The New World Army
In the Gulf, we saw the United Nations playing the role dreamed of
by its founders, with the world’s leading nations orchestrating and
sanctioning collective action against aggression.1
President George Bush, August 1991, National Security Strategy of
the United States The army of tomorrow is neither the Red Army nor
the U.S. Army.... If there is to be peace, it will be secured by a
multinational force that monitors cease-fires ... and protects human
rights. Blue-helmeted United Nations peacekeepers are doing just
“The Unsung New World Army,” New York Times editorial, May 11,
1992 [I]t is time for the United States to lead in the creation of a
modest U.N. rapid-deployment force.
Republican Congressman James A. Leach, Foreign Affairs, Summer
1992 The United States should strongly support efforts to expand the
U.N. peacekeeping role.
Democratic Congressman Lee H. Hamilton, Foreign Affairs, Summer
1992 Though few seemed to notice, January 31, 1992 was an historic
day on the march toward the new world order. To most New Yorkers, it
simply meant worse than usual traffic jams, as motorcades and
security cordons for the many foreign dignitaries on their way to
United Nations headquarters tied up traffic for hours.
For the rest of America, the blur of headlines and evening news
sound bites about the need for “collective security” coming from
visiting potentates gave little hint of the significance of what was
transpiring. Yet, this 3,046th meeting of the United Nations
Security Council that attracted the dignitaries marked the first
time that the body had convened at the level of heads of state or
government. The exalted group of world leaders representing the five
permanent and ten rotating member states of the Security Council
included a king, five presidents, six prime ministers, a chancellor,
a premier, and two foreign ministers. They were gathering to launch
a process that should have set off alarms worldwide: the arming of
the United Nations.
The assemblage took on a religious aura as, one by one, the national
leaders worshipped at the UN altar, referred to the UN Charter with
a reverence usually reserved for Holy Writ, and recited the by-now
doxology always heard at these increasingly frequent “summits”: new
world order; peace, equity, and justice; interdependence; global
harmony; democracy; human rights; the rule of law; collective
engagement; an enhanced and strengthened United Nations; etc.
President Bush enthusiastically extolled “the sacred principles
enshrined in the United Nations Charter” and, recalling its
messianic mission, proclaimed:
“For perhaps the first time since
that hopeful moment in San Francisco, we can look at our Charter as
a living, breathing document.”2
The UN’s newly-installed Secretary-General, Egypt’s
Boutros-Ghali, was no less caught up with the spiritual purpose of
the world organization. He called for additional summit-level
meetings of the Security Council, since this “would also help to
assure that transfiguration of this house which the world hopes to
be completed before its fiftieth anniversary, in 1995.”3 How he
divined what the world’s “hopes” for the organization on its 50th
birthday might be, he did not say. And he did not have to explain
the motive behind his use of Biblical metaphor. That was transparent
enough. Webster defines “transfigure” this way: “to give a new and
typically exalted or spiritual appearance to.” To the Christian
mind, of course, “transfiguration” recalls the Gospel account of
Christ’s manifestation of his divine glory.
Boutros-Ghali undoubtedly knows the power of the symbolism he chose
and, like his fellow true believers in the one-world gospel, he
realized that much more of this evangelization is necessary if the
masses are to be sold on the idea of the UN as the world’s savior.
When his turn at the UN podium came, even Boris Yeltsin was
appropriately religious, referring to the organization as “the
political Olympus of the contemporary world.”4 Venezuelan President
Carlos Andres Perez proclaimed that “the United Nations is
indispensable to us all.”5 Presumably, we cannot survive without it.
“This means,” said Perez, “placing our trust in its leadership and
in its set-up, as well as in the decision-making machinery. The
guiding principles must be those that inspired its establishment,
now brought to complete fruition.”6 That’s quite a contrast with the
scriptural injunction to “trust in the Lord,” and far indeed from
the admonitions of our founding fathers to avoid putting trust in
man (and government) but instead to “bind him down from mischief by
the chains of the Constitution.”7
A Bigger and Better UN?
Such quaint notions as national independence and limitation of
government held no sway with these internationalists. The
participants in this special convocation of the Security Council
were virtually unanimous in their support of greatly expanded United
Nations powers. This was necessary, they said, because of the rapid
“acceleration of history,” the “critical stage” of current world
events, “global instability,” “nuclear proliferation,” and the many
“threats to peace and security” presented by economic, social,
humanitarian, and ecological “sources of instability.”
The obsolete nation-state is incapable of meeting the world’s needs,
claimed one speaker after another. Boutros-Ghali explained that in
his vision of the new world order, “State sovereignty takes a new
“[N]arrow nationalism,” warned the Egyptian, “can
disrupt a peaceful global existence. Nations are too interdependent,
national frontiers are too porous and transnational realities ...
too dangerous to permit egocentric isolationism.”8
were made at this special UN session for increasing the powers of
the Secretary-General, enhancing the jurisdiction of the World
Court, expanding the membership of the Security Council, abolishing
the veto power of the five permanent members, establishing a
permanent funding mechanism for “peacekeeping,” convening a summit
meeting to address social development, increasing economic aid from
North to South, and more. Hardly a speaker failed to hail the “end
of the Cold War” and the demise of communism, but socialist thought
was still the order of the day as one leader after another called
for greater “global management” and redistribution of wealth.
French President Francois Mitterrand made the first concrete
proposal to give military teeth to the world body with his call for
establishing a rapid-deployment UN army. “I state that for its part
France is ready to make available to the Secretary-General a
1,000-man contingent for peace-keeping operations, at any time, on
48-hours notice,” said the internationalist Frenchman. And to
buttress his enthusiasm for a UN military force, he added, “That
figure could be doubled within a week.”9 Belgian Prime Minister
Wilfried Martens seconded Mitterrand’s proposal and announced that
“... Belgium will ensure rapid deployment of Belgian contingents in
United Nations peace-keeping forces.”10 His idea was immediately
endorsed by Russian President Boris Yeltsin and Hungarian Foreign
Minister Geza Jeszenszky.
Going further, Yeltsin declared to the august assemblage:
the time has come to consider creating a global defense system for
the world community. It could be based on a reorientation of the
United States Strategic Defense Initiative, to make use of high
technologies developed in Russia’s defense complex.”
magnanimous gesture on his part, said Yeltsin, could be made because
“Russia regards the United States and the West not as mere partners
but rather as allies.”11
To reinforce his contentions that the “evil
empire” is no more, and that his new-found devotion to human rights
is genuine, Yeltsin announced: “A few days ago, the 10 remaining
political prisoners were pardoned by a decree of the President of
the Russian Federation. There are no longer any prisoners of
conscience in free Russia.”12 There were no guffaws and no one had
the inclination (or the guts) to ask what had happened to the
consciences of millions more political, social, and religious
prisoners still populating the gulags. Or why this former member of
the Soviet Politburo wasn’t being held accountable for his part in
the USSR’s long history of crimes against humanity.
Red Chinese Premier Li Peng rose to speak of “human rights,”
“peaceful coexistence,” and “social tranquility,” he was met with
respectful attentiveness. The Butcher of Tiananmen Square was
politely given a world stage for the most outrageous totalitarian
propaganda. China, he proclaimed, “will never become a threat to any
country or any region of the world. China is of the view that no
country should seek hegemony or practice power politics.” His
government, he said, looked forward to “the establishment of a new
international order that will be stable, rational, just and
conducive to world peace and development.”13
Not only was he not
hooted down, he was granted the prestige of separate meetings with
Presidents Bush and Yeltsin and Prime Ministers Major and
Hundreds of Chinese demonstrators who came to protest this travesty
were kept blocks away from the UN building by security forces. The
Los Angeles Times reported the following lamentation uttered by one
of the young demonstrators:
“His [Li’s] hand is full of the blood and tears of the Chinese
people, and I don’t understand why world leaders would shake hands
with him,” said a weeping Chai Ling, one of the leaders of the Tian
An Men Square pro-democracy demonstrations.14
On the morning following this precedent-setting Security Council
session, the Establishment media were ready to peddle the
politically correct one-world view. For example, Joseph S. Nye Jr.,
whose Insider credentials include being the director of the Center
for International Affairs, a member of the Council on Foreign
Relations (CFR), a Harvard University professor, and a former Deputy
Under Secretary of State, led off with an op-ed column in the New
York Times entitled, “Create a U.N. Fire Brigade.”
Nye told readers:
“If a new world order is ultimately to emerge from yesterday’s
summit meeting of the world’s leaders at the U.N., they will have to
stretch their imaginations.”15
According to Nye, Messrs. Mitterrand, Martens, and company were
thinking too small.
“The U.S. should go beyond rhetoric to promote a
new order.... To achieve this, the U.S. ought to propose the
creation of a U.N. rapid-deployment force.... made up of 60,000
troops in brigades from 12 countries.”16
That same morning, Los Angeles Times reporter
“Creating a standing army under the control of the United
Nations Security Council would give the world organization a
military punch it has never had before and could convert it into a
full-time international police department.”
That should be a truly
bone-chilling thought for anyone who values freedom. But Kempster
didn’t stop there, adding:
“If adopted ... the plan would mark the
transformation of the Security Council from a Cold Warhobbled
debating society to an organization with the power to enforce its
Even more chilling! But not, apparently, to the
apostles of one-worldism who have been lustily cheering such
In the months following the summit, as the Bush Administration moved
brazenly forward with never announced plans to supplant the U.S.
Constitution with the UN Charter, the Establishment news media,
dominated by members of the Council on Foreign Relations and led by
the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and
the CFR’s own Foreign Affairs, provided both cover and support. So
began the audacious propaganda campaign to resurrect a decades-old,
one-world scheme to transfer U.S. military might to the United
In its March 6, 1992 lead editorial entitled “The New World Army,”
the New York Times came close to dropping all pretenses and
For years the United Nations has been notable mostly for its vocal
cords. That’s changed. Nowadays the U.N.’s muscle - its
blue-helmeted soldiers - seems to be everywhere. And costs have
soared. The bill for 11 peacekeeping missions could approach $3.7
billion this year. Never before have so many U.N. troops been
committed to so many costly and diverse missions.
But don’t get the idea that anyone at the Times is about to let
fiscal worries stand in the way of its commitment to “world order”
politics. The editorial ticked off the current count of
blue-helmeted troops deployed worldwide: In Lebanon 5,900; Cyprus
2,200; Golan Heights 1,300; El Salvador 1,000;
Iraq/Kuwait 540; Angola 440; Arab-Israel conflict 300;
India/Pakistan 40; Cambodia 22,000;
Yugoslavia 14,300; Western Sahara 2,700. This grand total of 50,720
UN troops is just the start of what these internationalists are
planning. Any of these hot spots could, of course, develop into a
major conflagration at any moment, requiring thousands - or tens of
thousands - of UN reinforcements.
There are also numerous other
trouble spots around the globe offering virtually unlimited
opportunities for UN intervention: South Africa, Azerbaijan,
Lithuania, Nicaragua, Northern Ireland, Korea, and Myanmar. Myanmar?
Yes, although you probably remember it by its former name, Burma.
The Los Angeles Times lead editorial for March 16, 1992 carried the
title, “Next Target for World’s Conscience:
Myanmar - An apocalyptic ‘killing field’ for the former Burma?”
signaled that we may soon be seeing UN troops, possibly including
American men and women, in that tragic land.
In the face of all of this support for a UN military arm, the only
protests in Congress about the developing “New World Army”
questioned merely the financial costs of the peacekeeping
operations, including the disproportionate share (an automatic 30
percent) the U.S. is expected to shoulder. When Secretary of State
James Baker appeared before a Senate subcommittee on March 5, 1992
to present the Bush Administration’s request for an additional $810
million (above the $107 million already appropriated) for
peacekeeping in 1992-93, he ran into resistance even from
traditionally strong UN supporters. Senator Jim Sasser (D-TN) told
Baker that although he believed the UN peacekeeping efforts were
important, in this recessionary economy, constituent opposition to
foreign aid had become “politically irresistible.”18
hearing, Sasser told an interviewer, “Our constituents are saying
that they have borne the burden as long as they intend to.”19 Yes,
the bill for the UN’s blue helmet operations is escalating rapidly.
“Yet,” said the New York Times in its “New World Army” editorial,
“in hard cash terms, peacekeeping is a bargain.... Every war
prevented saves blood and treasure, expands markets and trade.”
Though such an argument has a certain simplistic appeal, it breaks
down rapidly under any close examination. And although the economic
cost is a legitimate concern, a far more serious matter is the
looming UN military threat to U.S. sovereignty.
As the Times itself
“Now the peacekeepers are doing more than monitoring
truce lines. They are becoming peacemakers, too. U.N. forces were
asked to disarm guerrillas, conduct elections and enforce human
rights, first in Namibia, then in Cambodia and El Salvador.”20
UN itself is finding new opportunities right and left to justify
expansion of its armed forces. “The Security Council recently
expanded the concept of threats to peace,” the Times reported, “to
include economic, social and ecological instability.”21 Talk about
proliferation! This kind of assumed, open-ended authority virtually
guarantees unlimited interference by the United Nations in the
domestic affairs of sovereign states. And you can be sure that
interference won’t be directed primarily at stopping human rights
violations in repressive communist/socialist regimes or petty third
world dictatorships. It will be directed against what these
internationalists consider the greatest threat to global peace and
stability - the United States of America.
Yes, America is the target. According to an Associated Press report
appearing on March 12, 1992, “a United Nations official said
Wednesday ... that the United States is the greatest threat to the
world’s ecological health.” That official, Canadian Maurice F.
Strong, who served as secretary-general of the 1992 UN Earth Summit,
“In effect, the United States is committing environmental
aggression against the rest of the world.” He added: “At the
environmental level, the United States is clearly the greatest
This would not be the first or last time Strong and other
UN envirocrats would storm against what they consider the evils of
U.S. consumption and production. It has become a standard theme at
UN environmental conferences and was the major message at the world
body’s 1992 Earth Summit in Brazil. Judging from the vitriol these
eco-globalists regularly throw at Americans, it’s probably safe to
assume they would eagerly deploy the blue helmets (or as some
advocate, environmental police in green helmets) to close down much
of the U.S.
Will UN “peacekeepers” be deployed against the U.S. to rectify
economic, social, or ecological “instabilities” determined by UN
Marxists to be “threats to peace”? America would never stand for it,
you say? But the stage is already being set to render nations
incapable of blocking such moves by the UN.
Many of the UN’s defenders claim that the organization can only send
in its peacekeeping forces if they are officially invited. Yet,
President Bush has already put the United States on record
officially favoring UN action within the borders of sovereign
nations. In his “Pax Universalis” speech delivered at UN
headquarters on September 23, 1991, he said there was a need for UN
action to settle “nationalist passions” within nations and also to
remove an undesirable national leader from his post.23 Even New York
Times columnist Leslie Gelb (CFR) found the President’s clearly
stated policy “revolutionary” and “threatening.”24
According to the CFR globalists, no single nation should have veto
power over whether or not the UN should act. Writing in the Spring
1991 Foreign Affairs (“The U.N. in a New World Order”), Professors
Bruce Russett and James S. Sutterlin concluded:
“It is worth
emphasizing that nothing in the [UN] charter prohibits the Security
Council from deploying peacekeeping forces without the consent of
all the parties, or from including troop contingents from the
permanent members of the council in such forces where the need for
If this attitude prevails, UN eco-saviors can
first declare your factory, your logging, ranching or farming
practices, or even your use of an automobile a threat to the
environment, and then decide under authority derived from the new
definition of “peacekeeping” to send in the blue (or green) helmeted
troops to address the breach of “peace” with force.
The Great Mutation
Although the UN has not yet used any of this steadily building
“peacekeeping” muscle for enforcement of environmental or social
dicta, the precedent for uninvited intervention has already been
established under the assumed authority of “peacekeeping.” As Los
Angeles Times columnist William Pfaff observed in his March 5, 1992
column appearing in the International Herald Tribune, the 1992 UN
action in what was once Yugoslavia is a signal event, representing
an overturning of national sovereignty. “Slowly, too slowly, the
great mutation occurs,” said Pfaff. “The principle of absolute
national sovereignty is being overturned.... The civil war in
Yugoslavia has rendered this service to us.”
Pfaff, a committed
internationalist, applauded the UN’s “uninvited international
intervention into the affairs of a state” which, until now, “has
been held an unacceptable attack upon the principle of unlimited
state sovereignty.” He saw the intervention of the European
Community and the UN in Yugoslavia as a new model of collective
action that has many other potential applications. “What they have
thus far done has been improvisation, but it is a start on something
new,” the Paris-based columnist noted approvingly.
“We are now in a
situation where improvisation and experiment are essential, in
contrast to the big programmatic reforms of 1918 and 1945 - the
League and the U.N.”
The “improvisation” Pfaff and his fellow globalists talk about is hardly spontaneous and is eminently
predictable; it involves the expansion and concentration of the UN’s
political, economic, and military powers in response to global or
regional or even local “crises.”
The excuse for UN “peacekeeping” action in a crisis involving civil
war and ethnic fighting is the supposed potential for the conflict
to escalate to global dimensions if not checked by collective
international force. “What may now be needed,” said the New York
Times in its March 6, 1992 editorial, “is a permanent force for
rapid deployment in chaotic circumstances.” The Times editorial
“One promising possibility is to make fuller use of the U.N.
Charter. Article 43 already calls on members to make available
‘armed forces, assistance and facilities’ necessary to maintain
international peace. To that end, the Charter established a Military
Staff Committee....” But, lamented the Times, this UN committee has
never worked as intended, because “American armed forces have
traditionally resisted [it] as a threat to command autonomy.”
the far greater threat to national security and sovereignty was
“But in a transformed world,” continued the Times editorial, “it
makes sense to consider direct contributions of personnel and
equipment to a rapid deployment force under real multinational
Going still further, the article proposed that the UN
military force be expanded with funds taken from the U.S. defense
budget instead of from its foreign aid budget. “That won’t be easy,”
the Times .
“But what a chance for President Bush to take the lead
in giving real meaning to his still hazy vision of a New World
A Long-Established Policy
The only haze surrounding either Mr. Bush’s or that newspaper’s
vision of the new world order is that which they have deliberately
created. They know that the real substance of the new world order
was very clearly presented in 1961, more than 30 years ago, when
President John F. Kennedy presented his plan for national
disarmament to the United Nations. Crafted by his CFR-dominated
State Department and entitled Freedom From War: The United States
Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World
(also known as Department of State Publication 7277), it presented a
three-stage program for the gradual transfer of U.S. arms to the
United Nations.25 During Stage II (the stage we are currently in),
the document mandates:
“The U.N. Peace Force shall be established
and progressively strengthened.” This will be accomplished “to the
end that the United Nations can effectively in Stage III deter or
suppress any threat or use of force in violation of the purposes and
principles of the United Nations.”26
This incredible policy - which
has been actively but quietly brought along toward completion during
successive administrations - concludes as follows:
In Stage III progressive controlled disarmament ... would proceed to
a point where no state would have the military power to challenge
the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force.27
Freedom From War
was superseded in April 1962 by another disarmament document
entitled Blueprint for the Peace Race: Outline of Basic Provisions
of a Treaty on General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful
World.28 As before, its third stage calls for the strengthening of
the UN Peace Force “until it had sufficient armed forces and
armaments so that no state could challenge it.”29 That means, of
course, that upon completion of this partially completed plan, every
nation state, including the United States, would be subject to the
unchallengeable military forces of the all-powerful United Nations.
But that was long ago; perhaps those policies and proposals have
expired. Although that may be a comforting thought, unfortunately it
is not true.
On May 25, 1982, Congressman Ted Weiss (D-NY) called
for the implementation of Blueprint for the Peace Race and entered
its entire text into the Congressional Record.30 He also pointed out
that this disarmament proposal had never been formally withdrawn by
the United States government. When questioned about the commitment
of the United States to the Blueprint, A. Richard Richstein, General
Counsel to the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, confirmed
in a letter on May 11th of that year that “the United States has
never formally withdrawn this proposal.”31
In January 1991, William
Nary, the official historian of the Arms Control and Disarmament
Agency, confirmed again that “the proposal has not been withdrawn.”
Mr. Nary also confirmed that “certain features of it have been
incorporated into subsequent disarmament agreements.”32 Indeed,
significant portions of this long-range disarmament program have
been already enacted into law. On September 23, 1961, Congress
passed the “Arms Control and Disarmament Act,” which was signed into
law (Public Law 87-297) on September 26th by President Kennedy.
According to the wording of the law itself, its purpose was to
establish a U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency that would
advance efforts “toward ultimate world disarmament.” But, is the
objective really “world disarmament”? How can it be? Like Freedom
From War, P.L. 87-297 calls not for the total elimination of arms -
a completely utopian fantasy - but the transfer of arms from
national to international control. Section 3 (a) of the Act states:
The terms “arms control” and “disarmament” mean the identification,
inspection, limitation, control, reduction, or elimination, of armed
forces and armaments of all kinds under international agreement ...
to establish an effective system of international control....”
By December 11, 1989, when President Bush signed the “Arms Control
and Disarmament Amendments Act of 1989” (Public Law 101-216), the
original Kennedy Administration legislation had already been amended
nearly 20 times. This steadily growing body of law is moving us step
by step toward surrender to a global UN military dictatorship. Like
the original Act, the 1989 amendment contains the language
“identification ... elimination” of “armaments of all kinds.”
Questions rush to the fore. Such as: Could the phrase “armaments of
all kinds” be construed at some future date by a federal court or
the UN’s World Court to include the personal arms of private
citizens? In view of the increasing onslaught of state and federal
anti-gun legislation, the judicial activism of the federal courts,
and the total absence in the UN Charter and UN “Rights” documents of
any protection similar to our Second Amendment guarantee of the
right to keep and bear arms, it could hardly be considered extreme
to consider the possibility.
For apostles of the new world order,
perhaps the closest thing to holy writ, and the scripture to which
they all pay homage, is the 1958 volume World Peace Through World
Law by Grenville Clark and Louis B. Sohn.33 In this venerated text,
Clark and Sohn proposed a socialist world government through a
revised UN Charter. The key to this global superstate would be a
United Nations “world police force” invested with “a coercive force
of overwhelming power.” “This world police force would be the only
military force permitted anywhere in the world after the process of
national disarmament has been completed.” And what about the
civilian police and private firearms owners?
The authors warned
“that even with the complete elimination of all [national] military
forces,” local “police forces, supplemented by civilians armed with
sporting rifles and fowling pieces, might conceivably constitute a
serious threat to a neighboring country....” (Emphasis in original)
Accordingly, they recommend extremely rigid controls on all firearms
and ammunition possessed by civil police and private citizens.34 Top
Military Post If these proposals are implemented, who will control
these supreme United Nations forces? Isn’t that a question everyone
should be concerned with?
In the past, the person in charge of all
UN military activities has been the UN Under-Secretary-General for
Political and Security Council Affairs. Since the UN was created, 14
individuals have held that post. All have been communists and all
but one have come from the Soviet Union. This is no coincidence.
-General Trygve Lie revealed that U.S. Secretary of State Edward
Stettinius (CFR) had agreed to naming a Soviet national to this
strategic post, which Lie described as “the premier Assistant
Secretaryship.”35 Lie said he first learned of the agreement from
Soviet representative Andrei Vishinsky, and that “Mr. Stettinius
confirmed to me that he had agreed with the Soviet Delegation in the
The surprised Secretary-General Lie wrote:
The preservation of international peace and security was the
Organization’s highest responsibility, and it was to entrusting the
direction of the Secretariat department most concerned with this to
a Soviet national that the Americans had agreed. What did the
Americans want for themselves? To my surprise, they did not ask for
a department concerned with comparable substantive affairs, like the
economic or the social. Rather, Mr. Stettinius proposed that an
American citizen be appointed Assistant Secretary-General for the
Administrative and Financial Services.37
The communists have remained in control ever since, even though, Lie
maintained, this was not intended as a permanent arrangement. In
January 1992, newly elected Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali
reorganized the UN’s bureaucracy. There are now two posts of
Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs (the “Security
Council” part of the title was dropped) with joint responsibilities
for military affairs. Named to the positions were Vladimir E. Petrovsky, a former deputy foreign minister in the Gorbachev regime,
and James O.C. Jonah of Sierra Leone, who has been a career UN
bureaucrat since 1963.
The historical roster of the men who have held this “premier
Assistant Secretaryship” reads as follows:
1946-1949 Arkady Sobolev (USSR)
1949-1953 Konstatin Zinchenko (USSR)
1953-1954 Ilya Tchernychev (USSR)
1954-1957 Dragoslav Protitch (Yugoslavia)
1958-1960 Anatoly Dobrynin (USSR)
1960-1962 Georgy Arkadev (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)
1987-1992 Vasiliy S. Safronchuk (USSR)
1992-1992 Vladimir Petrovsky (Russia, “former USSR”)
James O.C. Jonah (Sierra Leone)
Surrendering our military capabilities to the United Nations (or any
other international body) should be unthinkable to every American,
even if there were guarantees that a U.S. citizen would always hold
the position of Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs. To
consider doing so in the face of the current and historical facts
just mentioned above is treasonous.
A more colossal betrayal of one’s country would be difficult to
conceive. But the Los Angeles Times, for one, is more than willing
to assist in preparing the public’s mind for the sellout. On January
5, 1992, the newspaper gave generous space for an op-ed article
entitled “Dream of Total Disarmament Could Become Reality,” written
by radical leftists Gar Alperovitz and Kai Bird. In it, Alperovitz,
a senior fellow at the Washington DC-based Institute for Policy
Studies, and Bird, a research associate at this same rabidly
anti-American organization, urged a formal reaffirmation of the
30-year-old Kennedy disarmament proposals and praised the vision of
the CFR “wise men” who had designed them.
The IPS duo quoted the
Freedom From War Stage III passage (“No state shall have the
military power ...”) and declared: “We could refine and implement
the ... disarmament plan by requiring all countries to cut defense
budgets by, say, 15%-20% per year.”
Those nations that refused to go
along “could be penalized with economic sanctions or - in the
extreme - military intervention.”
UN Leader Paves the Way
At the close of the special Security Council meeting convened on
January 31, 1992, Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali was instructed by
the Council to prepare by July 1st his “recommendations on ways of
strengthening” the UN’s peacekeeping capabilities. In June, the
energetic Egyptian completed his assignment and issued An Agenda for
Peace.38 A more apt title would have been, An Agenda for Global
Socialistic Rule. Signaling a new direction, the report notes that,
in the past, “United Nations operations in areas of crisis have
generally been established after conflict has occurred.” But now,
the “time has come to plan for circumstances warranting preventive
The Secretary-General explains:
Under Article 42 of the Charter, the Security Council has the
authority to take military action to maintain or restore
international peace and security. While such action should only be
taken when all peaceful means have failed, the option of taking it
is essential to the credibility of the United Nations as a guarantor
of international security. This will require ... special agreements
... whereby Member States undertake to make armed forces, assistance
and facilities available to the Security Council ... not only on an
ad hoc basis but on a permanent basis.39 [Emphasis added]
As a sop to anyone concerned about national independence, he
promised: “The foundation-stone of this work is and must remain the
State. Respect for its fundamental sovereignty and integrity are
crucial to any common international progress.” But in the next
breath, he showed his real intentions by noting, “The time of
absolute and exclusive sovereignty ... has passed.”40 Yes, national
sovereignty will remain, but only as defined by the United Nations.
As the Secretary-General himself said, the concept of sovereignty
“takes a new meaning.”
The new agenda championed by the UN’s top official calls for “a
United Nations capable of maintaining international peace and
security, of securing justice and human rights and of promoting ...
‘social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.’”41
If that sounds to you like the globalists intend to blur the
distinction between foreign and domestic matters, then you have
begun to grasp the evolving meaning of “peacekeeping,”
“peacemaking,” and “peacebuilding.”
For further evidence that the UN
leader intends the world body to become a global Big Brother
meddling in every aspect of our lives, consider the following from
the Boutros-Ghali report: “The sources of conflict and war are
pervasive and deep.... To reach them will require our utmost effort
... to promote sustainable economic and social development....”42 In
what social or economic spheres, if any, will the world orderites
not find a pretext for intervention?
According to the new UN agenda, there are none. Among the “new risks
for stability” listed by the
Secretary-General are “ecological damage” and “disruption of family
and community life.” Other
“sources of conflict” include “unchecked population growth,” “drugs
and the growing disparity between
rich and poor,” “[p]overty, disease, famine,” “drought,” “a porous
ozone shield,” and about anything else
you might imagine.43
According to the UN leader, “the efforts of the Organization to
build peace, stability and security must
encompass matters beyond military threats in order to break the
fetters of strife and warfare that have characterized the past.”44
In other words, under the new UN definitions of “peacekeeping,”
virtually any circumstance or condition in any part of the world
might conceivably constitute a “risk for stability” or a “threat” to
peace, and therefore justify UN intervention, including military
intervention. What is so incredible about all of this is not the
arrogance and effrontery of Boutros-Ghali and his many like-minded
associates in proposing such a colossal power grab. What else can be
expected from a gang of megalomaniacs?
The far more incredible
feature of this developing nightmare is the almost complete
ignorance of, and near total absence of opposition to it. What
should be strikingly obvious to anyone - particularly to Americans,
who should have a special appreciation for the limitation of
governmental force - is that an organization powerful enough to
enforce world “peace” would also be powerful enough to enforce world
tyranny. No organization should ever have that kind of power!
Americans should have been shocked and outraged then, when President
Bush, in his address to the United Nations General Assembly on
September 21, 1992, announced:
“I welcome the Secretary General’s
call for a new agenda to strengthen the United Nations’ ability to
prevent, contain, and resolve conflict across the globe.... Robust
peace-keeping requires men and equipment that only member states can
provide.... These forces must be available on short notice at the
request of the Security Council....”
Mr. Bush said the challenges
“as we enter the 21st century” will “require us to transform our
collective institutions.” He pledged to work with the UN
employ our considerable lift, logistics, communications, and
intelligence capabilities,” and stated: “The United States is
prepared to make available our bases and facilities for
multinational training and field exercises. One such base, nearby,
with facilities is Fort Dix.”45
Other than the John Birch Society,
which has warned about these impending developments for decades,
very few have raised a voice to spread the alarm. One who has is
syndicated columnist Sam Francis. Commenting on An Agenda for Peace,
“If Americans would like to preserve the national
independence and sovereignty they and their forebears have fought
for, they need to pull down the one world monstrosity Boutros-Ghali
is planning before he and his planners have a chance to build it.”46
And to that every freedom-loving American should say, Amen!
1. National Security Strategy of the United States (The White House,
2. The United Nations Security Council, “Provisional Verbatim Record
of the Three Thousand and Forty-sixth Meeting” (New York: UN
Headquarters, January 31, 1992), pp. 49, 54-55.
3. Ibid., p. 8.
4. Ibid., p. 42.
5. Ibid., p. 59-60.
6. Ibid., p. 61.
7. Thomas Jefferson, quoted by Lewis C. Henry (ed.), Best Quotations
for all Occasions (Greenwich,
CT: Fawcett Publications, 1964), p. 45.
8. The United Nations Security Council, “Provisional Verbatim Record
of the Three Thousand and Forty-sixth Meeting,” pp. 9-10.
9. Ibid., p. 18.
10. Ibid., p. 72.
11. Ibid., p. 44.
12. Ibid., p. 46.
13. Ibid., p. 91.
14. Jim Mann, “Chinese Premier gets chilly U.N. reception,” Los
Angeles Times, February 1, 1992, pp.
15. Joseph S. Nye Jr., “Create a U.N. Fire Brigade,” New York Times,
February 1, 1992.
17. Norman Kempster, “Army Could Give U.N. New Punch,” Los Angeles
Times, February 1, 1992.
18. Jim Sasser, quoted by Barbara Crossette, “Spending for U.N.
Peacekeeping Getting a Hard Look in Congress,” New York Times, March
6, 1992, p. A6.
20. “The New World Army,” New York Times lead editorial, March 6,
22. Maurice F. Strong, quoted by Paul Raeburn, AP, “Ecology Remedy
Costly,” Sacramento Bee (CA), March 12, 1992.
23. President Bush’s Pax Universalis speech at UN headquarters on
September 23, 1991, Weekly Compilaton of Presidential Documents,
Volume 27 - Number 39, pp. 1324-27.
24. Leslie H. Gelb, “Why the U.N. Dog Didn’t Bark: Mr. Bush’s
incendiary theme,” New York Times, September 25, 1991.
25. Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and
Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World (Department of State
Publication 7277, Disarmament Series 5, Released September 1961,
Office of Public Services, Bureau of Public Affairs).
26. Ibid., p. 18.
27. Ibid., pp. 18-19.
28. Blueprint for the Peace Race: Outline of Basic Provisions of a
Treaty on General and Complete
Disarmament in a Peaceful World (United States Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency Publication 4,
General Series 3, Released May 1962).
29. Ibid., p. 33.
30. Congressman Ted Weiss (D-NY), remarks in Congressional Record,
May 25, 1982, pp. H 2840-49.
31. A. Richard Richstein, in letter dated May 11, 1982, quoted by
Congressman Ted Weiss in Congressional Record, May 25,1982, p. H
32. William Nary, telephone interview by author, January 1991.
33. Grenville Clark and Louis B. Sohn, World Peace Through World
Law, 2d ed. (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1962).
34. Ibid., pp. xxix, 232-33, 246-257.
35. Trygve Lie, In the Cause of Peace (New York: Macmillan Company,
1954), p. 45.
36. Ibid., p. 45.
37. Ibid., p. 46.
38. Boutros, Boutros-Ghali, An Agenda for Peace (New York: United
39. Ibid., pp. 16, 25.
40. Ibid., p. 9.
41. Ibid., p. 1-2.
42. Ibid., p. 2.
43. Ibid., p. 6-7.
44. Ibid., p. 7.
45. President George Bush, “The United Nations: Forging a Genuine
Global Community,” address before the UN General Assembly on
September 21, 1992, in US Department of State Dispatch, September
28, 1992, Vol. 3, No. 39, pp. 721-24.
46. Sam Francis, “New World Order’s Call To Arms,” Los Angeles Daily
News, Tuesday, August 4,