Proposed global leadership group, L-20

A Global Answer to Global Problems (a preview)
The article is written by the current Prime Minister of Canada. He is noting the sucess of the G-20 (a group of 20 nations of varying economic power and people from the IMF and World Bank). He suggests that the G20 is too parochial, and that a similar Leadership-20 group, made up of global leaders, could be as sucecssful in a larger sphere.

He noted that its important that the group not be attached to the UN or any official group, and that it be very informal and unofficial. He also notes that the diplomatic lead up to the usual global meetings results in 'burn out' of the people's involved and that it hinders that effectiveness of these official groups. Being able to informally reach a consensus and discuss important subjects outside of a politicised sphere is a necessity.

That in particular made me think of the Bilderberg Group. The meetings don't issue press releases and don't allow reporters to come in and don't even state who attends. Many question why, and assume that there can only be sinister motives, that they must be discussing taking over the world and imprisoning everyone. So this article is intersting.

Of couse, many will reject it as authentic perhaps, because its from Foreign Affairs, which is a publication of the Council on Foreign Relations. However that would be a mistake, the publication is extremely even handed and extremely informative.

Interesting... I am not a subscriber so I didn't see the whole article...

One thing I can say for certain is the NWO cospiracy theorists will have a field day with this one.

[edit on 4/21/05 by The Axeman]

Well, G7 = 77, because G is the 7th letter, duh.

And so L-20 would be 23, L is the 12th letter, which is reduced to 3.

Or it would be 32, a number important to.... Ummm, people who use fahrenheit, I guess.

23 is also, similarly quite significant.

Every leadership group needs its official opposition, who is it GONNA be, the hidden terrorists, the Muslims, the Chinese? A mighty alliance those two would make,

They should just go ahead and call it Ing-Soc, and admit war against the people is really the only thing one must plan in secret.

Originally posted by akilles
They should just go ahead and call it Ing-So

Oh man, that is funny tho.

He does make it clear tho that its a very informal group. He states, on its focus

A number of issues, in addition to the development challenge, merit consideration by the L-20. One is the need to combat terrorism in a way that respects human rights and political pluralism. Another is the inadequate satet of the world's public health systems. The SARS crisis and other outbreaks have demonstrated that even a relatively minor outbreak of infrectious disease has the potential to overhwlem national and global public health systems. Experts keep warning that an influenza pandemic could kill millions and that the threat of deliberate bioterrorism cannot be discounted. Leaders in teh L-20 could provide the political impetus to ensure that systems at the global, regional, and national level are adequately resourced and that there is sufficient communication, cooperation, and research to bolster the world's defenses against infectious disease.

For my own part, the terrorism stuff reads as a concession to the red white and blue 800 pound gorilla, the globalism bits as genuine.

More on the L-20 itself

The goal of this group would be similar to that of the G-20: to establish an enviroment that promotes the exchange of views rather than pre-cooked briefs and speeches. On so many important questions today, answers can only be found if national capitals engage one another directly, and the best way for them to do that is if their leadrs get together. The L-20 should be results-oriented, focussing on those issuse on which clear political leadership is needed to move the world forward. As for membership, it is important not to let the group get bogged down over this question. Perhaps the participants for a first meeting could be drawn from teh current G-20 and could tehn decide how best to broaden their memberhsip in more explicitly political directions, particularly with respect to the Middle East and Africa.
The main justification for an L-20 can be expressed very simply: the boundaries between countries are growing fainter. Globalization is not a proces that can be turned on and off at will. Today, successful countries work as closely with their freinds areound the world as they do with their neighbors next door. What happens in China or Brazil of India is of great importance to the United States and Germany and Australia. Economically, deepening interdependence is giving everyone (in develiped and developing countries alike) similar stakes in open systems of international trade and investment. Politically, the international community is developing collective responses to global threats such as weapons proliferation and international terrorism. Environmentally, issues such as climate change and the hrowing threat to the oceans affect everyone, and the same holds true for emerging concerns such as global public health and threat of new pandemics.
The nation-state remains the principal actor - the principal locus of accountability - on the international stage, but global forces require all states to adjust their frames of reference. Traditional aliances and clubs still make a lot of sense in the areas where their reach matches their ambitions. But there are other areas in whch the old ways of doing business are simply not good enough, and in which agreements mean little unless they include the new centers of power in the world.
Moreover, issues today cut across traditional policy boundaries. On development, for ecample, the UN's Monterrey Consensus of 2002 made clear how important it is for governments to integreate into their overall agendas subjects ranging from official aid to debt relief to trade access to good governance to foreign investment. From the perspective of national governments, these subjects involve many different ministries and responsibilities, and it is hard to get everyone to work together effectively. But all of these policy clusters come together in the responsibilities of political leaders.

[empahsis added]

So you can see that its not quite the stuff of conspiracy, especially since, well, its published and available on most magazine racks.

It really does remind me of the supposed logic behind the Bilderburg conference too, and other things like the Trilaterals and various groups that have tried to 'get something done with the world'.

The G-20 , btw, he lists as

finance ministers and central-bank governors from the following countries: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canda, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia,Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States. The Eureopean Ungion is also a member, as is the managing director of the IMF, the president of the World Bank, the chariperson of the IMF's International monetary and Fincianial Committee, and the chairperson of the IMF and World Bank's Development Committee

On the informatility and dominion, he stresses

Because an atmospher eof informality is central to teh sucecss of the L-20, it could work alongside the UN and other major international institutions rather than be liked to any of them. The L-20 would not, for similar reasons, be addressed by current efforts to expand the UN Security Council to make it more representative. The Secutiry Council, regardless of its eventual membership, will continue to be a traty-based, decision-making authority. The L-20, on the other hand, would be a caucus of leading countries working together to build an international consensus[...]The L-20 would not try to displace existing multilateral institutions.

[emphasis added]

Consensus and informal discussion on the issues?

Sounds like the world needs ATS!

Interesting, I did'nt know that our Prime Minister was a member of the CFR... Not surprising at all, though. I read recently in the newspapers that ex-Minister Pierre Pettigrew, who was involved the huge undergoig scandal of State bribery, will sit at the Organisation of the American States... They all seem to be working towards the global tyranny.

EU + OAS + NATO = NWO?

(Too much time)+(an infintie amount of numbers)=ANYTHING YOU WANT!

Wow, quite the formula. Oh and why is 23 so significant. Does it represent their god Michael Jordan, or is it Carmello Anthony?

I always thought it was funny that no one talks about the Davos Convention, aka the World Economic Forum. It's an annual six-day gathering (first held in 1971 as the European Management Symposium) that was conceived by Klaus Schwab in 1965 (look for his family members on Skull & Bones members lists). Forum attendees consist of world politicians and business leaders, who pay Schwab a fee (on average $20,000) to discuss better ways to promote and impliment the idea that the elite set the global economic agenda and that free-market capitalism will win out over any and all governmental attempts to stop it.

So, who attends this........this year (Janruary 2005) there was 2,200 participants from 96 countries. In my eyes, the best pannel of speakers was Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Olusegun Obasanjo (president of Nigeria & chairman of the African Union), Thabo Mbeki (president of South Africa), Bill Gates (Microsoft Cheif Architect), Bono (founder of D.A.T.A. debt, aids, trade, africa & singer from U2), and Christie Ockrent (France 3 senior anchor) was moderator.

This is played on C-SPAN and is just as influential as a G5, G7, G8, or G20 meeting. Why does no one talk about this open Bilderberg-type meeting?

If you're interested, go to www.C-SPAN.org to watch this years clips.

Originally posted by Echtelion
Interesting, I did'nt know that our Prime Minister was a member of the CFR...

er, I don't think that he is. People that write to Foreign Affairs are not members of the CFR. Kofi Annan had an article in that exact same issue.

enigmatic debris
impliment the idea that the elite set the global economic agenda and that free-market capitalism will win out over any and all governmental attempts to stop it.

Is your understanding of the group incorrect or are they actually fatally contradictory?

Got top paragraph from a book. Maybe you should read it.

G7

That means 77.

L20, that means 23.

Not complicated. But, wait, for those who are having trouble conceiving of the Letter L as a value of 3, even though it is the 12th letter in our base 10 system.

We can then say that L-20 stands for 32.

Like I mentioned earlier, 32 is important to the same people who invented and adopted the Fahrenheit temperature measuring system. This can be shown as 32 is the DEGREE at which a liquid object becomes solid.

23 is significant because it is the HIGHEST unique number you have ever heard of. Yeah, you heard right. Every other number after 23 (EVERY) can be formed using ONLY the numbers 5 and 7. So everything after 23 is a combination of those two vibrations.

But 23 is NOT a combination of those two, it is unique. And it can't be formed from any two numbers (except by putting 2 and 3 back to back!),
it requires 3 numbers, or in other words, it REQUIRES two operations.

You could use 9x2, +5
Or 7x3,+2
6x4-1

Are people starting to see that this number is UNIQUE? Or are people still thinking this is random? There are 23 Human chromosomes.

Originally posted by Enigmatic Debris
Got top paragraph from a book. Maybe you should read it.

What book?

I do not like nor trust any group of people with the power to make or break lives, who conduct their affairs in secret. If they are a leadership body who are creating policies in secret and such, they should be open to public scrutiny.

Nor do I trust any sort of global or trans national governing or policy making body of any sort. Such as:

The UN
The Trilateral Commision
Council on Foreign Affairs
The Bilderbergers
G7
The EU
The OAS


And so on. Human nature being what it is, i am opposed to globalized anything.