1. Since geopolitics has been studied, the central questions have been: Who governs? Who has the authority to make decisions, and why? What of democratic accountability, and government by the consent of the governed? Is there a role for international law? Broadly speaking, there are two parties. a. The party of global governance dreams of supranational political authority that ensures peace and solves global problems. b. The party of independent sovereignty favors self-rule, and curbing the power of multinational and supranational empires. 2. To glimpse the aims and methods of the party of global governance, and the future of world politics, take a look at events of October, 2001. Forty seven American human rights and civil rights activists sent a letter to the UNs high commission for human rights, demanding that the United States be targeted over pervasive and persistent patterns of racial discrimination They charged that the government has not met its obligations to eliminate discrimination despite its ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) in 1994. The demands included: a. Reparations to people of African descent b. Admission that statistical disparities between the races is the result of systemic racism in the United States. c. Affirmative action d. An adequate standard of living is a right, not privilege. e. Emphasis on anything other than multilingualism is discriminatory f. Admission that free-market capitalism is a flawed system. Sovereignty or Submission, John Fonte 3. Any view of the processes involved in implementing these proposals would involve a collision with the American democratic system. Certainly the activists and NGOs who indicted the United States dont like the decision-making process within the American democracy, and were resorting to a process outside of the U.S. Constitution. 4. The actions and interests of the party of global governance illustrates the postconstitutional agenda that will be fought this century. a. The government ratified CERD, with reservations removing restrictions on so called hate-speech. The NGOs and activists bitterly opposed any reservations related to the treaty. b. human rights groups, 12 of which presented their views here, rejected the report, saying that the government had ignored the pervasiveness of racial discrimination in the United States and that the report had omitted pledges of action to solve remaining problems . They also asked why Washington had refused to sign the portion of the treaty barring racist speech. U.S. Reports Progress in Fighting Bias - Rights Groups Are Critical - NYTimes.com 5. The US policies satisfied neither the UN committee nor the NGOs, who would not accept equal treatment for minorities, but, rather, equal results- that is to say, statistical equality among the races in all areas of American society. a. Erika George, attorney for Human Rights Watch, said that the United States had simply reiterated a position which already doesnt comply with the CERD and which indicates no willingness to comply. b. To be clear, to comply, the United States would have to abandon the free speech guarantees of the Constitution, federalism, and ignore the concept of majority rule. 6. Global governance is an existential threat to American democracy. It represents one more permutation of the Utopian fantasies of Marx, the former Soviets, the progressives.....and other adolescents. Need one wonder what those who are happy to allow someone else to make decisions for them, i.e.. Obama voters, would choose?