Jurriaan Maessen

Former Malaysian First Minister Harris Saleh: “The Security Council will pave the way to setting up of a World Parliament and a World Cabinet making the UN the most powerful and having full authority on earth.”

Yesterday the Malaysian Daily Express reported on a plea by former Malaysian “first minister”, Harris Salleh calling on the United Nations to reform itself, changing the current system to a single “World Parliament with member countries’ representatives as members”. This proposed parliament must co-exist with, as Harris explains, a “World Government Ministry” which in turn must direct a UN Police Force, to be deployed all over the world to enforce decisions green-lighted by the World Parliament.

“Make the United Nations the only authority vested with power and authority to solve country to country international finance, monetary and trade problems”, Harris states in his paper “United Nations Needs Reform and Restructure Very Badly”- which apparently he e-mailed out to all member countries at UN headquarters in New York.

“The Security Council will pave the way to setting up of a World Parliament and a World Cabinet making the UN the most powerful and having full authority on earth”, Harris wrote.

The former First Minister of the Malaysian state of Sabah underscores the current UN security council system needs to be reviewed, especially when it comes to veto powers of single member states. Harris stresses that the Security Council may be done with altogether, as it still represents the old world order.

Harris’ proposals will undoubtedly receive a warm welcome by many-a-bureaucrat at UN headquarters. After all: this new system Harris is proposing as replacement for the old one is exactly what the creators of the UN had originally set out to do incrementally. The plan was to construct “regions”, such as the European Union, in which the world would be divided, yet still under the pretext of democratic decision-making processes in the hands of member states. Than, as environmental and financial disaster would be introduced to unhinge these separate blocs, a world body would be proposed into which these regions would have to merge if these economic and environmental disasters were to be forestalled. Of course, this process would go through all the democratic motions, perfectly “legal”, signed, stamped and delivered under auspices of the United Nations.

Of course the European Parliament is the perfect example why Harris’ proposed World Parliament would be anything but democratic, as such a system inherently requires a relinquishment of national sovereignty of all individual member states. As Harris puts it:

“Such a supra-national World Parliament would entail a preponderance of political power in the hands of the supra-national organization rather than in individual national units.”

In 1945, one of the founders of the European Parliament, H.R. Nord, outlined the idea that any regional bloc, preferably a European Federation, would be no more than the first step towards a World Government.

In his 1945 article, “For a Federal Europe”, Nord states that:

“The problem of a New World Order is now more acute than ever. Now the war is ended, and simultaneously the prime stimulant of cooperation between the superpowers, it is of the greatest importance people realise what is required of us if we are to regain peace: an effort no smaller than the one which led to the defeat of the enemy.”

According to Nord though, the then recently created United Nations was too soft to lead this effort. Referring to the Charter of the United Nations, agreed upon by the first member-states in the months after the war, he criticizes its main principle of “sovereign equality of states” with the argument that sovereignty is what got them into this mess in the first place. Nord:

“They have not dared to state that it was exactly this “sovereign equality” that constituted the greatest obstacle on the road to a better order of states.”

Nord therefore advocated doing away with sovereignty of nation states altogether, replacing it with a grand federation that can decide the fate of member-states with perfect impunity. He makes his case for a federation as opposed to a league of nations, which was in place during the rise of Hitler but had not been able to keep the Austrian Fiend from his tyrannycal trajectory.

“One has to keep in mind though”, Nord stresses, “that a federation is not an objective in itself; it is rather a means to a particular end.” According to Nord this “end” is beyond debate:

“A federation that will eventually include all nations of the world. It is clear that such an ideal will only be realised in the very long term; but there is every reason to proceed with the first step as soon as possible. And where can this first step better be taken than in Europe.”

It’s clear: the former First Minister of Malaysia is calling for something that global planners have envisioned for a long time. Unlike Harris, however, these planners posses the virtue of patience as they slowly but surely work towards World Government (in the name of democracy).

In the second part of his trilogy, “Federal Union and Resistance Movement”, Nord explains that the idea of one European “bloc” was widespread during the darkest years of Hitler’s reign, especially in underground literature put out by several resistance movements throughout occupied Europe. A European Federation, Nord wrote, must be based on the principles of the Atlantic Charter: an allied plan for the world after the foul dragon was slain. But he also writes, that “these principles cannot be accomplished unless the different nations are prepared to surrender the dogma of absolute state sovereignty to unite within a federal organisation. The current lack of unity and coherence between the different parts of the world makes it impossible to try for a world federation.”

In order for this European Federation to adequately function, Nord makes it perfectly clear that nations should “definitively surrender their sovereign rights to the federation regarding defence, foreign policy, international finance and exchange.” He also writes that “no national defence will be allowed.”

From the standpoint of post-World War paranoia, Nord’s attitude in regards to national defence may be understandable. On the other hand, from the same standpoint it may not. In any case, the very founder of the European Parliament is the first to admit that all efforts of European federalists or unionists are aimed at a World Government. It must be noted the EP has no more than an advising capability- the European Council is the deciding body within the EU system, and its bulldog is the European Commission. The rest is just a dog & pony show for the public.

Nord’s third and final article goes into the “Practical consequences of a European federation”. Such a federation of course cannot function without a federal constitution, Nord argues. In regards to military matters within this new transnational construct, the author is crystal-clear: “national armies will cease to exist. Just like foreign policy, defence will be completely under the control of the federal government. (…) The production and sales of arms will also be put under federal control, and therefore be taken out of the hands of individuals and national states.”

This is exactly what Harris Salleh is now saying when he writes: “(…) making the UN the most powerful and having full authority on earth.”

H.R. Nord would later become Secretary-General of the European Parliament, presiding over the evolution toward a full-fledged European Union. Looking forward to yet another financial and monetary disaster, this Union is now stepping on the gas towards the very thing called for by an arrogant former First Minister in the outer regions of Asian power: the abandonment of national sovereignty as cure for all possible ills.

Jurriaan Maessen’s blog is Explosivereports.com.