Globalist organizations such as the United Nations and the World Bank want absolute and completely immunity from all laws, all over the world, even as UN officials and “peace” troops rape tens of thousands of women and children while hiding behind diplomatic immunity. Incredibly, in a ruling with enormous implications, a U.S. court agreed with the idea that these sorts of international institutions should be completely above the law in all cases — a level of immunity beyond that afforded even to foreign governments. But in a court filing with the U.S. Supreme Court, which recently agreed to hear the first-ever case on the scope of immunity for international organizations, the U.S. government is asking the high court to reverse the ruling purporting to grant “absolute” immunity to the World Bank and other globalist outfits. Legal experts say the outcome will be hugely important.
The case in question concerns the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation (IFC) and its operations in India. According to a lawsuit against the IFC filed by a group of local fishermen and farmers from Gujarat, India, the IFC funded the creation of a power plant that devastated the local community. Among other problems were the severe damage to private property, the destruction of livelihoods, and threats to the health of local residents. U.S. federal courts in Washington, D.C. recognized the “dismal” situation the World Bank-backed power plant had caused. However, both the district court and the appeals court for Washington, D.C., where the World Bank is based, held that the lawsuit should be dismissed. The reason: The World Bank, as an international organization, is entitled to absolute immunity from the law.
And that is why this case — regardless of the particular facts involved in this particular dispute — is so incredibly important. “The actual facts of this World Bank case are not really important here; the question is whether or not these International Organizations should have SO MUCH immunity that they are ABOVE THE LAW anywhere and everywhere in the world,” explained attorney Peter Gallo, a former UN investigator turned whistleblower who now works with the Switzerland-based non-profit Hear Their Cries to protect children from UN rapists. “That was not what the signatories of the treaty signed up for in San Francisco in 1945. It is mission creep — and the idea that the UN is more than just an association or a grouping of countries; but that is really a superior sort of world government.”
Pointing to the 1946 Convention on Privileges and Immunities, Gallo said the current situation of absolute immunity was never intended. In Article V Section 18, the international agreement does make UN officials immune from legal processes relating to their words and all acts performed in an official capacity. To Gallo, at least, that is “fine.” For instance, if a UN staff member in Sudan were to provide shelter to a person the Sudanese regime would prefer to see homeless, then that staff member ought to be immune from prosecution, because the sheltering was performed as part of that official’s job. But what about when UN staff members rape women and children? “It isn’t part of any UN staff member’s official duties to be having sex with anyone,” Gallo explained. “So why does the UN afford them the protection of immunity under the 1946 Convention?” The other relevant agreement is the 1945 International Organisations Immunity Act.
Based on official data and figures on reporting rates, the organization Hear Their Cries estimated that, under the leadership of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, some 60,000 women and children were raped or sexually exploited by UN personnel. Following a newly released report from the U.K. Parliament on the enormity of the problem, the group said its original 60,000 estimate was actually way too low. And yet, despite thousands of documented cases, just a handful of child rapists working for the UN have faced any sort of accountability for the monstrous crimes they perpetrated. “And this is the organization that thinks it should have absolute immunity to carry on and do this without restraint?” wondered Gallo, incredulous.
The former UN investigator, who has been traveling across America exposing UN corruption on a speaking tour, noted that diplomatic disagreements between governments are normally tempered with reciprocity. In other words, if one government wrongs another, that government can retaliate in some way. However, the UN is not concerned with reciprocity, and so it throws its weight around regardless of the wishes of its member states, Gallo explained. In the case of the United States, the U.S. government has been trying to apply some pressure on the UN to rein in some of its more outrageous scheming. And in response, the UN has been “retaliating” by attacking the U.S. government’s “human rights” record. Most recently, this involved setting up UN “human rights” offices on U.S. soil without even notifying the U.S. government, and without the approval of member states. Gallo suggested something very fishy was going on, saying the UN’s behavior appears to support the idea of a “subversive Deep State undermining the U.S. Government.”
“Where is the accountability?” wondered Gallo. “It is getting harder and harder for moderate, middle-of-the-road people — who believe there is a need for an international organization to address world problems and yet believe in the sovereignty of their own country — to accept that the UN is actually doing the job it was set up to do. There have always been conspiracy theorists who have said the UN is a covert attempt to form a world government; and it is getting harder and harder to deny that. It is very clear that the UN considers itself ABOVE the law, and above the importance of the governments of any of the member states. How does anyone now argue against the aphorism that ‘Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely?‘” And indeed, if the World Bank and the UN get their way at the Supreme Court in this coming case, they will be left with absolute power, with national governments being unable to hold them or their employees accountable for anything at all.
In the immunity case set to be considered by the Supreme Court, the World Bank is arguing that it has absolute immunity from legal liability in all cases. Even foreign governments and their diplomatic staff do not receive such protections. “We are pleased the [U.S.] Government has weighed in against absolute immunity,” said attorney Rick Herz with the left-wing “EarthRights International,” which is helping represent the plaintiffs in the case. “We are optimistic the Court will use this opportunity to clarify that the law must be read to mean what it says: international organizations are entitled only to the same immunity as foreign governments…. International organizations like the IFC are not above the law and must be held accountable when their projects harm communities. The notion of ‘absolute immunity’ is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent, and it is contrary to the IFC’s own mission as an anti-poverty institution. We are glad the Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case and hope it will correct this error.”
The petitioners appear to recognize the broad significance of their case. “International organisations play an ever-increasing role in the economic landscape of this country and the world,” they wrote. “Therefore, the question whether they are absolutely immune from any kind of lawsuit — no matter how strictly commercial their activities; no matter how egregious their actions; and no matter the views of the Executive Branch — has great significance.” Indeed, the case could be significant in determining whether countless criminals, including child rapists hiding behind UN immunity, ever face justice. It also has broad implications across a huge spectrum of other cases.
The details of the case, while not necessarily important to the bigger picture of accountability, are interesting nonetheless. Despite knowing about the significant risk of “irreversible” damage to the local community and property in the area, the World Bank’s IFC provided almost half a billion dollars to a company owned by the enormous Indian conglomerate Tata Group. Why the massive conglomerate needed to obtain funding from the taxpayer-backed crony World Bank for its controversial project was not immediately clear. After all, Tata has a combined market capitalization of around $150 billion. What is clear and undisputed, though, is that the power plant destroyed local water supplies, spread coal ash across the area that hurt the economy and the health of residents, and continues releasing hot water that is severely harming the local marine life and the people whose livelihoods depended on it. Even the U.S. courts that dismissed the case recognized that, as did the IFC’s own compliance mechanism.
As readers of this magazine know very well, the constellation of “global governance” institutions — the UN, the World Bank, the IMF, and more — are completely out of control. From systematically raping children worldwide and persecuting those who expose such crimes, to brutalizing Africans for “carbon credits” and displacing millions of poor people all over the globe in “genocidal” landgrabs, these globalist outfits are running roughshod over civilized standards and innocent people everywhere. And the fact that they have legal immunity to do it allows them to perpetrate ghastly crimes against people, including children, with complete impunity. It is past time for U.S. Congress and the courts to put their foot down. Under no circumstances should these organizations be allowed to destroy people and property in violation of the law, and then hide behind “absolute immunity.” The case, Budha Ismail Jam v. International Finance Corp., No. 17-1011, will be heard in the next Supreme Court session beginning in October.
Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is based in Europe but has lived all over the world. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook. He can be reached at email@example.com.