The MGI Project, Has Anyone Heard of It?

MGI stands for Managing Global Insecurity and was formed by The Brookings Institution, Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperation, and New York University’s Center on International Cooperation. It doesn't sound very menacing, but after doing a little research I believe it's a project that we need to watch out for.

First off, the amount of members who are or once were elements of our government is amazing, let alone the elements of foreign governments that are involved. Not to mention that the project receives donations and funds from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund as well as countless other organizations.

Secondly they talk about Global Governance and globalisation a lot in their plans, for instance here are a few quotes from a speech given by Javier Solana in Washington about the project:

This morning I am delighted that I am, so to say, also present at the creation of something, namely this new initiative on Global Governance. I want to commend Strobe [Talbott] and Carlos [Pascual] for getting this project off the ground, together with the Center for International Co-operation at NYU and the Center for International Security and Co-operation at Stanford. The aim of this project is ambitious and urgent: to launch a new reform effort for the global security system, in 2009.
As Carlos [Pascual] says, we have to analyse the capacity of the existing system to address the new threats we face; assess why previous reform attempts have not always worked; and then decide how we can build the momentum for a successful reform effort by 2009.

One big problem is that we all know that we live in a globalised world. But our politics remain local or national. This is a problem for those, like me, who are convinced that the world needs more global-level, multilateral co-operation. For I am also a democrat in believing that power has to be accountable. So the question becomes: how do you make global governance more effective while making it also democratically accountable? A key benefit of acting multilaterally is legitimacy which in turns enhances effectiveness. As I said, this means bringing in new centres of power.

VISION
An international order founded on
responsible sovereignty that delivers
global peace and prosperity for the
next 50 years.

These quotes explain pretty well what this project's goal is.

Thirdly, this past September they released a "Plan for Action" that was to be given to the new president [Barack Obama] as a suggestion for his foreign policy. One of those suggestions is to "deliver consistent and strong messages on international cooperation domestically and internationally--including in speeches in the lead-up to the G8 and the UN General Assembly meetings in 2009, laying out a vision for a 21st century security system".

"Decisive expansion of the G8 in 2009 would lay a credible foundation for action on UNSC expansion within the first term of the new U.S. President."

"American and global leaders face a choice: they can either use this moment
to help shape an international, rule-based order that will protect their global interests, or resign themselves to an ad hoc international system where
they are increasingly powerless to shape the course of international affairs. The agenda for action will not be completed in two years or ten. Yet, we cannot wait to start. The longer the delay in new approaches and new cooperation against today’s threats, the more difficult the challenges will become. Global leaders must chart a shared path forward that marries power and responsibility to achieve together what cannot be achieved apart: peace and security in a transnational world."

Link to speech

Overview

Plan for Action






[edit on 17-12-2008 by Total Reality]

After reading all these documents, the style/language used, I can see how most of the population would accept the New World Order. These people are good.

Also, on the link to the speech, there's a strange black flag with a circle of 12 stars. Is this a certain country's flag or what?

reply to post by Total Reality


RE: the flag, I'm sure people are going to say that it's the EU flag. If it is so, then I'm not very impressed with the office of "EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy," since they can't be bothered to abide by the EU's standards.


edited for spelling

[edit on 17-12-2008 by lostbug]

reply to post by lostbug


you're right it is the EU flag which would make sense, since he's an official in the EU. lol

I just found this quote from Strobe Talbott, the man Javier Solana was talking about in his speach, apparently Strobe is also part of the CFR. But he said this:

Strobe Talbott, US Deputy Secretary of State in the Clinton Regime: "Nationhood as we know it will be obsolete, all states will recognize a single, global authority… National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all."

Link to article

This almost sounds like a new PNAC (Project for the New American Century). The PNAC appears dead since the latest news was two years ago. Of course they don't have the same goals, but definitely a think-tank to look out for.

Look where PNAC policies & members got us..

Excellent find. This is the stuff I look for here on ATS..thanks




[edit on 18-12-2008 by ACEMANN]

Thanks Aceman

Yea I think PNAC has evolved into something else, it's not a project for a new American century anymore. This is involving the whole world. They're trying to force "democracy" on other countries is what they're doing, or just something that outwardly resembles a democracy, I doubt it really will be.

It scares me though how they make this project seem so good, that destroying sovereignty will be beneficial.

Also, doesn't this group, along with The Bilderberg Group, violate the Logan Act?

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without
authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any
correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or
agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States,
or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

If not that would have to mean that these people were given the go-ahead by elements of our government.

[edit on 18-12-2008 by Total Reality]