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 that....

  • “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 familiar 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 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 meaning....”

“[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

Repeated calls 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:

“I think 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.”

This 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.


Likewise, when 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 Miyazawa. 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 Norman Kempster enthused:

“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 decisions....”17

Even more chilling! But not, apparently, to the apostles of one-worldism who have been lustily cheering such proposals.

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 Nations.

In its March 6, 1992 lead editorial entitled “The New World Army,” the New York Times came close to dropping all pretenses and subtlety:

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?”


It 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


After the 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 pointed out:

“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

The 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, declared:

“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 risk.”22

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 deterrence arises.”

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 continued:

“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.”

Again, the far greater threat to national security and sovereignty was ignored.

“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 control.”

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 Order.”


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, verification, 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....” [Emphasis added]

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 matter.”36


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 deployment.”


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

“to best 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, he wrote:

“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, August 1991).
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. A1, A6.
15. Joseph S. Nye Jr., “Create a U.N. Fire Brigade,” New York Times, February 1, 1992.
16. Ibid.
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.
19. Ibid.
20. “The New World Army,” New York Times lead editorial, March 6, 1992.
21. Ibid.
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 2841.
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 Nations, 1992)
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, 1992.

Back to Contents