

They're Preparing for a UN Army
by John F. McManus

The Security Council recently expanded the concept of threats to peace
to include economic, social and ecological instability. -- "The New
World Army" New York Times editorial, March 6, 1992

Last January 31st, the heads of state of the 15 current member nations
of the United Nations Security Council met for a special session at UN
headquarters in New York City. Included were the leaders of the five
nations whose representation on the Council is permanent (United
States, Britain, France, China, and Russia) and the top government
officials of the other nations filling the 10 rotating Council seats.

The meeting was deemed "extraordinary" by the world's media because it
was the first time the Security Council attracted national leaders
rather than mere representatives of the various nations. But it was an
extraordinary session for other reasons that produced far less
commentary from journalists who were failing -- as usual -- to live up
to their claimed responsibility to inform the public.

The more extraordinary aspect of this gathering consisted in: 1) the
Council's instruction to UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali to
prepare recommendations leading to strengthening the UN's
"peacekeeping" capabilities; and 2) the redefinition of what
constitutes a threat to peace gleefully noted by the New York Times in
the editorial cited above.


Boutros-Ghali's Recommendations

The Egyptian socialist who now holds the post of UN Secretary-General
eagerly accepted his assignment and actually produced his
recommendations early in June, several weeks before they were due.
Entitled An Agenda for Peace, his report called for the establishment
of a "permanent" UN army that would be available to the Security
Council to address "new risks for stability" in the world.

What are some of these "new risks"? William Jasper listed them in his
powerful new book, Global Tyranny ... Step By Step, as follows:
"ecological damage," "disruption of family and community life,"
"unchecked population growth," "the disparity between rich and poor,"
"poverty, disease, famine," "drought," even "a porous ozone shield." If
Boutros-Ghali left anything out, it seems certain he didn't intend to.

Along with these recommendations, the UN's top official gave lip
service to national independence while, at the same time, he glaringly
contradicted what he himself had stated. Here's how William Jasper
reports Boutros-Ghali s deftness in speaking out of both sides of his
mouth.

As a slap 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 that "the time of absolute and
exclusive sovereignty ... has passed." Yes, national sovereignty will
remain, BUT ONLY AS DEFINED BY THE UNITED NATIONS. [Emphasis in
original]

Cheered on by internationalists from the Council on Foreign Relations
and other sovereignty haters from this nation and many others, the
Secretary-General has provided the UN with a blueprint for establishing
its rule over everyone and everything. Ever since its creation in 1945,
UN partisans have lamented its lack of teeth to back up its
"peacekeeping" mission. Now they are working steadily toward giving the
organization plenty of teeth.

As Los Angeles Times staff writer Norman Kempster commented approvingly
on February 1st, "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." He was delighted that
French President Francois Mitterrand had offered 1,000 French troops
toward the creation of the standing UN army. Russian leader Boris
Yeltsin, while not yet offering any of his own troops, immediately
endorsed the plan, saying, we need a special quick-response
mechanism ... to ensure peace and stability." If you haven't already
realized that the word "stability" carries ominous connotations, please
begin to realize that it certainly does.


Relying on the UN Charter

In his report, Boutros-Ghali prominently referred to those articles of
the UN Charter which actually call for the creation of a UN army.
Article 42 of the Charter empowers the Security Council to "take such
action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or
restore international peace and security."

Article 43 requires that all member nations "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."

And Articles 45 states, "Members shall hold immediately available
national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement
action."

From 1945 until now, our nation has not been compelled to provide
troops for the United Nations. Nor can we be compelled to do so, or
compelled to support in other ways any actions taken by the Security
Council.

As a permanent member of the Security Council, our nation has veto
power over Security Council actions. Whether our current leaders would
use the veto in the face of any UN attempts to act against the best
interests of this nation is highly questionable. Calls for an end to
the veto power have already been heard, and will probably increase in
intensity, in the months and years ahead.


Mr. Bush's Dangerous Views

On September 23, 1991, President Bush went to the UN in New York City
to speak as the organization began its new year. His "Pax Universalis"
speech called for international cooperation to settle "nationalist
passions" even within the borders of nations. He applauded the use of
UN sanctions against a sovereign nation for as long as an undesirable
leader "remains in power."

Previously, threats to "international peace" were generally considered
by the UN to consist of offensive actions taken by one nation against
another.

In fact, Article 2, Section 7 of the UN Charter explicitly bars the
organization from meddling in domestic affairs. It states:

    Nothing contained In the present charter shall authorize the United
    Nallons to intervene in matters which are essentially within the
    domestic jurisdiction of any state....

But this same portion of the UN Charter leaves the door open for what
Mr. Bush recommended by adding, "... but this principle shall not
prejudice the application of enforcement measures" appearing in
articles 42-45. In other words, the UN can violate its clearly
expressed action to enforce it's will over a nation's domestic affairs.

The UN's mission is deflnitely being broadened. George Bush's
revolutionary placing of the United States behind this dramatic
expansion of the UN's authority was surely welcomed by those who want
the UN to be all-powerful. Could the President's words be used to
support UN action within the borders of our nation? Certainly! In saner
times, congressional leaders and many others would have slapped the
President hard, maybe even called for his impeachment. But these won't
be known as saner times until we reach more Americans with many hard
trutbs and sober realities.

To Mr. Bush's subversive declaration must be added the new definition
of what constitutes a threat to peace. Including "economic, social and
ecological instability as justification for UN force can only mean that
the organization is moving toward taking action within national
borders. The organization is also assuming the role of taking action to
prevent conflict even before it starts.


Welcoming a New Agenda

As he did in 1991, Mr. Bush then delivered another speech at UN
headquarters in September 1992. He welcomed the Secretary-General's
"new agenda to strengthen the UN's ability to prevent, contain and
resolve conflict across the globe." He stressed the need for "putting
people on the ground before the fighting starts." He proposed a special
meeting of the Security Council to address "five keys areas" of
Boutros-Ghali's proposal. These include assistance toward the goal of
aeating a permanent UN army by: 1) supplying men and equipment; 2)
facilitating the joint training of the forces from various nations; 3)
providing logistical support; 4) developing planning and intelligence
capabilities; and 5) providing the UN with financial support.

Among the specific proposals made by the President during his September
21st speech, we find him stating:

    I have directed the United States Secretary of Defense to place a
    new emphasis on peacekeeping. I have further directed
    the establishment of a permanent peacekeeping curriculum in U.S.
    military schools.

    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.

    And, finally, the United States will review how we fund
    peacekeeping and explore new ways to ensure adequate American
    financial support for UN peacekeeping and UN humanitarian
    activities.

It seems as though Mr. Bush will do everything in his power to
strengthen the UN and to make it possible for the organization to, as
he stated in his nationally televised address on January 16,1991,
"fulfill the promise and vision of the UN's founders."

Virtually all of those founderscommunists, socialists,
internationalists, one-worlders, and haters of national
sovereignty-wanted the organization to take control of the planet. What
they wanted included the end of the United States and all other nations
as sovereign entities, a termination of personal freedom, and the
creation of totally unchallengeable power in the hands of the world
organization.

If the President is not stopped, our nation's military personnel will
now be schooled in the belief that their mission is to police the world
for the United Nations. And they will be used for that purpose. If Mr.
Bush is allowed to have his way, troops from UN-member nations will be
welcomed within U.S. borders and trained at New Jersey's Ft. Dix. Will
they be used to quell "nationalist passions" here in our nation? Will
there be troops from China? Russia? Mozambique?

Everyting about these proposals offered by both the President and
Boutros-Ghali adds up to compromising America's sovereignty. In fact,
we can look back 30 years to the UN's war against Katanga, or back only
22 months to the UN-sanctioned war against Iraq, to know what the "new
world order" is all about. It can only mean total UN rule over everyone
and everything.

While employing the term repeatedly during the Persian Gulf war, Mr.
Bush never explicitly defined what he meant by "new world order." Nor
has he defined what he means by "UN peacekeeping," a term he repeatedly
used in his latest speech to the UN. But history teaches us that "new
world order" means that a few individuals will acquire economic control
(via socialism) and political control (via world government) over
mankind. And "UN peacekeeping" means maintaining such control in the
hands of the UN by any means whatsoever.


Not Too Late

It's not too late to reverse these trends that are obvious to members
of the John Birch Society. But it could soon be too late if we don't
expose the whole foul conspiracy promoting them. Happily, there are
increasing numbers of fellow citizens who have a sense that something
is wrong. We've got to identify them, convert that "sense" into
informed awareness, and then recruit these newly awakened Americans
into our action program to stop the obvious treason being carried out
right before our eyes.

William Jasper's monumental study of the threat facing our nation and
ourselves will open the eyes and stimulate the understanding of anyone
who will read it. Do your part to get copies of Global Tyranny ...
Step By Step into the hands of many Americans -- and you'll be doing
your part to save our nation from being swallowed up by the UN, and to
preserve freedom in this "one nation, under God" from the dictates of
that godless tyrannical force located on the East River in New York
City.


This article was taken from:


                        The John Birch Society
                               Bulletin
                 Less Government, More Responsibility,
                And - With God's Help - A Better World

                                No. 402
                             November 1992

For more information, contact:


                        The John Birch Society
                             P.O. Box 8040
                           Appleton,WI 54913
                            (414) 749-3780

------------------------------------------------
(This file was found elsewhere on the Internet and uploaded to the
Patriot FTP site by S.P.I.R.A.L., the Society for the Protection of Individual Rights and Liberties. E-mail alex@spiral.org)
