Critics of the New World Order movement are concerned over a move by U.S. President Hill Clinton that would put command of American military forces in the hands of the United Nations.
According to the April 1997 edition of the Canadian Intelligence Service report and other publications, President Clinton in 1994, quietly signed Presidential Decision Directive 25, which says that in the event of a national emergency, control of U.S. military forces would go to the United Nations Secretary General.
This seemingly minor administrative move is especially m\worrisome to those concerned with the future of the traditional family in western society. These groups fear growing influence of United Nations organizations, especially as it relates to national governments. Many of the aims of UN organizations are at odds with traditional family values, particularly in such areas as contraception and family planning.
Pro-family groups fore-see a future in which national governments would increasingly fall under the sway of UN agencies and international conventions. In many cases, these conventions are drafted by elites and special interest groups whose values do not reflect those of the majority of the citizens.
Many pro-family groups have called for a review of national participations in United Nations activities. They want clarification as to how delegates are selected for UN conferences and whose interests are served at the gatherings.
Presidential Decision Directive 25 has been noted by U.S. Army Specialist Michael New who is facing court martial for refusing to wear the UN uniform. New has argued that he joined the U.S. military to defend the American Constitution, and not to take part in supra-national activities.
As reported in a recent edition of The New American magazine, “Michael New, like thousands of patriotic Americans, did not enlist in the military to become a mercenary of the new world order.”
The problem stems from the United States Congress passing of the United Nations Participation Act (UNPA) in 1945. That law allows the president to negotiate special agreements with the (UN) Security Council concerning the use of American military personnel for peacekeeping missions. Critics of the day argued that the act allowed the president too much power in directing American military strength.