for the Conservation of Nature or IUCN. The IUCN consolidated the work of the British Fauna and Flora Preservation Society with other conservation groups that worked throughout the British Empire and aligned its work with the activities of UNESCO.

(For a brief discussion of the nature of NGO leaders, see: http://sovereignty.net/p/ngo/ngotut.htm)

To increase funding for its work, the IUCN created another, more public organization called the World Wildlife Fund or WWF in 1961. It was headed by Prince Philip.

During the 1960s, the IUCN lobbied the UN General Assembly to create a new status for NGOs. Resolution 1296, adopted in 1968, grants “consultative” status to NGOs. The IUCN is accredited with six UN organizations.

In 1982, the IUCN and WWF worked together to create still another NGO called the World Resources Institute (WRI). Russell Train, then-President of the WWF-USA, amassed $25 million in grants to create the World Resources Institute or WRI. He selected Gustave Speth, co-founder of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) as its first President. This triumvirate, consisting of the IUCN, WWF and WRI, is the driving force behind the rise of NGO influence at the UN and around the world.

The IUCN’s current membership includes: 92 international NGOs; 753 national NGOs; 29 affiliates; 80 state agencies; 93 government agencies with state members; and 23 government agencies without state members.

The U.S. State Department contributes more than $1 million per year to this NGO. President Clinton issued Executive Order #12986 which grants this NGO certain diplomatic “privileges and immunities.”

WWF funding in the USA is interesting. The WWF reported 1995 income in the USA to be $138,874,116 and assets at $62,558,896. In recent years the WWF’s take increased:

  • In 2003 it was $370,245,000
  • In 2004 it was $468,889,000
  • In 2005 it was $499,629,000
  • In 2006 it was $549,827,000
  • In 2007 it was $663,193,000
  • That totals $2,551,783,000

WWF’s take in 2008 was not quite as good. They switched their accounting to Euros, in place of dollars and took in €447,251,000. That’s roughly $584,000,000.

Their total income since 2003 is just over $3.1 billion (this does not include 2009).

Note that the WWF took €73,938,000 ($104,320,000) in 2007 and €76,930,000 ($108,856,000) in 2008 from ‘Governments and Aid Agencies.’

The WRI is perhaps the world’s most influential think-tank. It produces the so-called scientific foundation for the global agenda and coordinates much of the activity of affiliated NGOs as well. Maurice Strong has been or is currently a director or officer of each of these NGOs.

These three NGOs, IUCN, WWF and WRI, in concert with the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), jointly published the documents from which the global agenda was developed. These documents include:

  • World Conservation Strategy, published in 1980 by UNEP, IUCN, and WWF.
  • Caring for the Earth, published in 1991 by UNEP, IUCN, and WWF.
  • Global Biodiversity Strategy, published in 1992 by UNEP, IUCN, and WRI.
  • Global Biodiversity Assessment, published in 1995 by UNEP, coordinated by WRI.

From these foundational works come such policy documents as:

  • The Convention on Biological Diversity
  • The Framework Convention on Climate Change
  • Agenda 21

NGOs play two vital roles in implementing the policies that are developed by the triumvirate:

  • The ideas are first hammered into policy statements that are adopted by an official UN body.
  • Then the policies are translated into practice on the ground.

NGOs fulfill both of these functions.

Writing in the January/February, 1997 issue of Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, Jessica Mathews wrote:

  • “NGOs set the original goal of negotiating an agreement to control greenhouse gases. They proposed most of its structure and content, and lobbied and mobilized public pressure to force through a pact that virtually no one else thought possible when the talks began.”
  • “More members of NGOs served on government delegations than ever before, and they penetrated deeply into official decision-making. They were allowed to attend the small working group meetings where the real decisions in international negotiations are made. The tiny nation of Vanuatu turned its delegation over to an NGO with expertise in international law, a group based in London and funded by an American foundation. Thus it made itself and other sea-level island states major players in the fight to control global warming.”
  • “As a result, delegates completed the framework of a global climate accord in the blink of a diplomat’s eye—16 months—over the opposition of the three energy superpowers, the United States, Russia, and Saudi Arabia.”

In this article, Jessica Mathews is referring to NGO involvement that lead up to the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio. This is just one example: NGOs swarm to and are deeply involved in virtually every conference arranged by the United Nations.

Agenda promoters want you to believe NGO activity is spontaneous as is involvement of CSOs. However, NGO activity is organized and meticulously coordinated by the triumvirate.

NGOs organize into coalitions. Three of the more important coalitions are:

Each of these coalitions is made up of hundreds of NGOs scattered around the world. They are connected by the internet.

With a substantial grant from the Tides Foundation, the Institute for Global Communications (IGC) joined forces with the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) in the mid 1980s to form an Internet site, http://www.igc.org which continually
morphs into ever-changing affiliate groups. The site became the communications hub for 50,000 NGOs in 133 countries, and reaches tens of millions on the Internet. This specialized NGO has contracts with the UN to provide communication services for UN meetings around the world.

The President’s Council on Sustainable Development, created by President Clinton used this NGO website to disseminate information about its work. To a very large extent, it is responsible for the increased effectiveness of NGOs during the last decade.

Publications are important tools that NGOs provide to delegates at UN conferences. One publication titled ECO, has been published by NGOs at every UN meeting since the first Earth Summit in 1972. (It’s found at: http://www.climatenetwork.org.) At the recent global warming negotiations in Geneva, ECO listed nineteen staffers and thanked its funders which included:

  • The Environment Ministries of Sweden, Germany, and the Netherlands
  • Rent-a-Mac
  • EuroFax
  • APC

Another publication, published sporadically and titled Earth Negotiations Bulletin, was published from March, 1993 to March, 1994 by the International Institute for Sustainable Development in Winnipeg. It cost $530,000 of which $279,550 came directly from Canadian taxpayers.

The activities of these NGOs are coordinated through the World Resources Institute which uses their publication titled The NGO Networker. Each coalition has its own coordinating mechanism.

For example, CITNET publishes a newsletter which lists administrative offices in California and a UN Liaison Office in New York, and proclaims that it is a Tides Foundation project. Its internet address is: http://igc.apc.org. Some of the organizations included in this coalition are:

  • The Sierra Club
  • Faith in Action
  • The Humane Society of the United States
  • Greenpeace International
  • The IUCN
  • Friends of the Earth
  • Second Nature
  • The Earth Council (Maurice Strong’s newest NGO)
  • World Resources Institute
  • and many others

One function of these NGOs is to urge their members to support specific policy measures as they are presented to Congress. Because they hold “consultative” status they are contractually required to support any item that is presented to them from their peers. They are also required to support individual candidates who support the overall agenda. The Sierra Club was deeply involved in the 1996 Congressional elections spending millions of dollars in support of candidates friendly to their cause.

Here’s how they are affecting Congress:

  • The Federal Government has been accepting UN promoted policies through advisory committees.
  • These committees are set up to gull the public into thinking that they themselves are involved in Federal decision-making.

In response to the growing number of advisory committees, Congress enacted the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). It established guidelines under which all Federal advisory committees must operate. The number of advisory committees is carefully managed, ensuring that committees are only established when essential to the attainment of clearly defined Executive Branch priorities.

What has transpired since 1972, is that only organizations, businesses, NGOs, or employees of these organizations who hold “consultative” status with ECOSOC are “Registered” to be hired as an Adviser to a Congressional Committee. According to a recent government report, there are no organizations, businesses, or NGOs who represent American Citizens’ interests on this list.

When a Congressional Committee or Federal Agency needs an Advisory Committee, they can only pick from those registered with the Federal Interagency Databases Online (FIDO GOV Database). There are about 1,000 of them listed at: http://www.fido.gov/facadatabase. This means that the NGOs that compile this data base are determining where the money is spent.

Funding:

The underlying coordination of NGO activity is driven by the funding sources. The Environmental Grantmakers Association (EGA) is an informal association of more than 120 foundations and businesses assembled by the Rockefeller Foundation. The EGA meets annually to decide which NGOs and which projects will be funded. Annual grants to NGOs through this organization are estimated to be in the range of $500,000,000.

The federal government also funds NGOs. During a recent eighteen-month period the Department of Interior awarded grants totaling $242,000,000 to more than 800 NGOs.

Even more money comes from the UN. According to the 1996 First Quarter Report of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), a total of $2.3 billion was spent on global warming projects. Most went to accredited NGOs around the world. The report identified thirty-nine such projects which were coordinated by the IUCN, the WWF, or the WRI worth a total of $350 million.

These NGOs are funded to achieve specific objectives. The Tides Foundation operates an “Incubator Program.” This program creates new NGOs to perform specialized tasks. The Environmental Working Group is one such program. Among its tasks is a project called The Clearinghouse for Environmental Research. One of its functions is to identify “populist organizations” that oppose the global agenda and attempt to discredit those organizations.

Another organization created in 1992 is The Greater Ecosystem Alliance. It was created for the purpose of generating public acceptance of the idea of ecosystem management in the Northwest, specifically, to introduce the concept of the Wildlands Project. The Wildlands Project was subsequently renamed the Wildlands Network. See: http://www.twp.org/

Every community has one or more such NGOs. They often consist of only two or three professionals funded by a foundation such as The Tides Foundation. They are placed in a community to build public support for some component of the international agenda.

Currently, Sustainable Communities are the hot item. NGOs have been dispatched to targeted communities to develop what they often call “visioning councils.” They are eligible for federal grants to develop a community plan for a Sustainable Community. The criteria for a Sustainable Community comes directly from Agenda 21. It was adopted in Rio de Janeiro, Americanized by The President’s Council on Sustainable Development, and designed to translate international policy into local ordinances and state and federal law.

NGOs in the Future

The power gained by NGOs in the recent past is nothing compared to what they have planned for the future. At Habitat II, UN Rule 61 gave accredited NGOs full participation in negotiating sessions with official delegates. Our Global Neighborhood recommends the creation of a new Assembly of the People. It is to consist of 300-to-600 representatives of accredited NGOs. The Assembly will meet annually before the UN General Assembly meeting to provide ideas and information to the official delegates on the next steps to implement Agenda 21 policies.

Another new UN entity being recommended is a Petitions Council. The Petitions Council would be a small council of representatives from accredited NGOs whose job would be to receive petitions of non-compliance from NGOs on the ground. The UN calls this an early warning system. Petitions would be screened by the council and forwarded to the appropriate UN organization for enforcement action.

Another recommendation is to restructure the UN Trusteeship Council to be governed by representatives from accredited NGOs. They would have “trusteeship” over the global commons. This is defined to be:

“The atmosphere, outer space, oceans beyond national jurisdiction, and the related environment and life-support systems that contribute to the support of human life.”

NGOs provide the interface between globalists and the rest of society. NGOs not affiliated with an accredited NGO, which confers CSO status, are discredited, discounted, and labeled as populist activists. Every CSO-NGO is empowered by a funding source that pays for a specific function designed to advance a broader agenda. The funding source, whether public or private, works to advance an agenda that is coordinated by, and developed through, the NGO triumvirate working with UN agencies and national governments.

As the NGOs see it, the result is phenomenal effectiveness at influencing policy at the international, national, and local levels. They believe that their effectiveness will increase.

 Abusing the System Through NGOs and CSOs by Maryetta Ables

This article is the work of:
Maryetta Ables, President FORCES International. See more about her at: http://www.forces.org/static_page/who.php and National Sovereignty Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?ref=name&id=723046855