http://www.nationalexpositor.com/News/840.html

Huckabee Exposed as New World Order Puppet

Mike Huckabee recently named Richard
Haas (the President of the CFR) as his advisor on foreign policy. CNN’s WOLF
BLITZER asked “Who are your principal foreign policy advisers,
Governor?” Mike Huckabee responded: “Well, I have a number of people
from whom I get policy. I’m talking to Frank Gaffney, I talk to Richard
Haas”

So what does Richard Haas believe
in? Here’s an article below which was written by Haas for the Tapei
Times. It basically states the Bill of Rights and Constitution should
be given up in favor of a cooperative world body run by elite consensus. Who
needs individual rights in the techno-futuristic world police state? And you
thought liberty was in jeopardy now? Just wait till you see what your children
will have to deal with. Get activated folks, These police state freaks want to
shape your future into a control grid enforced through the fear based
reaction to state sponsored false flag terror.

State
Sovereignty Must be Altered in Globalized Era

In the age
of globalization, states should give up some sovereignty to world bodies in
order to protect their own interests

By Richard Haass

Taipei Times – For 350 years, sovereignty — the notion
that states are the central actors on the world stage and that governments are
essentially free to do what they want within their own territory but not within
the territory of other states — has provided the organizing principle of
international relations. The time has come to rethink this notion.

The world’s 190-plus states now
co-exist with a larger number of powerful non-sovereign and at least partly
(and often largely) independent actors, ranging from corporations to
non-governmental organizations (NGOs), from terrorist groups to drug cartels,
from regional and global institutions to banks and private equity funds. The
sovereign state is influenced by them (for better and for worse) as much as it
is able to influence them. The near monopoly of power once enjoyed by sovereign
entities is being eroded.

As a result, new mechanisms are
needed for regional and global governance that include actors other than
states. This is not to argue that Microsoft, Amnesty International, or Goldman
Sachs be given seats in the UN General Assembly, but it does mean including
representatives of such organizations in regional and global deliberations when
they have the capacity to affect whether and how regional and global challenges
are met.

Less is more

Moreover,
states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the
international system is to function. This is already taking place in the trade
realm. Governments agree to accept the rulings of the WTO because on balance
they benefit from an international trading order even if a particular decision
requires that they alter a practice that is their sovereign right to carry out.

Some governments are prepared to
give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change.
Under one such arrangement, the Kyoto Protocol, which runs through 2012,
signatories agree to cap specific emissions. What is needed now is a successor
arrangement in which a larger number of governments, including the US, China, and
India, accept emissions limits or adopt common standards because they recognize
that they would be worse off if no country did.

All of this suggests that
sovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalization. At its
core, globalization entails the increasing volume, velocity, and importance of
flows — within and across borders — of people, ideas, greenhouse gases,
goods, dollars, drugs, viruses, e-mails, weapons and a good deal else,
challenging one of sovereignty’s fundamental principles: the ability to control
what crosses borders in either direction. Sovereign states increasingly measure
their vulnerability not to one another, but to forces beyond their control.

Globalization thus implies that
sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become
weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect
themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on
elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary.

This was demonstrated by the
American and world reaction to terrorism. Afghanistan’s Taliban government,
which provided access and support to al-Qaeda, was removed from power.
Similarly, the US’ preventive war against an Iraq that ignored the UN and was
thought to possess weapons of mass destruction showed that sovereignty no
longer provides absolute protection.

Imagine how the world would react if
some government were known to be planning to use or transfer a nuclear device
or had already done so. Many would argue — correctly — that sovereignty
provides no protection for that state.

Necessity may also lead to reducing
or even eliminating sovereignty when a government, whether from a lack of
capacity or conscious policy, is unable to provide for the basic needs of its
citizens. This reflects not simply scruples, but a view that state failure and
genocide can lead to destabilizing refugee flows and create openings for
terrorists to take root.

The NATO intervention in Kosovo was
an example where a number of governments chose to violate the sovereignty of
another government (Serbia) to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide. By contrast,
the mass killing in Rwanda a decade ago and now in Darfur, Sudan, demonstrate
the high price of judging sovereignty to be supreme and thus doing little to
prevent the slaughter of innocents.

Conditions needed

Our notion
of sovereignty must therefore be conditional, even contractual, rather than
absolute. If a state fails to live up to its side of the bargain by sponsoring
terrorism, either transferring or using weapons of mass destruction, or
conducting genocide, then it forfeits the normal benefits of sovereignty and
opens itself up to attack, removal or occupation.

The diplomatic challenge for this
era is to gain widespread support for principles of state conduct and a
procedure for determining remedies when these principles are violated.

The goal should be to redefine
sovereignty for the era of globalization, to find a balance between a world of
fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government
or anarchy.

The basic idea of sovereignty, which
still provides a useful constraint on violence between states, needs to be
preserved. But the concept needs to be adapted to a world in which the main
challenges to order come from what global forces do to states and what
governments do to their citizens rather than from what states do to one
another.

Richard Haass is president of the
Council on Foreign Relations and the author of The
Opportunity: America’s Moment to Alter History’s Course.