Relevance Special Report
Creating a Master
- Empowering the United Nations Superstate
*** PICTURE ***
Russian armored vehicles on a railway siding outside Bay City,
Michigan. Are these, and similar units sighted across the country,
being pre-positioned and prepped for the UN's World Army?
Special Report, Winter 1994-95
Relevance Corporation
"A man can always be blind to a thing. As long as it's big enough."
G.K. Chesterton
When George Bush ordered Americans into Somalia in December of 1993,
The Washington Post's headline read: "U.N. orders U.S. - Led Force
into Somalia."
Probably very few people noticed the significance of the wording. Yet
it symbolized the meteoric rise in power of the United Nations
Security Council and the surrender of U.S. independence in world
affairs to the will of an international body.
This Relevance Special Report explains why that headline was poetry in
newsprint, not only for George Bush, but for Bill Clinton, Warren
Christopher, Henry Kissinger and many others in the Washington power
set. Relevance shows you why it all adds up to the greatest threat to
American independence ever faced.
In the spring of 1994, Vice President Al Gore eulogized the American
servicemen killed in the friendly fire downing of two American
Blackhawk helicopters over Iraq's no-fly zone. Though their oath was
to the U.S. Constitution, he referred to their deaths as being "...in
the service of the United Nations" (See The Wall Street Journal, April
29th, 1994). On December 22nd, 1994, the casket of U.S. serviceman
David Hilemon, killed when his helicopter was shot down over North
Korea, was returned and draped in a UN flag. Many other Americans,
lying under acres of white crosses from Arlington to Okinawa, died to
preserve our independence. What has become of the object of their
sacrifice?
This question grows louder as American servicemen and women are sent
to quell foreign quarrels under the United Nations flag, as the U.N.
insinuates its policies into every nook of American life, as our bases
are closed and our forces downsized, and as our trade policies are
surrendered to a World Trade Organization. While the history of our
independence is distorted to our children and the globalist gospel of
interdependence is preached in every classroom and boardroom, the
question echoes on. Is American freedom and independence about to be
surrendered to an omnipotent world superstate? To get a hard answer,
Relevance looked all the way back to the year 1961 at a document from
the early sixties prepared by the Kennedy State Department. It
amounts to a virtual blueprint for much of what has transpired in the
area of disarmament over the last three decades -- and in particular.
over the last three years. This document calls for the outright
surrender of all U.S. armed forces and armaments to the United Nations
in a gradual, three stage process. We invite anyone who thinks we
exaggerate to read on...
State Department Publication 7277-Freedom From War
In September 1961, the U.S. State Department released Department of
State Publication No. 7277, entitled Freedom From War: The United
States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful
World. " This program was then introduced at the Sixteenth General
Assembly of the United Nations in Geneva on March 14th, 1962. The
report called for a three-stage process, in which the military might
of individual nations would be systematically decreased, while that of
the United Nations would be increased until...
In Stage III progressive controlled disarmament and continuously
developing principles and procedures of international law would
proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to
challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force...(p. 18:
emphasis added)
Read that again. Note that "no state" includes The United States of
America. This report, though released in 1961, appears to have guided
(and continues to guide) U.S. policy for the last three decades. John
McCloy, its principal author, served as President Kennedy's
disarmament advisor. Mr. McCloy deserves further mention as he was
one of only five chairmen of the globalist Council on Foreign
Relations (CFR) from its inception in 1922 to this day. He was also
Chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank, President of the World Bank, and
the former High Commissioner to Germany. Not surprisingly, he was
known among the East Coast elite as "The Chairman of the
Establishment," and is widely viewed as having been one of the most
powerful Americans in this century. His authorship of Freedom From
War further cements the link between the CFR and this country's move
toward world government under UN rule.
The following stated objectives are direct quotes from page 3 of
Publication , 7277:
* The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of
their re-establishment in any form whatsoever, other than those
required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United
Nations Peace Force;
*The elimination from national arsenals of all armaments, including
all weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery,
other than those required for a United Nations Peace Force and for
maintaining internal order.
Among the "governing principles " set forth in 7277 were:
*As states relinquish their arms, the United Nations must be
progressively strengthened in order to improve its capacity to assure
international security and the peaceful settlement of disputes. ( Page
5 ).
*Disarmament must proceed as rapidly as possible, until it is
completed, in stages containing balanced, phased and safeguarded
measures; (Page 5).
Publication 7277 was the American version of proposals exchanged
between the two superpowers. Mr. McCloy's counterpart was a Russian
named Zorin and, although no single treaty was signed which
incorporated the entire 7277 plan, the many disarmament agreements
over three decades, when taken together, satisfy almost every
requirement laid down in Stage One, and are in the process of
satisfying Stage Two of the 7277 plan.
Blueprint for the Peace Race
A more comprehensive document based on Freedom from War and titled
Blueprint for the Peace Race, was released in May of 1962.
Blueprint opens with the following abridged quote from a JFK speech
before the United Nations:
....not to an arms race but to a peace race -- to advance together
step by step, stage by stage, until general and complete disarmament
has been achieved.
President Kennedy
September 25, 1961
Blueprint also reiterates the most frightening language in 7277 when
it states on page 33:
The Parties to the Treaty would progressively strengthen the United
Nations Peace Force established in Stage II until it had sufficient
armed forces and armaments so that no state could challenge it.
Just in case someone invents a new weapons system that might counter
the UN's monopoly on weaponry, page 32 of Blueprint contains a
shocking clause: "The parties to the [disarmament] Treaty would report
to the International Disarmament Organization any basic scientific
discovery and any technological invention having potential military
significance."
There are many more provisions for UN empowerment throughout the
thirty-five page Blueprint, which goes into more detail than
7277/Freedom From War. Together, these documents offer predictive
value for what we can anticipate our would-be rulers to decree on the
subjects of disarmament and gun control in the future.
[Note: Both State Department Publication 7277 and Blueprint for the
Peace Race are published by the Government Printing Office and copies
may be requested through the State Department. We should warn you
that they have been declared "out of print," so you may have to go to
a government depository library].
One, Two, Three, Bingo. The U.N. rules the World
How was this astonishing proposal received by the red-blooded
Americans of the early sixties? A piece by editorial staffwriter, Ken
Thompson, published in the Dallas Morning News of January 23, 1962
told the story. He wrote:
One of the most incredible documents ever to emerge from the foggy
corridors of the State Department is a bulletin entitled "Freedom From
War: The U.S. Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a
Peaceful World." As skeptical as I have always been of the measure of
good sense and loyalty within the State Department, I never would have
believed that these people we call our diplomats could so completely
and unabashedly advocate the surrender of American rights and
sovereignty until this bulletin appeared.
The Dallas journalist lamented that although the publication had been
out for several months and cost only 15 cents, there had been "very
little attention paid to it." [Relevance laments the same lack of
attention, as 7277's plan now becomes a reality, thirty years later.
The price of freedom remains eternal vigilance]. Thompson recognized
that the UN peace force would be "sufficiently strong to overpower any
individual nation or combination of nations resisting its will." He
then concluded: "There you have it. One, two, three. bingo. The U.N.
rules the world."
Thompson's editorial was entered into the Congressional Record of
January 29th, 1962 by the then-junior Senator, John Tower, of Texas.
One month later, in the March 1st Congressional Record, a pro-
disarmament Senator Joseph Clark (who went on to become president of
the globalist World Federalists) attacked the Thompson article.
Anyone thinking that Freedom From War was just some nutball proposal
that died on the vine shortly after its release should take note of
his words. He stated:
In the first place, the program entitled, "Freedom From War: The U.S.
Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World," is
not some pamphlet dreamed up in what is referred to as the "foggy
corridors of the State Department." It is the fixed, determined and
approved policy of the Government of the United States of America.
Senator Clark hailed the speech by President Kennedy excerpted earlier
as "a speech which I think will ring down through the corridors of
history." Relevance will show you that indeed it has, and that unless
it is stopped, the blueprint for the peace race will conclude with a
disarmed United States, subservient to a new and fearful master of its
own creation.
Public Law 87-297
Within days of the release of Publication 7277/Freedom From War,
Public Law 87-297 was entered into the books. Its opening paragraph
confirms that the 7277 policy of ultimate disarmament of the United
States and the world was codified into the law of the land:
An ultimate goal of the United States is a world which is free from
the scourge of war and the dangers and burdens of armaments; in which
the use of force has been subordinated to the rule of law; and in
which international adjustments to a changing world are achieved
peacefully. It is the purpose of this chapter to provide impetus
toward this goal by creating a new agency of peace to deal with the
problem of reduction and control of armaments looking toward ultimate
world disarmament." [Emphasis added]
The skeptic might rebut that even if 7277 was, as the Senator stated,
"the fixed, determined and approved policy" of the U.S. Government.
that was 1962 and this is now. Unfortunately, P.L. 87-297 has never
been repealed. It remains enshrined in current U.S. law under 22 U.S.
Code 2551. It is worth stressing that the pursuit, by our
government, of "ultimate world disarmament" is the law of the land,
right now.
As we did in the August '94 issue of Relevance, we again urge all
readers to go to a government depository or law school library and ask
to see Title 22 of the U.S. Code. Then turn to Section 2551 entitled
"Congressional Statement of Purpose." Copy the page, underline the
above passage and send it with supporting literature (such as this
report) to your Congressmen and State legislators and alert them to
the dangers of this law. If, after studying the law, you are so
inclined, tell them to work to have it repealed -- post haste (This
might be a good test of the true allegiance of the new Republican
Congress).
The "new agency of peace" created by P.L. 87-297 is the U.S. Arms
Control and Disarmament Agency which is now twenty-three years old.
The next section of P.L. 87-297, No. 2552, states:
The definition of the terms "arms control" and "disarmament" mean the
identification, verification, inspection, limitation, control,
reduction, or elimination, of armed forces and armaments of all kinds
under international agreement including the necessary steps taken
under such an agreement to establish an effective system of
international control, or to create and strengthen international
organizations for the maintenance of peace." [Emphasis added]
"Elimination of armed forces and armaments of all kinds." As Public
Law 87-297 was being debated on the floor of Congress, these words
frightened Congressman Quie from Minnesota, who stated on page 20301
of the 1961 Congressional Record:
I think it would be unwise, dangerous, foolish, to state in a bill
that disarmament means the elimination of armed forces and armaments
of all kinds. There would be nothing more dangerous for this country,
there would be nothing more dangerous in the cause of world peace than
to have any important country lay down its arms completely.
Quie then offered an amendment to strike the word "elimination" from
the bill. As the reader can see above, his pleas were ignored and his
amendment was rejected. That was then, and this is now. Today, our
government still follows a legal blueprint for general and complete
disarmament in an obedient world.
It is important to note that Public Law 87-297 has been updated by
amendments 18 times, the last one being in 1989 with P.L. 101-216.
Thus, the above-noted language has survived despite 18 re-examinations
by representatives in Congress who swore an oath to preserve and
defend the Constitution. If handing over a nation's army to a foreign
power isn't betraying the Constitution and, in fact, overthrowing the
government, what is? It would appear that the only way Congress can
redeem itself is to repeal this law at once.
The creation of a UN master -- "step by step, stage by stage.."
According to State Department Publication 7277 - Freedom From War, the
disarmament program, and transfer of weapons to the United Nations,
would occur in three stages.
Stage One Required:
* Test ban and Anti-ballistic missile treaties
--A limited test ban and ABM treaty were signed into law in the
sixties.
* Nuclear non-proliferation treaties and progress on modest nuclear
weapons reduction
-- The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agreement was signed in 1968 and the
SALT I and SALT II treaties were signed in the 70's.
* "U.N. peacekeeping powers would be strengthened" and an unarmed
"peace observation group formed.
-- observer groups have been in operation in the Mideast and a host of
other trouble spots for almost three decades.
* "The armed forces of the United States and the Soviet Union would be
limited to 2.1 million men each."
-- by 1976, the U.S. and USSR had dropped its total force levels to
2.1 million men -the precise number demanded by 7277. They were
maintained at this level until will into the eighties.
* "Peaceful use of outer space would be promoted" and advance notice
provided before launchings.
-- The two superpowers have had numerous cooperative space missions
and in November of 1994 announced the merging of the U.S. Alpha space
station and the Russian Mir facility.
* "An international disarmament organization would be
established...within the framework of the United Nations."
-- The U.N. Disarmament Commission would appear to partially satisfy
this requirement although a new organization with actual powers to
enforce arms verification is being pushed.
With the possible exception of the last item, Stage One is now
complete.
Stage Two demands:
* "...the dismantling or the conversion to peaceful uses of certain
military bases and facilities wherever located" -
-- After initial closures in 1989, the Base Closure and Realignment
Commission (BRAC) shut down 164 U.S. military installations and
realigned 93 others. Russia claims similar reductions.
* "...further substantial reductions in the armed forces, armaments
and military establishments of states.
-- Our total armed services have dropped to 1.6 million men and women
in uniform. The Inter mediate Nuclear Force (INF) and Counterforce
Europe (CFE) Treaties of 1988 and 1990 drastically slashed nuclear and
conventional forces on both sides.
* "..reductions in... strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and
countering weapons"
-- the Start I and II Treaties signed in 1991 and 1993 drastically
reduced nuclear weapons and delivery systems, both of which we are
dismantling in large numbers, along with our weapons grade plutonium
factories)
* "the Establishment of a permanent international peace force within
the United Nations," which will be "progressively strengthened."
-- On April 12th, 1994 the UN announced that more than 15 countries
pledged over 54,000, troops toward the creation of a IJN Peace Force.
The entire NATO force may in fact be signed over to the UN to form the
corps of the world army.
* "...a halt in the production of chemical, bacteriological, and
radiological weapons and a reduction of existing stocks or their
conversion to peaceful uses"
-- The Chemical Weapons Convention was signed in January 1993
* The strengthening and enlargement of the International Disarmament
Organization to enable it to verify the steps taken in Stage II and to
determine the transition to Stage III.
-- The nuclear inspection teams going into Iraq and Korea under UN
auspices to check for nuclear weapons infractions, appear to be
operating in this capacity.
Stage Three
"In Stage III, progressive, controlled disarmament and continuously
developing principles and procedures of international law would
proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to
challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force. "
[Emphasis added] In this final stage, "[s]tates would retain only
those forces, non-nuclear armaments, and establishments required for
the purpose of maintaining internal order" (page 9 of Pub. 7277).
"But isn't it a positive thing -- getting rid of all those weapons and
releasing soldiers to peaceful, private sector jobs?"
It must be emphasized that although there is a lot of disarmament
going on, the remainder of the weapons will be transferred to the Blue
Helmets. This means no U.S. Army. No Navy. No Air Force and no Marine
Corps. Nothing except "internal security' forces. The UN Army on the
other hand, would be unchallengeable.
No Nukes....except for the United Nations
Perhaps the most important question of all is whether the U.N. Peace
Force would control the world's nuclear weapons. Freedom From War
gives the shocking answer on page 3, under the section "Disarmament
Goal and Objectives," which states:
The elimination from national arsenals of all armaments, including all
weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery, other
than those required for a United Nations Peace Force and for
maintaining internal order. [Emphasis added]
The term, "weapons of mass destruction" includes nuclear, biological
and chemical weapons. Depending on which weapons are deemed to be
"required" by the Peace Force, this language provides a loophole to
transfer the remaining nuclear weapons to the United Nations, making
it the omnipotent "Gort" of the film, "The Day the Earth Stood Still."
Granted, the language above does not prove that the intention is the
turn over nukes to the UN. And besides, no American President would
agree to such a thing. Right?
Presidential perfidy
Well, a magazine published by the United Nations called Vista, carried
an interview with former President Dwight Eisenhower by McCall's Mary
Kursick Harvey, in its January/February, 1968 issue. In it, Ike
provided a glimpse of future UN hegemony and suggested that not only
would the organization have nukes, but that it would not hesitate to
use them. Eisenhower stated:
Non-compliance with United Nations Law and you send in the United
Nations force (sic). Take this example: You have two countries in a
border argument. The United Nations orders the matter to be taken to
the International Court. One or both of the disputants refuses to
submit to compulsory arbitration.
The United Nations, which by now has in its possession a fleet of
submarines armed with nuclear missiles deployed around the world,
orders one of the submarines to proceed to the area. The world is
then told that, if firing breaks out for any reason whatsoever, a
tactical nuclear weapon will be delivered onto the disputed territory,
and if this threat fails to prevent armed conflict, you back it up
with action.
[Note: If exploding a nuclear weapon on the "disputed territory" (e.g.
the Iraq/ Kuwait border) is not "action" one shudders to think what
Ike's scenario would have had them do next].
The reader may be interested in knowing that, according to page 20905
of the Congressional Record of 1961, the Disarmament Agency created by
P.L. 87-297, had the support not only of the Kennedy Administration
but it "had the endorsement of former President Eisenhower and of many
Republican leaders." A more recent Republican President, Ronald
Reagan, had this to say about nuclear disarmament during a May 14th,
1984 press conference:
What have we done to the Soviets that can compare with any of the
things that they are presently doing except tell them that we're not
going to let them get so powerful that they can impose nuclear
blackmail on us and that we are willing to meet them in arms
reductions to the point of total disarmament, if they would be willing
to meet in that." [Emphasis added. Source: The Weekly Compilation of
Presidential Writings May 14, 1984].
*** PICTURE ***
The diagram at right was taken from the "Second Annual Report to
Congress" Jan. 1, 1962 - December 31, 1962 -- The United States Arms
Control and Disarmament Agency --Publication #14, February 1963, p.
11.
Reagan was willing to meet the Soviets to the point of total
disarmament. Was this just careless political rhetoric? Or was
President Reagan alluding to, as Senator Clark stated, " the fixed,
determined and approved policy of the Government of the United States
of America" still in effect 22 years after 7277 was drafted?
The "step by step" disarmament plan took a giant leap recently when
President Clinton ordered the U.S. Navy's nuclear submarine commanders
to effectively turn in their nuclear missile keys. In 1996,
electronic locks
will be placed on the nuclear "triggers," which will thereafter. only
be accessible from Washington. The Newhouse News Service outlined the
plan in a story by David Wood, printed in the January 3rd, 1995
Cleveland Plain Dealer. Wood wrote:
In a revolutionary break with tradition, the Navy has reluctantly
agreed to equip its strategic missile submarines with electronic
devices that put their thermonuclear weapons under the control of
shore-based authorities.
The Pentagon's Ashton Carter demurred:
We wanted to demonstrate to the rest of the world that if you have
nuclear weapons, you owe it to yourselves and to the rest of the world
to be constantly in the process of self-evaluation and improvement,
and to never rest serenely about nuclear weapons.
While Mr. Ashton Carter journeys toward self-actualization, a critical
element of U.S. security against nuclear attack is being removed. If
our submarine commanders are locked out, the imposition of nuclear
blackmail will arguably become more likely. There is one more
consideration. The novel, When the A1mond Tree Blossoms, by David
Aikman, presents a scenario of 1998 America in which a radical,
leftist U.S. government fights against a segment of much of Western
America known as the Constitutionalists. The latter are able to
battle against the leftist "People's Movement" in the East and its
allies, the Russians, with the help of a nuclear counterweight --
three Trident nuclear submarine commanders who side with the
Constitution and its adherents. In 1996, without this ace-in-the-
hole, the complete surrender of the United States will be just a
Presidential betrayal away.
"A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations"
Further evidence that nuclear weapons are to be maintained exclusively
by the United Nations is seen in an obscure but revealing government-
funded study from 1961. Seven months before the release of Freedom
From War, the private Institute for Defense Analysis was contracted by
Secretary of State Dean Rusk [Note: recently deceased, the globalist
Rusk was, of course, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations] to
study and present a plan for implementing global disarmament, leading
ultimately to world government. On March 10th, 1962, the IDA
submitted Study Memorandum No. ~ "A World Effectively Controlled by
the United Nations." The author of this bold study was MIT professor
Lincoln P. Bloomfield of (you guessed it) the Council on Foreign
Relations.
The study called for:
1. A 500,000 man world army
2. A nuclear force of 50-100 land and submarine-based nuclear weapons
averaging one megaton per weapon.
3. "compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court"
4. A world government with taxing powers.
The November 29, 1993 issue of The New American discussed the IDA
Memorandum and stated: "Professor Bloomfield recognized that there
would be little chance of realistically advancing toward world
government in the short run through normal 'consensus.' He suggested
facilitating and accelerating the movement in that direction through
use of 'a grave crisis or war' or 'a series of sudden, nasty and
traumatic shocks."' The magazine then excerpts a particularly creepy
passage of Bloomfield's:
The other condition which puts the possibility within a more
foreseeable time span, is a crisis, a war, or a brink-of-war situation
so grave or commonly menacing that deeply-rooted attitudes and
practices are sufficiently shaken to open the possibility of a
revolution in world political arrangements.
The same article also states that, when questioned in the early
eighties about "..the commitment of the United States to the
Blueprint, A. Richard Richstein, general counsel of the U.S. Arms
Control and Disarmament Agency, stated that 'the United States has
never formally withdrawn this proposal."' This assessment was
confirmed again in 1993 by William Nary, the agency's historian. In
any event, the Blueprint is being followed, just as President Kennedy
said it would be "step by step, and stage by stage."
[Note: Extra copies of this important issue of The New American are
available. Send $2.50 for 1 copy, $12.50 for 10 copies, $22.50 for 25
or $75.00 for 100 copies to P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI 54913]
Invisible change -- "step by step, stage by stage"
The transferal of nuclear missiles to the UN might seem like a distant
threat. Still, events can move very quickly when the public hasn't a
clue as to what's happening. Note that 7277 instructs: "Disarmament
will take place as rapidly as possible until it is completed.."(Page
5). The broader document, Blueprint for the Peace Race, states that
Stages One and Two will last three years each, and that the schedule
for Stage Three would be negotiated. According to the Los Angeles
Times of 1962, the original plan called for "elimination of national
armies within nine years and their replacement by a United Nations
force" (See article "U.S. to Propose end of National Armies" Page One
of L.A. Times March 31st, 1962). In retrospect, Stage One alone has
taken almost three decades and the nine year goal for complete
disarmament was wildly ambitious. Evidently, the government's fear of
public outcry at such a rapid loss of nationhood slowed down the
process. As a result, the dirty little secret of 7277 has gone
undetected. To paraphrase the opening quote by Chesterton: "A man can
always be blind to a change, as long as its slow enough."
Nevertheless, events are now accelerating as the mechanism and the
personnel are in place and enough of the public have been conditioned
not to resist the changes. Relevance asks: How much resistance to
this plan can we expect when not one American in a hundred knows it
exists?
Confidence-Building Measures
The gradual process of disarming every nation on earth is being
accomplished by means of a conditioning process which utilizes
constant brainwashing with terms like " partnership " and
"empowerment, " " harmonization" and " re-inventing the military." A
favorite among UN planning dweebs is "confidence-building measures."
Thus, our generals shut down the Strategic Air Command and the U.N.
orders our men into Somalia and, though some voice concern, everyone
gradually gets comfortable and confident with the trend. In effect,
time heals all worries.
Meanwhile, the Russians also downsize some of their forces and the two
armies even begin to train together. Presumably brimming with
"confidence," the former enemies will go right on handing over more
and more of their military might to the United Nations Peace Force.
Each has his eye on the other. Neither sees the UN as a threat. The
Confidence Building con game is so central to the disarmament process
that they've even developed the acronym "CBM" for Confidence-Building
Measures. One can obtain numerous articles on the use of "CBM"
conditioning techniques from the UN publications office. Titles
include: "Confidence Building Measures and International Security- The
Political and Military Aspects: A Soviet Approach." Another is
"Confidence-Building measures in the Asia-Pacific Region."
Stage Two: blue helmets and base closings
Another important question remains: Which stage of the 7277 plan are
we in right now? Relevance believes that we have entered Stage Two,
because of the completion of most, if not all, of the Stage One
objectives set out in 7277 and because two key events set for Stage
Two are in full swing. Namely, the large-scale military base closings
going on right now and the creation of a United Nations Peace Force --
the Blue Helmets.
Gorby the base closer?
On page nine of Publication 7277, we find that among the aims of Stage
Two is "The dismantling or conversion to peaceful uses of certain
military bases and facilities wherever located;" So far, the base
closing commission has shut down 164 U.S. military installations and
realigned 93 others. Of course, not all realigned bases are being
converted to non-military purposes.
Are some of these bases being kept open for future conversion to
United Nations bases? Currently, U.S. forces are operating in 13
ongoing missions around the world with tens of thousands of our combat
soldiers working for the UN right now in places like Haiti, Somalia,
Rwanda, Macedonia and soon, the Golan Heights. According to the
Congressional Legislative Digest of September 27, 1994, page 29:
"President Clinton requested $597 million for peacekeeping and
Congress appropriated $401.6 million." The Digest also confirms that
"[t]he U.S. is responsible for 25 percent of the U.N.'s normal
operating budget and 31.7 percent of the cost of each U.N.-sponsored
peacekeeping activity."
Also, in Blueprint for the Peace Race, under the section, "Reduction
of Military Bases and Facilities," we find that "..the International
Disarmament Organization would verify the foregoing measures [i.e.
base closings]." One international observer, pleased with at least
one of our base closures, was the former Soviet President, Mikhail
Gorbachev. As reported in the charter issue of Relevance, the
venerable Presidio was the oldest continuously running U.S. army base
in the country, and before it had even closed down, the Gorbachev
Foundation moved in. As if that wasn't ironic enough, The San Jose
Mercury News of April 21st, 1993 noted, "...Gorbachev announced that
the Foundation is creating a National Task Force on U.S. Military Base
Closings." Later in this report we will examine the expanding Russian
presence in this country -- military and civilian -- and how it fits
into a long-range plan for merger of the two nations.
Down-sizing the U.S. Army
From Blueprint's section, "Reduction in the size of Armed Forces" we
find that, "[f]orce levels of the United States of America and the
Union of Soviet Socialists Republics would be reduced to levels fifty
percent below the levels agreed for the end of Stage I." In 1989, the
U.S. Army had 18 divisions. The Detroit Free Press of October 13th,
1994 reported that the Clinton Administration is calling for cutting
the Army's divisions from the current 14 down to 10, the number of Air
Force wings from 28 down to 20, and for decreasing our aircraft
carrier force from 13 to 12 (these might come in handy for the UN's
far flung peace operations). The Free Press continues: "The total
number of active-duty troops also has plunged, to 1.6 million from
more than 2.1 million, as Army divisions have been eliminated, scores
of ships mothballed and air fighter wings retired."
Note carefully the figure, "2.1 million." This is the upper limit of
soldiers both we and the Soviet Union pledged to maintain during the
mid-seventies. This is the same numeral prescribed in the 1961
Blueprint for the Peace Race, page 10 of which states: "Force levels
for the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics would be reduced to 2.1 million each and for other specified
Parties to the Treaty to agreed levels not exceeding 2.1 million
each." Of course, this may be coincidental, but the number 2.1
million is rather specific. This is further evidence that the
government has been adhering as closely as possible to the tenets of
Freedom From War and Blueprint for the Peace Race and that it will
continue to carry out the plan laid down in these documents.
Up-sizing the U.N. Army
In just four short years, since the Gulf War, the ranks of UN
peacekeepers have swelled from under l0,000 to over 80,000, deployed
in 14 ongoing operations. On April 12th, 1994, the creation of the
United Nations Peace Force was announced. It should be noted that UN
spokesmen tell us that this force is not a standing army, as such.
However, U.S. Senate Joint Resolution 65 of March 16th, 1993 called
for "the creation of a standing international military force under the
United Nations Charter" and authorized a commission to hammer out the
details, including U.S. participation in it. It is also conceivable
that the UN World Army will be formed around the nucleus of the pre-
existing forces in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
In fact, an important precedent was set when NATO forces were used to
bomb targets inside Bosnia on the direct orders of a French General,
who in turn had received his orders from Boutros-Ghali himself. The
pilots were members of the United States Armed Services. This is one
of the most dangerous precedents since our G.I.'s were commanded in
battle by Turkish UN General Civik Bir in Somalia. Ian Butterfield of
Nevada Congressman James Bilbray's Armed Services Committee staff told
Relevance: "In the Balkan conflict, NATO has been subsumed to UN
operational authority." He explained that this is based on the
original UN Charter, which allows the UN to call on any nation or
group of nations to carry out its military requests. The actual
bombing runs appear to have been authorized under Article 45 of the
Charter, which reads, in part:
In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military
measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force
contingents for combined international enforcement action.
NATO up for adoption
So the U.S. Air Force is at Boutros-Ghali's beckon call. We signed
the treaty, it is the law of the land. Mr. Butterfield also revealed
that NATO officials met in Oslo, Norway three years ago and decided
that the organization would submit to Security Council requests for
military assistance. Actually, NATO, as a regional security
organization, was itself authorized by Article 52 of the UN Charter.
Butterfield noted: "Since NATO's cold war mission has all but
disappeared, they are in danger of being disbanded. Saving their jobs
could be accomplished by NATO's adoption by the UN." If the NATO waif
is officially "adopted" by the UN, it would amount to the instant
transfer of hundreds of thousands of soldiers to the New World Army.
NATO's ranks could swell if current proposals -- supported by the
Republican "Contract For America"-- for integrating the Eastern bloc
nations of the former Soviet Union into NATO, are implemented. From
this core group, the expeditious transfer of the remainder of the
world's armed forces could proceed as planned in Publication 7277.
Our Commander-In-Chief abdicates
Doesn't all of this international military cooperation ignore legal
barriers to U.S. soldiers serving under foreign command? i.e. there
is the nettlesome problem of the U.S. Constitution, which names the
President -- not the UN Secretary General -- as Commander-in-Chief of
the armed forces. Apparently, the marines in Haiti are not in the
actual service of the United States per se, but rather, of the United
Nations, and as Vice President Gore stated, the U.S. servicemen killed
over Iraq died while "in the service of the United Nations."
But what if we get into a real war -- say, one in Bosnia? The
Constitution grants the power to declare war to the Congress alone.
In the event of such a declared war, the President is the Commander-
in-Chief, not Boutros Boutros-Ghali. So how do they get around that?
Jackie Petru of the pro-Constitution, Council on Domestic Relations in
Springfield, Illinois, explained that according to National Security
Council lawyers, the legal legerdemain rests on the definition of
"peacekeeping." Apparently, under international law, any UN
authorized action is defined as "peacekeeping" and not "war."
Therefore, the Congressional war powers are not involved, and since it
is "in the service of" the United Nations and not the United States,
neither is the President. He is merely "delegating" power to a
foreign commander. In conclusion, the lawyers have effectively taken
the President and the Congress out of the loop by using international
law "doublethink" which would classify the Persian Gulf War as a
mission of "peace."
[Note: Jackie Patru's Council on Domestic Relations (CDR -- not to be
confused with the CFR!) is a superb source of information on the Tenth
Amendment Resolutions and other initiatives -- especially for those
who want to get involved. For information write to the CDR P.O.
Box3362 Springfield, IL 62708 or call the action line for the latest
info at (217)854-7504].
PDD-25: The few, the proud, the Blue Helmets
It was similar logic which produced Presidential Decision Directive
25, (PDD-25) signed by President Clinton on May 3rd, 1994. This
directive is still classified and being withheld even from Congress.
Relevance, August 1994 quoted from the "executive summary" released to
Congress and the public. As we noted, Section V states: "The
President retains and will never relinquish command authority over
U.S. forces." This sounded encouraging -- even Constitutional --
until the very next sentence: "On a case by case basis, the President
will consider placing appropriate U.S. forces under operational
control of a competent U.N. commander for specific U.N. operations
authorized by the Security Council." The thrust of PDD-25 then is
that it allows American soldiers to serve under foreign UN commanders.
This paves the way for later transfer of large elements of our armed
forces to the developing UN world army. Note that even before this
"color of law" was painted over his treasonous actions, the President
had allowed Turkish General Civik Bir to become the first foreign
general in history to assume operational command of U.S. troops in
combat.
Article 43
Few Americans have ever seen or read a copy of the United Nations
Charter (come to think of it, few have ever read the U.S. Constitution
either). There are 19 chapters and 111 articles, the 43rd of which is
critical to understanding today's events. Article 43 reads as
follows:
All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the
maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make
available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with
a special agreement or agreements, armed forces. assistance and
facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of
maintaining international peace and security. [Emphasis added]
The key phrase is "on its call," i.e. the Security Council decides
whether we are obliged to "make available" armed forces or facilities
or the right of passage into our country for the purpose of keeping
the Council's own definition of "international peace and security."
Many people point to our veto on the Security Council as a safeguard.
Of course it would be if our State Department and Ambassador to the UN
would use it to uphold American sovereignty and independence. But
expecting these Council on Foreign Relations-controlled agencies to do
this would be like expecting Sarah Brady to protect gun rights. As
they say, "it ain't gonna happen." Besides, the foreign policy organs
are all pontificating about the need for a more democratic UN and the
veto power held by the US and four other nations is now on the
chopping block.
Global gun control and the New World Rifle
In addition to the above changes, in the late eighties, the Pentagon
began taking the markings off our jet aircraft, helicopters, tanks,
trucks and other vehicles and painting them an ugly "O.D. green." No
longer do we see the "stars and bars" adorning our mechanized
equipment. Is this a prelude to the addition of the U.N. insignia?
Nearly all other NATO countries have adopted the same "non-markings."
It stands to reason: if there is only going to be one army, there will
be no "friends or foes" (only pockets of civilian rebels, which will
all be branded as terrorists). To this end, research is reportedly
underway for a standardized "One World Rifle" and corresponding
ammunition for issue to the Blue Helmets. According to investigative
journalist, Mike Blair of The Spotlight, a new rifle cartridge of 6.8
millimeters is the choice for the Earth Army and the rifle under
consideration is a derivation of the Russian Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK-
47).
On the subject of small arms, the disarmament plan is not going to
stop with organized armies. Anyone shocked at how our elected
officials could vote recently to infringe on the people's right to
keep and bear arms, should read P.L. 87-297. It plainly states that
"armaments of all kinds" are to be controlled. Blueprint for the
Peace Race, on page 23, Section A-2 under "Additional armaments
Subject to Reduction," calls for the following in Stage Two:
"Decreasing deployment and stores of military equipment of all kinds,
including specified types of small arms (declaration by types)"
[Emphasis added] As we will discuss below, the United Nations has
already "set its sights" on your personal firearms. For instance, The
Gainesville Sun picked up an AP wire story of May 24th, 1994 entitled
"U.N. Aims at Global Gun Control." which revealed a "UN working
paper...which proposes tighter controls on the gun trade in the United
States and other member nations..." The Washington Times also reported
on the UN proposal and noted that the plan called for "controls at all
points in the chain, from production and/or acquisition up to the time
they are sold to an individual. From then on, they should remain
subject to monitoring and control." It also called for
"harmonization" of "gun control standards around the world." The
paper continued: "any 'harmonization' would inevitably mean tightening
controls on the loosely regulated U.S. gun business." Providing
covering fire for the UN's new policy, was an article in the
September/October 1994 issue of the CFR's flagship publication,
Foreign Affairs, entitled "Arming Genocide in Rwanda," which stated:
It is increasingly clear that the proliferation of light weapons is a
destabilizing force throughout the world...Small arms raise the cost
of international peacekeeping and peacemaking operations. Thus, they
endanger not only internal, but also regional and international
stability.
The fix is in at the top
What if the people of individual nations do not wish to undergo
disarmament? Blueprint for the Peace Race notes on page 28, under the
heading "National Legislation":
Those parties to the Treaty [the 7277 proposal] which had not already
done so would, in accordance with their constitutional processes,
enact national legislation in support of the Treaty imposing legal
obligations on individuals and organizations under their jurisdiction
and providing appropriate penalties for noncompliance.
With this in mind, members of the U.S. Congress are fulfilling this
country's disarmament policy, which, in this case, is directly counter
to the Constitution they swore to uphold and protect. The phrase "in
accordance with their constitutional processes" is just a sop to the
veneer of representative government -- that is, Congress is bound by
Public Law 87-297 to enact this legislation one way or the other. If
it chooses to provide the appearance of spirited "democratic debate"
that's fine -- as long as the outcome is ultimately achieved. That
may explain why the unconstitutional Brady Act and the Assault Weapons
ban provision of the Crime Control Act passed despite massive
grassroots opposition (the former passed courtesy of Bob Dole's
sellout and the latter with the help of Newt Gingrich). With an eye
to the long-range goal, Representative Major Owens of New York
introduced House Joint Resolution 81 on January 27th, 1993 which
states simply, "The second article of amendment to the Constitution of
the United States is hereby repealed."
The Newt World Order
Anyone who thinks Newt Gingrich and the Republicans will put a stop to
all this should read their legislative proposal for a National
Security Restoration Act, which is a part of the "Contract With
America." On its first page, Relevance found another of those
maddening little loopholes appearing after the stated prohibition of
U.S. Armed Forces being placed under foreign command. It reads: "The
president may waive this provision if he certifies to Congress that
operational control of our troops under foreign command is vital to
U.S. national security interests." Charles Lane,
Senior Editor of the liberal, New Republic saw it too and wrote
recently:
But what the Contract with America advertises as a ban on foreign
command of American troops is more toothless than the Boland
Amendment's contra aid plan. Clinton can waive it simply by
certifying that he is acting in our vital national security interest.
As we all know, practically anything can now be dressed up as a "vital
national security interest." For example, President Bush felt that
the distant war in Bosnia was enough of a threat to our national
security that he even declared a ridiculous "national emergency" in
1991 to deal with the fraudulent threat. As we noted in Relevance,
December 1994, such declarations allow the executive branch to grant
itself all sorts of phony "emergency powers." The "Contract With
America" will scarcely dent the President's authority to surrender our
soldiers to the UN. Then again, none of this should surprise us,
since Newt is a member of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations
and World Futurist Society with a left wing past and a flaky New Age
philosophy.
Freedom From War, Or Freedom from Freedom?
From a dangerous servant...
To many, the idea of UN demi-gods fording over a One World Government
is repugnant on its face. It is a "no brainer." Others, still
beguiled by the promise of "unity" and "peace," should consider the
following: If the UN Security Council is granted the kind of authority
the One World Movement seeks for it, its political, military and
economic power will be incontestable. We've seen it in the Persian
Gulf War. When many nations gang up on one, it's "all over bar the
shouting." Defiant aggressor states will be isolated from world trade
and militarily battered into submission. This time it's Saddam, the
Bosnian Serbs or another international bad guy. The next time the
boot drops it may be on the good guys who decide too late that they
don't want to take orders from the UN Frankenstein they've created.
As George Washington said, "Government is force...and like fire, it is
a dangerous servant and a fearful master." As the Blue Army is
strengthened, and governments coagulate into a One World Superstate,
the definition of "aggression" might begin to translate to self-
determination, and of "defiance" to expressions of sovereignty.
Already, the big guns of the globalist media are rolling out articles
with titles like "The Evils of Self-Determination" [Foreign Policy,
Winter '92-93] and "The End of Sovereignty" [Flora Lewis in The New
York Times May 23, 1993]. ...to a fearful master
While many of us are relieved at the worldwide reduction in weapons of
mass destruction and other instruments of war, the problem is that the
remainder of the weapons will be transferred to an organization of
unelected, unaccountable, international elitists. There will be no
balance of power, no system of checks and balances, because when one
group has all the cards, there are no deals. Of course, many would
welcome such an arrangement if it brought peace. But what if our
great defender becomes our great oppressor? Considering that the kind
of people who rise to the top in the power game tend to lose most of
their principles along the way, providing an ultimate seat of power
for the planet seems like a bad idea at best. Author William Jasper
explains that "any organization powerful enough to enforce world
'peace' would also be powerful enough to enforce world tyranny. No
organization should have that kind of power!" [Global Tyranny: The
United Nations and the Emerging New World Order, Western Islands]
Simply put, placing such power over the world's people -- into the
hands of mere humans -- is a blueprint for tyranny. We're facing the
penultimate application of Lord Acton's maxim, "Power corrupts,
absolute power absolutely corrupts."
From Master to Monster
Of course, it all might be slightly less terrifying if the
organization just stuck to maintaining the peace. Unfortunately, the
UN is "not just about peacekeeping." On page six of Blueprint for the
Peace [Race, in the section entitled "Principles," we find a more
ambitious agenda:
As national armaments are reduced, the United Nations would be
progressively strengthened in order to improve its capacity to ensure
international security and the peaceful settlement of differences as
well as to facilitate the development of international cooperation in
common tasks for the benefit of mankind. [Emphasis added].
Relevance asks: Is anyone likely to argue with a world body, bristling
with the only nuclear weapons on the planet, when it asks for
"cooperation" in performing "common tasks for the benefit of mankind?"
Say we decide that the master we created has turned into a monster.
Precisely who is going to object when it gets a little too
"enthusiastic" in foisting its Marxist, humanistic, ideology of abject
Godlessness onto every man, woman and child on the face of the earth?
Beyond peacekeeping - the Social Development Summit
Is this an alarmist or paranoid stance? Anyone who does not believe
that this is exactly what our would-be masters are planning to do,
should read the United Nations Human Development Report 1994 (HDR94).
This bold and shocking UN publication serves as a position paper on
the upcoming UN World Summit for Social Development to be held in
Copenhagen, Denmark on March 11th and 12th, 1995. We're told: "We
must seek a new role for the United Nations to meet humanity's agenda
not only for peace but also for development." Of course, it doesn't
take a Middle East diplomat to figure out that "Human Development" is
yet another euphemism for the same rancid Marxism that has fouled much
of this century. The prime Utopian objective in this propaganda blitz
is what is referred to as "freedom from want." The report makes clear
that, in order to achieve these goals, a global redistribution of
wealth and national resources will be required. And guess who will do
the redistributing?
Marxism's Expo '95
Unfortunately, the Social Development Summit is more than just a photo
op and paid junket for pointy-headed UN nerds. Many of the proposals
on the table in Denmark are likely to become international law in the
near future (by the way, the 1990's have been officially declared "The
Decade of International Law"). We won't dwell on the painful prose,
but the grandiloquent "World Social Charter" on page 6 of HDR94
proclaims:
*** PICTURE ***
A pair of Relevance readers "in cognito" at the International
Biosphere Reserve in Tennessee. Thanks to the UN Rio Summit's eco
laws, our national parks are being "internationalized."
We the people of the world solemnly pledge to build a new global civil
society, based on the principles of equality of opportunity, rule of
law, global democratic governance and a new partnership among all
nations and all people. [Whether they like it or not. -Ed].
Notice the bastardization of the Constitution's "We the people.." and
the blatant plug for world governance. Other gems include the line
"We propose... that the right to development is considered one of the
fundamental human rights." [While this editor has no idea how anyone
can define something as nebulous as a person's "right to development,"
it's safe to assume that no unborn fetuses need apply]. It seems the
World Social Charter is part of a larger concept of "human security."
This soothing term amounts to stealth Marxism at its sneakiest. HDR94
continues on page 6 with: "The Social Summit should request the United
Nations to draw up a concrete world social charter to post various
goals, to set priorities and timetables for their implementation and
to monitor the implementation of these goals through the new Economic
Security Council proposed later." That's right, it appears that one
Security Council isn't enough for the "dirigistas" at 2 UN Plaza, New
York. Nor does the new World Trade Organization slake their thirst
for economic control. They also seek a World Central Bank and a more
powerful IMF. On the subject of armaments, the report calls for
strengthening the recently established UN Register of Conventional
Armaments. HDR94 also urges: "A collective effort must be made at the
time of the Summit to:
...Persuade the industrial nations to close their military bases,
phase out their military assistance and eliminate their subsidies to
arms exporters over the next three years. [p. 8] The developing
countries are to "Disarm and demobilize their armed forces." [p. 59]
Clearly, the Freedom From War plan is alive and well in 1994.
Taxed globally, pay locally
HDR94 also reveals plans to fund the U.N. world takeover (and that is
precisely what it is) through "transaction fees on global polluting
emissions." Also to be pushed at Copenhagen, is a United Nations tax
on international currency transactions and a global energy tax of $1
per barrel of oil. To paraphrase the bumper sticker, we'll be "taxed
globally, and pay locally" -- at the pump. (The global personal
income tax can't be too far behind). Page 56 of the report suggests
that the Security Council could "[t]ax arms sales to finance
peacekeeping." Naturally, the projected billions raised from these
extortions still aren't enough for the UN "megalomondiacs." To make
up for this shortfall, they're mustering the audacity to "..persuade
all nations to allocate a proportion of the potential savings [from
the peace dividend created by their own disarmament schemes!] to a
global human security fund -- say 20% of the peace dividend in rich
nations and 10% in poor nations.' [page 8; our emphasis]
Smothering freedom -- the UN security blanket
The global human security fund would "finance an international
response" to issues like "drug trafficking, international terrorism,
transmittable diseases, environmental pollution, natural resources
depletion, natural disasters, ethnic conflicts and refugee flows."
This will enable our new rulers to practice "crisis management" on a
planetary scale. We all know that out of crisis comes opportunity --
in this case, the opportunity to worm deeper into the affairs of their
reluctant world citizens. Near the end of Chapter Two, the report
lets it all hang out, building to a glorious, Marxist crescendo when
it suggests that the Social Summit consider: "Calling on people to
make their full contribution to global human security and to bind
together in solidarity" [A kind of "workers of the world unite" for
the nineties. - Ed.]. The unstated message of the whole report is
"bind together, or be bound together." Finally, on page 39, the
report piously imparts knowledge of "the indivisibility of global
human security -- that no one is secure as long as someone is insecure
anywhere." [Editor's Note: The report's pathological obsession with
"security" makes one seriously wonder whether the authors might have
had their teddy bears abruptly withdrawn from them at an early age].
The Mask comes off
In case there are still any skeptics of the notion that the United
Nations means world government, page 88 of the UN's HDR94 presents a
Special Contribution by the winner of the 1969 Nobel Prize for
Economics, Jan Tinbergen: "Global Governance for the 21st Century."
He bluntly states: "Mankind's problems can no longer be solved by
national government. What is needed is a World Government." Tinbergen
then calls for strengthening the UN system by changing the role of UN
alphabet agencies from advice-giving to implementation. "Thus, the
FAO would become the World Ministry of Agriculture, UNIDO would become
the World Ministry of Industry, and the ILO the World Ministry of
Social Affairs."
In the section entitled, "A New Framework of Global Governance," the
UN report blatantly proclaims: "The need for strengthened institutions
of global governance is much greater today than ever before." Among
the new institutions which "can be developed in an agreed step-by-step
approach" are a permanent World Police (the White Helmets) with the
power to subpoena individuals to appear before the International
Criminal Court. The latter is being sought by U.S. Senate Resolution
32, introduced by Senator Christopher Dodd, which would assist in the
creation of the court. Thus, an American citizen could be extradited
from his own country, brought before this UN court, and stripped of
the legal protection of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. A World
Central Bank (not to be mistaken with the current World Bank or IMF,
which lend to developing nations). The WCB would correspond to a
hegemonic Federal Reserve System for the whole world. The infantile
concept of creating a World Bank. World Army. World Court, World
Police, (World Fire Department?), etc., once again exposes the
prepubescent mindset of the useful idiots who support these plans.
Mercifully, there was no mention by these concrete-thinking drones of
a World Church -- at least not yet.
[Editor's note: The Human Development Report, 1994 is available from
United Nations Publications; Sales Section, 2 United Nations Plaza,
Room DC2-853; New York, NY 10017. Tel. 212/963-8302 or 800/253-9646.
Fax. 212/ 963-3489].
The World Summit on Global Governance
The same childishly simplistic (but devilishly dangerous) One World
proposals are advanced by the influential World Federalist Association
in a collection of essays entitled, "The New World Order: Can It Bring
Security to the World's People?" The many outrageous proposals
floated by this publication can be summarized by borrowing the phrase
of the Dallas editor quoted earlier from 1962: "One, Two, Three,
Bingo. The UN Rules the World." One item worth mentioning however is
in the chapter "Building the Institutions for Global Governance," by
Richard Hudson, in which we learn of plans for a World Summit on
Global Governance. Apparently, the Stockholm Initiative on Global
Security and Governance contained two proposals which read as follows:
(27) "That a World Summit on Global Governance be called, similar to
the meetings in San Francisco and Bretton Woods in the 1940's."
(28) "As a matter of priority, the establishment of an independent
International Commission on Global Governance."
The initiative was signed by 36 world leaders, including former peanut
farmer and President of the United States, Jimmy Carter; trendy Czech
President Vaclav Havel, former Soviet Foreign Minister and James
Baker's buddy, Eduard "Shev" Shevardnaze; the head of the Rio Earth
Summit, billionaire New Ager, Maurice Strong; and former German
Chancellor Willy Brandt (now deceased).
World government -- just a step away
In case anyone laughs at the possibility of these proposals coming
about in our lifetime, consider that, as the World Federalists point
out, we are very close to world government already. They note that
with the current UN Secretariat corresponding to an Executive branch,
and the International Court of Justice (the World Court) as the
judicial branch, and a military enforcement system coming up to speed,
the only thing lacking to create a functioning world government is a
world Parliament. World Federalist Hudson notes: "By making
amendments to only two articles to the United Nations Charter
[Articles 13 and 18], the General Assembly could be transformed into a
functioning global legislature able to pass politically balanced and
enforceable laws." [page 34 of The New World Order: (:an It Bring
Security to the World's People." Emphasis added. The report is
available from the World Federalist Association 418 /th St. SW,
Washington, D.C. 20003. Tel. 202/ 546-3950]
The World Federalist's are not the only one's in the One World
Movement talking this way. According to the March 1993 UN Chronicle,
the UN General Assembly's President, Stoyan Ganev "emphasized the
importance of realizing the Assembly's full potential as an
unprecedented world parliament." [See page 35]
Beyond voting (besides, it takes too long)
Those "cosmetic conservatives" and liberals who might abide such an
arrangement should take heed of the ensuing comments by Mr. Hudson on
the subject of democratic voting:
"Notions of American style democracy on a world level at this period
of history, are, in my view, naive. Holding elections on a global
level would take much too long, and the practical implications are
overwhelming." [p. 35, emphasis added] Taking us all for complete
suckers, Hudson then waves off the pesky problem of giving the vote to
his future world "citizens": "I say: Let's get a global legislature
now, even though it's not perfect. We have a lot of pressing business
to do." [Ed. Note: The Napoleonic Mr. Hudson should land a plum post
in the world government].
Like the UN's 1993 Earth Summit in Rio, the Human Development Summit
will serve to instruct an army of "change agents" who will go forth
and multiply the number of new global rules by which we must abide.
As the United Nations drives to inject it's blue-helmeted soldiers
into every street corner scuffle and to foist it's environmental
regulations and now even taxes on the unsuspecting citizenry of 170
odd nations, we are all being whipsawed between the blue and the
green. As we rush blindly into submission to the United Nations, it's
only fair to ask: "If the UN Army is to control the world, who gets to
control the UN Army?
Goldilocks and the Russian Bears
America's warm and fuzzy response to Glasnost, Perestroika and the
"collapse of Communism" has been to lavish trust, good will and money
on the historically deceptive Russian government. In our first
Relevance Special Report, "The New Lies Strategy," we warned
subscribers that popular portrayals of the new Russian leaders as
being "reformers struggling to build democracy" was media-cultivated
fiction. We also explained the KGB's long-range strategy, revealed in
1984 by KGB defector Anatoly Golitsyn, who accurately predicted
Glasnost and the fictional "collapse of communism." He warned that
the latter would be staged to lull the West to sleep. This is being
born out by recent events in the breakaway republic of Chechnya, where
Boris Yeltsin exposed his true character by ordering tanks into the
capitol and merciless bombing of its civilians. The fact that there
is an oil pipeline, crucial to the Western oil and banking interests
with assets in the region, running right through the country, doesn't
help the plight of the poor Chechnyans.
The Military Staff Committee
With the above in mind, Relevance returns to the question of who would
control the proposed standing UN army. According to the February 1st,
1992 Los Angeles Times, "presumably, the force that French President
Francois Mitterand envisions [the UN Peace Force] would operate under
the command of the UN Military Staff Committee, a little known, and
until now, impotent panel of military officers from the Security
Council's five permanent members -- the United States, Britain,
France, Russia and China." So, who controls the Military Staff
Committee? It has been overseen by the Undersecretary for Political
and Security Council Affairs. Astonishingly, since the UN's creation,
all who have held this post have been communist, and all but two have
been from the Soviet Union or Russia. According to former UN
Secretary General Trygve Lie, he was informed of "an understanding,
which the Big Five had reached on the appointment of a Soviet national
as Assistant Secretary - General for Political and Security Council
Affairs." Mr. Lie wrote that he wasn't told how long the agreement
was to last, but as the following list shows, it has lasted through 15
terms. In 1992, the post was restructured and we are attempting to
pick up the thread and determine the correspondent position. So far,
we have gotten conflicting evidence from the UN office, but a Russian
named Kalaboukoff recently resigned from a similar post. Regarding
the agreement, the liaison for the Military Staff Committee, told
Relevance that he was unaware of any such written agreement, but
conceded that there may have been a non-verbal one. We are also
considering the possibility that with the overt collapse of the Soviet
Union, the agreement was dissovled. To verify its existence, see page
45 of Trygve Lie's book, In the Cause of Peace.
UN Undersecretaries General for Political and Security Council Affairs
1946-1949 Arkady Sobolev (USSR)
1949-1953 Konstantin Zinchenko ( USSR)
1953-1954 Ilya Tchernychev (USSR)
1955-1957 Dragoslav Protitch (Yugoslavia)
1958-1960 Anatoliy Dobrynin (USSR)
1960-1962 Georgy Arkadov (USSR)
1962-1963 E.D. Kiselev (USSR)
1963-1965 V.P. Suslov(USSR)
1965-1968 Alexei E. Nesterenko (USSR)
1968-1973 Leonid N. Kutakov (USSR)
1973-1978 Arkady N. Shevchenko (USSR)
1978-1981 Mikhail D. Sytenko (USSR)
1981-1986 Viacheslav A. Ustinov (USSR)
1987-1989 Vasily S. Safronchuk (USSR)
1990-1992 Vladimir Petrovski (USSR) / James Jonah (Sierra Leone)*
1992 Position restructured. Russian control is a now a question mark.
*Petrovski and Jonah (who was neither Communist nor Russian), shared
the post.
In the 1962 Congressional Record, on page 215, a Congressman Utt from
California cited Mr. Lie's revelation and claimed that the United
States lost its first military engagement in Korea as a result of this
Russian political control over our UN forces, which allowed Russian
review of all orders from the Pentagon to General McArthur. From
there it could be passed to the North Koreans or Chinese. Until
recently, the adjective most often used to describe the Military Staff
Committee was "moribund." Now, with the stirrings of the New World
Army, it is being called back into life. How many Americans would
feel comfortable knowing that we are relinquishing civilian control
over elements of our military to a political body beholden to Russians
or "reformed" Communists?
"Who's been sleeping in my bed?"
As we noted above, Mikhail Gorbachev is now at the Presidio since it
fell victim in 1994, to the base closing commission. This is the same
Gorbachev who stated on page 36 of his 1987 book, Perestroika: New
Thinking for Our Country and the World: "Those who hope that we will
move away from the socialist path will be greatly disappointed. Every
part of our program of perestroika -- and the program as a whole, for
that matter -- is fully based on the principle of more socialism and
more democracy." More socialism. More democracy. Gorby's successor,
Boris Yeltsin is, as this report goes to press, still teaching the
breakaway Russia republic of Chechnya his version of "democracy." -
While Gorby oversees his foundation on our West Coast, Nikita "We will
bury you" Krushchev's son, Sergei, has attained permanent-resident
status in the United States and lives in Cranston, Rhode Island. Said
the junior Kruschev, "I want to get involved in some business."
[Chicago Tribune, April 21st, 1993]. Sergei Kruschev is not just some
spoiled son of a privileged Party member. He was a member of the
Communist Party apparat himself and as a leading scientist, actually
headed the Soviet Missile Design Bureau for ten years supervising
5,000 scientists. The Tribune reveals that he studied as a senior
research fellow at Brown University's Center for Foreign Policy
Development and came to this country in 1993 with letters of support
from George Bush and Richard Nixon.
Kremlin on the Potomac?
Meanwhile, the new Russian embassy in Washington is the largest in the
world, occupying several city blocks and high enough ground to afford
surveillance of the entire city of Washington. Some have said, it's
as if they moved the Kremlin to Washington. In fact, as reported in
the August Relevance, FBI Director Louis Freeh even said he would
welcome a Russian Interior Ministry office in Washington, at the
Russian embassy [The New York Times, July 6th, 1994]. This is the
same Interior Ministry which has for years brutally suppressed the
Russian people. But didn't they all become democrats five years ago?
Not exactly. In fact, it's also the same Interior
Ministry whose black-garbed shock troops murdered protectors in
Vilnius, Lithuania, on Gorby's orders, and who have now been called in
to beef up the forces assaulting Chechnya, as this goes to press.
Incredibly, according to The New York Times, Mr. Freeh also signed an
agreement on July 5th, 1994 with Russian authorities calling for "the
exchange of information among [American and Russian] police,
cooperation in investigations, the detention of alleged criminals in
each other's countries and the training of the Russian officers in the
FBI's more modern techniques." (The New York Tones July 6th, 1994].
What is going on here?
For the benefit of our new subscribers, we should again print the
words of Congressional investigator Norman Dodd of the 1954 Reece
Commission to investigate the tax-exempt foundations. When
interviewing the head of the Ford Foundation, H. Rowan Gaither, the
latter admitted the following:
Mr. Dodd, we operate here under directives which emanate from the
White House. The substance of the directives under which we operate
is that we shall use our grant making power to alter life in the
United States so that we can comfortably be merged with the Soviet
Union.
[At least Goldilocks didn't invite the three bears into her home]
** PICTURE **
A ZSU-234, self-propelled, Russian antiaircraft unit photographed in
Bay City, Michigan on January 3rd, 1995. Its four cannons fire at a
combined rate of up to 4,000 rounds/ minute.
Russian military equipment in the U.S.
We have reported extensively on the importation of Russian military
equipment into the United States. Instead of re-presenting this
material, we refer the reader to the August and October issues of
Relevance. More recently, a subsidiary of the Carlyle Group (which is
run by former Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci (CFR) and Secretary
of State and Treasury, James Baker (CFR), known as BDM International,
imported a Russian air defense system for the Pentagon. The
equipment, known as an S-300 air defense system comparable to the U.S.
Patriot missile, was flown in December 19th on a huge An-124 Russian
transport plane to Huntsville, Alabama and transported to nearby
Redstone Arsenal. According to The New York Times, the S-300 was
purchased for testing purposes. Despite The Times's story, Redstone
still insisted to Relevance that the information was classified and
would not confirm or it. On the surface, the explanation makes sense.
Until one considers the sheer numbers of Russian pieces, from T-72
tanks and armored personnel carriers, to Scud Frog and SA-6 missiles
and rocket launchers, not to mention the 1,500-odd chemical weapons
decontamination vehicles in Saucier, Mississippi, and advanced Mi-24
Hind D, E and F assault helicopters, all of which, when taken
together, strain the "testing" explanation. Relevance asks: If the
Pentagon has a plausible, benign explanation for all this, when is it
going to release it?
Russian missile battery in Grayling, Michigan
As this report goes to press, Relevance has obtained photographs of
more Russian military equipment taken January 3rd on a train outside
Bay City Michigan. The units included two Soviet ZSU-23-4 self-
propelled antiaircraft batteries, one Soviet SA-6 self-propelled
missile launcher capable of carrying three SAM missiles, along with
its tracked, fire-control radar unit; two large covered tank-like
armored vehicles, which could not be positively identified; and a
large truck believed to be a SAM missile loader, along with five
electric generator units. The Michigan National Guard's Major Jim
McCone told Relevance that they were being used for "weapons research
development" by an undisclosed private corporation. We have since
determined that the units were on their way to Camp Grayling, Michigan
and the defense contractors are Northrup and Raytheon. The nickname
of the Grayling operation is "Chicken Little" but the specific nature
of the work is not being released. The workers on the project refused
to discuss any details with Relevance and referred us to the base's
public affairs officer, who is unavailable for two weeks. The
question remains, why are they being tested?
Pre-positioning for attack -- or re-tooling for the "Peace" force?"
The December Relevance asked: "Has the T-72 (Russian tank) been
earmarked as the official tank of the UN 'Peace' Force?" As we noted
above, Mike Blair of The Spotlight has reported on the search for a
standardized, global rifle and ammunition for the Blue Helmets. He
hypothesizes that not only tanks and rifles, but other types of
surplus Russian equipment brought into this country, are being retro-
fitted and upgraded to new "universal" specifications. Blair cites
Russian Hind E and F attack helicopters which have been augmented by
General Electric, and the 1,500 chemical warfare decontamination
vehicles in Saucier, Mississippi which were "refurbished" for the UN.
Are we witnessing a massive upgrading and standardization program to
allow existing Russian equipment to retro-fit snugly into the New
World Army?
What about other foreign equipment? An integrated global force would
require equipment that is interchangeable amongst units of all
nationalities.
Our readers may recall Yuma, Arizona Proving Ground as one of the
bases with significant numbers of Russian tanks being maintained at a
so-called "tank farm". A Relevance reader sent us a photograph of a
huge tank which was unloaded at a Texas port and shipped by road all
the way to Yuma, where it stayed for a few weeks and was then shipped
all the way back to the port and overseas to points unknown. A source
inside Yuma confirmed the armored odyssey and identified the vehicle
as a British self-propelled howitzer. He told Relevance that some
sort of special "automotive testing" had been done on the vehicle but
couldn't provide details. Was it shipped across the Atlantic and back
to develop a standardization process for use on other such units? For
that matter, is U.S. equipment also being modified to fit the
universal Peace Force specifications? Unfortunately, whether the
equipment is here to be used as is, to "make us peaceful," or it's
here to be "standardized" for an occupying World Army, the threat to
American independence remains.
** PICTURE **
At right is believed to be a British self-propelled howitzer being
transported to Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona recently. Was it being
"standardized" for use by the multinational World Peace Force?
Afghanistan's Red Dawn
It is certainly possible that there is no cause for alarm from any of
this foreign war materiel. Still, we might point out that the Russian
invasion of
Afghanistan was preceded by the pre-positioning of large amounts of
military equipment within that country, with the Afghan government's
permission. The Afghans were told it was to build up their country's
army into a regional power. In late 1979, in the dead of night,
hundreds of elite
Soviet paratroopers executed a lightning raid on the Presidential
Palace and then executed the Afghan president himself (along with his
entire family). Thousands of troops were then flown in and quickly
"married" with their equipment -- much of it already in place -- and
before long they had captured the country. Obviously, this is not
meant to compare Afghanistan to the United States, but the modus
operandi used against the Afghans deserves mention in light of the
largescale importation of Russian equipment to this country. This
country is probably too big and too well armed to take in such a
manner. More likely, we are going to be gradually occupied by foreign
troops and their newly standardized equipment. Of course, all this
would surely sound like raving, Cold War paranoia, if not for the
overall context under which these events are taking place, i.e. the
New Lies Strategy, the Russian-American merger and the New World
Order.
Training with the enemy?
Granted, most of the Russian equipment is currently no threat without
Russian soldiers to operate it. Well, as reported in Relevance
October 1994, the Head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sam
Nunn, on June 1st, 1994, revealed the following: "I think our American
people will welcome a Russian military force for peacekeeping
purposes." Plans to bring a small but symbolic contingent are
currently in motion. More ominously, the October Relevance reported
on the National Guard Bureau's fact sheet on its State Partnership
program (which has been hosting soldiers from the former Soviet East
bloc countries) signed by a Colonel Gosnell. which stated:
..the National Guard is anxious to extend the State Partnership
Program to the Russian Federation...Russian acceptance [of the
program] would involve them directly with Heartland America, the
citizen-soldiers and airmen of the U.S. National Guard and Reserves
and, through them, with the U.S. private sector.
Further, we learned that fourteen states' Adjutants General have
volunteered their states (with near zero media coverage, and thus no
public consent) to become state partners with members of the Russian
Federation, inviting Russian troops into the following "lucky" states:
Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts,
Mississippi, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon,
Washington and West Virginia. [To obtain a fact sheet on the program
contact Col. A. Vance Renfroe of the National Guard Bureau at 703/
693-3435. Or call your State's Adjutant's General].
Though the Russian Army is being portrayed as hopelessly inept in the
Chechnya debacle, why did they send in the rawest of recruits and use
what mystified Pentagon analysts saw as fatally flawed tactics?
Remember that the Russian doctrine is based on Sun Tsu, who taught,
"When strong, feign weakness." Certainly the current perception is of
a decrepit and outmoded war machine. But during a November 2nd, 1994
speech at Rice University, Richard F. Starr, Senior fellow at the
Hoover Institute, outlined a ten year plan for modernizing the army,
including a rapid deployment force to include nine airborne divisions.
He notes "the High Command continues its efforts to re-establish
Russian hegemony throughout the former USSR." He cites a report
stating "orders for certain military equipment had doubled or even
tripled during 1993, after a cutback the previous year," In addition,
"some 90 secret cities still exist and continue producing for the
military-industrial complex," which is based on over 4,000 factories,
still up and producing. Disarmament Treaties notwithstanding, could
Russia someday double-cross the US and the UN? As we invite their
soldiers into "Heartland America," keep in mind the words of
Confucius: "Get to know your enemy. Become his friend. Then destroy
him." Although it's farfetched, history has no shortage of examples
of high level Russian treachery. Just ask the Afghans.
America's "internal security" force
Ultimately, in Stage Three, "States would retain only those forces,
non-nuclear armaments, and establishments required for the purpose of
maintaining internal order" (page 9 of Freedom From War). Of course,
if a state holds a monopoly on lethal force over a disarmed populace,
we have the definition of a police state. Unfortunately, such
entities have, historically, tended to go to extreme ends to "maintain
internal order." [In fact, the author of Publication 7277, John
McCloy, was the official in the Roosevelt Administration who ordered
Japanese-Americans to be placed in internment camps during World War
II, in flagrant violation of their rights as U.S. citizens]. The
outline of our very own "internal security force" can be seen in the
black-garbed, hooded, secret police in certain multi-jurisdictional
task forces (MJTF's) on the streets of America. We have reported
extensively on these urban commando units which combine local, state
and federal law enforcement personnel who cross jurisdictional lines.
Those MJTF's "tasked" to drug enforcement routinely bust down doors
using no-knock, "dynamic entry" (i.e. sledge hammers and lots of
yelling) and often wear no markings or badges (then again, someone
wearing a ski-mask is not inclined to volunteer his badge number).
Unaccountability is the name of this game for America's new internal
security forces.
Ominously, an unholy marriage between the MJTF units and the National
Guard is taking shape. The Guard has been earmarked to assist in the
drug war (thanks to a loophole relating to the Posse Commitatus Act,
which prevents soldiers from being used to enforce civilian law) and
is now working very closely indeed with law enforcement. According to
the St. Bernard [Louisiana] News of January 4th, 1994, Sheriff Jack A.
Stephens of the St. Bernard Parish said: "The Louisiana National Guard
has worked very closely with the Sheriff's Office and members of the
Guard have been virtually incorporated into the narcotics unit." Many
of the notorious "black helicopters" whirling around the country are
flown by Guardsmen looking for marijuana plants. Keep in mind that
although these forces are officially taking million dollar, aerial
botany lessons, the same activity serves to desensitize the public to
an increasing militarization and as rehearsals for possible future
military action against the American militia.
Martial law in Puerto Rico
A more serious, and draconian use of the National Guard is now taking
place in San Juan, Puerto Rico where whole neighborhoods are sealed
off and civil rights suspended. It amounts to a state of martial law,
in which Guard soldiers are "policing" public housing projects,
without regard for search warrants, due process or the right to come
and go freely in one's own neighborhood. All this in the name of
"fighting drugs." Of course, as we showed in Relevance charter issue
last July, agencies of the federal government are covertly importing
the same drug problem now used as a pretext for martial law.
Relevance 'November and December, 1994 issues detailed the merger
between our increasingly militaristic police and a military turned
inwards to police civilians.
As the martialization of American society continues, our internal
security forces are being simultaneously groomed for merger with those
of other nations. The seamless garment of global law enforcement is
being sewn to stretch from the Security Council right down to your
neighborhood precinct. Other elements of the National Guard --
created to defend this nation against invasion -- are now being sent
overseas for peacekeeping missions in places like the Golan Heights
and Turkey. For instance, the Associated Press reported the 159th Air
National Guard Fighter Group in New Orleans and another Guard unit
from Maryland are being sent to Turkey to help monitor the no-fly
zone. Meanwhile, 430 reservists will be sent by the Pentagon for a
six-month peacekeeping rotation in the Sinai. Air Force reservists are
now flying transport missions in the Balkans. Absent the big picture,
this is harmless, but as will become apparent, it fits snugly into the
plan for a "mongrelized" One World Police State.
Foreign forces in, U.S. forces out
Specified Parties to the Treaty would undertake the exchange of
military missions between states or groups of states in order to
improve communications and understanding between them. Specific
arrangements respecting such exchanges would be agreed. [Emphasis
added. See Page 15 of Blueprint For the Peace Race under Stage One
Section F No. 4]
The German Luftwaffe's permanent bases in the U.S.
We now have our forces scattered around the world in places as diverse
as Korea, Turkey, Macedonia, Cambodia, Somalia and Haiti -- 59
countries according to the Pentagon. As we have reported in previous
issues of Relevance, foreign soldiers are now inside the United
States. Though it is difficult to assess the actual numbers, because
they come and go, the German Luftwaffe (Air Force) unit at Fort Bliss,
Texas is the first ever permanent foreign military base established in
this country. As reported in the August Relevance, there are 1,500
personnel and dependents in what amounts to a small German town. A
very polite German lieutenant named Geiger told this editor they are
here for air defence training and they also travel within the country
to train in other areas. Many of them even have families at Fort
Bliss. A second German base is now in operation at Holliman Air Force
Base in New Mexico, where the Luftwaffe recently sent a wing of
Tornado fighter aircraft. The local paper even reported on the likely
housing squeeze with the German contingent's arrival.
*** PICTURE ***
This Soviet SA-6 missile launcher fires three Surface-to-air missiles
and was part of a complete antiaircraft battery sent to Grayling,
Michigan for "cold-weather testing."
The expansion of the permanent German military presence in the U.S.
has been timed beautifully with the German High Court's convenient
decision on July 12th, 1994 to allow that nation's soldiers to
participate in U.N. "peacekeeping" missions, despite the fact that the
post-W.W.II German Constitution forbids any participation of German
soldiers outside the country unless it is under attack. It seems
their Constitution is as "pliable" as ours. One excuse for their
presence is that we have had, and still have, forces in their country.
Granted, but they were placed there to protect Germany and all of
Europe from Soviet aggression. Who are the German's going to protect
us against? Mexico?
British "Vikings" in America?
Last August, we learned from our Canadian sources that British armored
and infantry units training in Alberta were train inside the United
States in early 1995. As this report goes to press, 700 members of
the British Army's 1st Battalion, Royal Anglian Regiment (nicknamed,
"The Vikings") are training at Fort Lewis, Washington, in an exercise
known as Trumpet Dance. This may not be all that shocking since the
British have been quietly rotating their troops (including the
fearsome Nepalese Ghurkas) through Fort Lewis for ten years, but it
rebukes those who have been smirking at reports of foreign "battle
groups" training in America. In fact, the British major at Fort Lewis
referred to his unit as precisely that, "..our battle group.."
Of course, the skeptics got their information from the Pentagon, which
has lied that there are no battalion strength foreign forces training
in America.
(Notice the imperious disregard for "democracy" in denying the
governed any informed consent in the matter). The British battalion
is part of the 24th Air Mobile Brigade, itself a part of NATO's new
multinational army group known as ARC (ACE Rapid Reaction Corps). The
Vikings, who saw duty in Northern Ireland recently, will be relieved
in February by a second British battalion, elements of which have seen
UN peacekeeping action with the UN Protection Force (PROFOR) in
Bosnia. As noted earlier, NATO is likely to be converted into the
core of the UN's New World Army. Of course, the individual German and
British soldiers have no ill will toward Americans, and as far as
they're concerned, they are just here to train. Nevertheless, these
trends must be viewed in the larger context of the plan for a UN World
Army, which, as we've seen in Freedom From War, is inimical to U.S.
independence. [For confirmation, call 206/967-7716 or 3031 to reach
Major Coe at the British office].
Military musical chairs
In 1960, the National Economic Council reprinted a report by the World
Association of Parliamentarians for World Government. It outlines
plans for the worldwide deployment of soldiers taken from one nation
to police the peoples of other nations in a regionalized system of
world government, including a detailed map showing the proposed
distribution of foreign troops in this country. Conversely, our
troops were shown based in various other nations around the globe.
Though this scheme had no force of law and there is no direct
connection with the U.S. government, it fits the plan for a global
army and appears to be the direction events are leading us. In fact,
columnist Bob Greene wrote a piece appearing in the Chicago Tribune of
September 29, 1993 entitled, "Is it time to send UN troops to the
U.S.?" Greene pointed out that the UN soldiers occupying numerous
countries around the world are there because these nations couldn't
bring about internal tranquility and safety on their own. He then
ventures:
Perhaps there is one more place where a UN multinational force is
desperately needed: The United States. Preposterous? Maybe not.
Maybe it is an issue for the 184 member nations of the UN to discuss.
Sending soldiers from around the world onto the streets of our own
country? We probably haven't come to the point where we need such
action yet, but we're veering perilously close.
Greene then quotes a Cincinnati businessman who favors inviting the UN
in to "stop the slaughter on our streets." Greene's pragmatic friend
continues:
"The first order of business should be to place an international
soldier on every street corner in America. The mission of the
soldiers should be to get awfully tough and right away...Let the UN
soldiers stop the mayhem. Stop the mayhem and pick up the weapons."
This is just one man's opinion. Nevertheless, when a national
columnist dangles loaded questions like the above, we are seeing the
calculated floating of a trial balloon, to gauge the depth of outrage
and resistance to what Greene's comrades in government may be sending
our way in the not too distant future.
Even so-called conservative voices have reassured us that the United
Nations is not a country and that it has no actual standing army
(yet), nor any authority to intervene in a nation's internal affairs.
On the latter point, the UN's Human Development Report '94 stresses
that "Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter clearly needs a fundamental
rethink." in order to allow the U.N. to intervene directly in the
internal affairs of sovereign nations. Of course, it already
blatantly violated its own charter in Somalia and Bosnia.
In the latter instance, the Security Council callously forbade the
Bosnian Muslims to import the arms needed to defend themselves, and
then failed miserably to protect them against Bosnian Serb attacks.
[Ed. note: If anything, this failure will be used not to rethink our
support for the UN, but to offer it as proof that the Blue Helmet
force needs to be strengthened --"to give it real teeth" is the
favorite phrase of the propagandists].
Foreign Troops in the U.S. -- Are they UN or not?
There has been a lot of quibble about whether the foreign troops are
here representing their respective countries -- just in a "routine
training" capacity -- or in preparation for United Nations peace-
making. First of all, the legal authority to allow foreign UN troops
into this country is found in Article 43
Sec. 1 of the United Nations Charter, which states:
All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the
maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make
available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with
a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance and
facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of
maintaining international peace and security. [Emphasis added].
The words "on its call" mean it is the decision of the Security
Council. So the U.S. government clearly has a legal argument under
the UN Charter, but do they have the intent to invite many foreign
soldiers inside our borders? As noted above, the National Guard
Bureau wants them here. And our friend Senator Nunn stated: "I think
our American people will welcome a Russian military force for
peacekeeping purposes." Obviously, no Russian military force would be
"welcomed" in here by Americans for anything more aggressive than
peacekeeping purposes. But, returning to our original question of
whether the foreign soldiers are under the UN or not, Relevance asks:
"Exactly who, besides the United Nations Organization, is currently
involved in peacekeeping? Who else is now busy laying the groundwork
for a new standing army of peacekeepers controlled by a Military Staff
Committee that has, since its inception, always been directed by a
Russian or member of the Communist block? Which organization has
already proposed levying taxes on all member nations to support its
peacekeeping and other interventions? Yes, the United Nations
provides the aegis under which the Russians and other foreign troops
are coming here to train. So how preposterous is it to say there are
United Nations troops in this country?
What does it all mean?
Certainly not preposterous, but is your newsletter reaching the right
conclusions? The presence of foreign troops and military equipment in
this country, Publication 7277 having the force of law, the growing
deployment of foreign equipment for the alien troops to use if and
when they get the order to "make us peaceful," the training by our own
troops for fighting in mock American towns, the questioning of our
troops as to whether they would shoot Americans who resisted gun
confiscation -- what does it all mean? Relevance believes that
whether you live in a foxhole, with an "Annie get your gun" mentality,
or you're a politically correct Philadelphia lawyer, you can draw the
same conclusions when the facts are presented. The preponderance of
evidence is just too huge to ignore. When taken together, the above
concerns all make a compelling case for immediate accountability by
our government -- not to mention the press, which is privy to most of
this information and more. Thus far, neither party has done this.
Make no mistake, when you consider foreign troops inside the U.S. you
are dealing with de facto United Nations forces. You may not see this
written on Page One of The New York Times, but when has The Times ever
put itself in a position to compromise its credibility? The virtual
press blackout on the subject by our globalist media doesn't make its
reality any less real, simply less readable.
Despite all of the above, we do not yet have a world government and we
still have an Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. The U.S.
Constitution is under attack but has not yet been scrapped. It gives
us the means to pull back from the gaping maw of global dictatorship.
We have the power to rescind the United Nations Charter and to pass
legislation blocking the path to world government. As we've mentioned
before, initiatives like this are underway in several states and are
being planned for others. Those so inclined can act on these or
initiate their own. Ultimately, whether we surrender our rights and
independence is entirely up to us.
"In questions of power then, let no more be said of confidence in man,
but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
Thomas Jefferson
Special thanks for many of the earlier government documents on
disarmament listed in this report go to Wisconsin researcher Paul
Kitzmann, Bernadine Smith of the Second Amendment Committee in
Hanford. California, and researcher and author, William Cooper. The
indefatigable efforts of these and other independent researchers are
helping to expose the plans of the One World Movement. Thanks also to
the many subscribers to Relevance who have provided myriad clippings,
photos and other important data.
[Editor's Note: We recommend that readers disseminate this report to
as many American citizens and legislators as possible, as quickly as
possible, in order to alert them to the pending loss of United States
independence. Permission is thereby granted to make unlimited copies
of this Relevance Special Report. Any commercial use of this report
or segments of this report, including such use in publications or
broadcast media, must be accompanied by full attribution and
subscription information, including toll free number (See below)].
Let Relevance SHATTER YOUR WORLD VIEW
Call Relevance Corporation today at 1-800-626-8944
Business and editorial correspondence:
Relevance Corporation
320 E. Maple Rd. Suite 297
Birmingham, MI 48009-9894
Subscription Information: 12 issues per year, plus 4 quarterly special
reports
Copyright ~ 1994 by Relevance Corporation. All rights reserved.
Relevance is a private newsletter covering current political. social
and economic topics. Information presented by Relevance Corporation,
in this newsletter and its supplemental reports is believed to be
accurate but this accuracy cannot be guaranteed. Relevance
Corporation and its publisher, editors, officers and employees are not
legal, financial, or investment advisors and the information presented
in Relevance should not be utilized as legal, financial or investment
advice by the reader. Any such use is at the reader's sole risk.
|
|
Disclaimer: The file contained in the
box above or displayed in a separate window from a link in the
box above is NOT owned nor implied to
be owned by BeYoND THe iLLuSioN. Most files at BeYoND THe
iLLuSioN are originally from public Bulletin Board Systems
(BBS) which were popular in the days before the Internet or
from gopher, web, and FTP sites from the early days of the
Internet which no longer exist today. Essentially, all files
were acquired from the public domain in one for or another.
However, there have been occasions when copyright protected
material has appeared on BeYoND THe iLLuSIoN without permission
of the copyright holder. In these instances, we have and will
continue to remove the copyright protected file as soon as it
is brought to our attention. This can now be done using our Report Copyright Material form. Fill
out the form, and the webmaster will be notified of the
situation.
There are also times when files found on BeYoND THe iLLuSioN
have a real home somewhere else on the Internet. In these
instances, we will gladly replace the file with a link to its
true home whenever it is brought to our attention. If you know
of the true home of any of these files, you can use our Report Original URL form to bring it yo our
attention.
|
