The UN-American United Nations

Like many of you, growing up under the tutelage of the public school system and the big three television networks in the 1960’s and 1970’s, I recall the zealous and reverential treatment afforded the world’s eighth wonder: the United Nations.

Its ideals, they said, were homespun American ideals. Its immediate mission: to perpetuate the same across the globe. Its ultimate objective: to bring an end to poverty, prejudice, conflict, and war. Indeed, some envisioned and vigorously proclaimed future life under the United Nations as the last and highest stage of evolutionary man[1].

In textbook and pamphlet, newspaper and film clip this dream was perpetuated, and many of us longing for peace and security in the aftermath of two consecutive world wars were caught away in the imagery and emotion of this coming millennial Zion. It would be glorious.

So glorious that warning bells should have broadcast throughout the land a solemn, “Beware!” prior to any casting of votes for or against the UN Charter. But the bells were muffled, the Charter fast-tracked through the US Senate, and today we suffer under our great mistake (our faux pas).

Yet, not to fear. We may correct our error. With the aid of time and the persistent efforts of a few watchdog organizations[2] tens of millions of Americans have finally come to realize the UN’s idealism is less than ideal; its similarity and loyalty to the US system, a facade; and its promise for peace and liberty, more a formula for war and tyranny.

And so the days of unmitigated support for the United Nations and its mission are far gone, and ever fading. Yet to keep the momentum moving in our favor, re-exposing the uncomfortable truth about the UN can never be overdone.

Truth 1: The UN is no friend to American ideals.

A. The UN’s Founders were known Communists

If it’s true that the personality, purpose, and accomplishments of an organization are highly affected by its leadership, then membership in the United Nations spelled trouble from the start. Of the 17 individuals identified by the US State Department as having helped shape US policy leading to the creation of the United Nations, all but one were later identified as secret members of the Communist Party USA[3].

Joining them at the UN’s founding conference were 43 members of the ultra-influential, ultra-pro-socialist, globalist think-tank the Council On Foreign Relations (6 of the 43 CFR members having the additional distinction of membership in the Communist Party USA)[4]. And, importantly, the UN’s first Secretary General and orchestrator of the San Francisco conference was the man later convicted as a Soviet agent — Alger Hiss[5].

Not a good start.

Following in the footsteps of that unhallowed class of ’46, the ideological makeup of the UN’s leadership has been constant. In its 54-year history all seven Secretary Generals of the UN have been either dedicated socialists or communists[6], all 15 of the UN Under-Secretary-Generals for Political and Security Council Affairs (the UN’s military boss) have been communists (all but one from the Soviet Union/Russian Federation)[7], and two thirds of the membership in the General Assembly, the Security Council, and in the World Court have always been representatives of socialist and communist nations.

Further, the collection of US employees at the UN have not fared well either. Besides the scandal of having American communists Alger Hiss and company as the creators of the UN, a 1952 official Senate investigation into the then 6 years old United Nations revealed, “extensive evidence indicating that there is today in the UN among the American employees there, the greatest concentration of Communists that this committee has ever encountered[8].” And these were high officials.

Twenty years later, the “anti-American, anti-freedom” flavor of the UN continued unabated, which prompted former UN enthusiast Republican Senator Barry Goldwater to call for US withdrawal from the UN, and the re-stationing of its headquarters to a place “more in keeping with the philosophy of the majority of its voting members, somewhere like Peking or Moscow[9].”

Things were no different by the 1980’s, so Republican President Ronald Reagan, expressed the same conviction; adding that the UN was the host of the greatest concentration of spies in the world and thus he vowed to withdraw the US from the UN. (He did boot UNESCO out of the US.)

Which leads to the next reason the UN deserves our full measure of scorn. With a line-up of communists, socialists, and spies founding and still running the show at the UN, it seems a bit hard to believe that the political framework created by such notorious figures would be consistent with the American Constitution, isn’t it? And there is plenty of proof.

B. The UN’s Charter is the antithesis of the US Constitution

Its Bill of Rights[10] creates radical new rights to include:

• The socialist right to “adequate” housing, a “living” wage, rest and leisure, medical care, social services, employment security, sick pay, disability pay, old age security pay, and widow’s pay.
• The family-threatening right for children to possess “freedom of thought, conscience, and religion” (which has led to children suing their parents in the United States), and the right to privacy (i.e. the right for a child to seek an abortion without parental consent).
• The sovereignty-destroying right for humans to immigrate and receive welfare services in whatever nation they choose.
• The brainwashing right for “students” to learn the “principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations.”
• And the statist right for the UN to eradicate any and all “rights and freedoms … exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations[11],” a Soviet Constitution-style proviso, to accompany all of these and more Soviet-style rights[12]. Its Promotion of Democratic Institutions is a pretense.

Not one UN delegate or official is democratically elected by the people.

The 185 national delegates to the General Assembly don’t possess real representative power anyway. They may only “consider … discuss … advise … or make suggestions to the Security Council[13].” An arrangement similar to the meaningless representation the American Colonies suffered under the British Parliament.

However, the 15 member nations of the Security Council (5 permanent members and ten rotating) do have substantial power and are unchecked in this power by election or constitutional constraint. Which leads to the next point[14].

Its Separation of Powers is an illusion

The UN appears to have three separate branches of government with the General Assembly and the Security Council being symbolic of our House and Senate; the Secretary General symbolic of our President; and the World Court symbolic of our Supreme Court.

But, as already demonstrated, the General Assembly has only advisory powers, the Secretary General is but the chief administrative officer of the UN, who, like the General Assembly, may only “bring to the attention of the Security Council” matters he deems important[15], while the World Court is subject to the Security Council’s absolute veto upon any of its decisions.

Furthermore, the Security Council may, if it so chooses, judge any legal matter it sees fit, only being advised to “take into consideration that legal disputes should as a general rule be referred to the International Court of Justice[16].”

Thus all powers legislative, executive, and judicial reside in the Security Council, with the five permanent members being the real power center since the non-permanent members serve but two years[17] and lack absolute veto power[18].

Stunningly, in the serious matter of sanctions or war, once initiated, the General Assembly is even stripped of its petty right to consult with the Security Council, unless the Council “requests” their input[19].

Additionally, regional military and economic alliances, such as NATO, the EU, ASIAN, and NAFTA, are all, by their own treaty law, and the UN Charter which authorized their existence, subject to the rule of the UN Security Council, to whom they must report all actions “under contemplation,” to whom they must seek the approval for any sanctions they intend to impose, and to whom they must bow in obeisance when the Security Council deems it necessary to delegate out enforcement actions[20].

Thus regional arrangements are part of the UN web, and subject to the centralized control of the few men who make up the permanent membership of the Security Council.

Montesquieu taught, and the founders concurred and improved on the principle, that the concentration of all power legislative, executive, and judicial in one office is the very definition of tyranny[21]. So what then is the Security Council but a five-headed world tyrant?

Its National Sovereignty Protection clause was and is a ploy

Article 2, Verse 7, which forbids the UN from intervening “in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state,” was inserted as an afterthought to calm the fears of conservatives in the US Senate 50 years ago. The clause offers no such security.

Every other clause, every other sentence, every other word in the UN Charter calls for international oversight over every possible affair on the planet. Even the sovereignty clause has a mile-wide escape hatch which reads, “This principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.”

But Chapter VII, Articles 39 through 42, include the Security Council’s power to “determine the existence of any threat to … international peace and security,” and then to take whatever actions “as may be necessary” such as “interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communications,” and/or, “action by air, sea, or land forces.” Chapter VII, Article 50, even gives the Security Council the power to wage war or impose sanctions on non-member nations. If that isn’t the power to intervene in internal matters, what is? Evidence enough, says former Top Communist Party member, Joseph Z. Kornfeder, that it’s clearly recognizable that “the UN ‘blueprint’ is a communist one[22].”

Truth 2: The UN has not protected sovereignty, nor promoted freedom

A. The UN’s history confirms the above claim.

The UN is the enemy of national sovereignty. A few examples:

• The Word Trade Organization, with the aid of GATT, for instance, usurps the right of nations to establish their own foreign commerce policy via 40,000 pages of regulations, scores of regulatory agencies, and its employment of sanctions versus violators.
• The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund routinely blackmail client nations to alter internal policies via structural loans[23]. Typical demands include: the establishment of planned economies; the nationalization of utilities, major industries, and banking; the creation of an export dependent economy; and the implementation of national birth control policies. In a nutshell, they blackmail countries into establishing socialist-based economies, which dooms them to economic failure, and thus greater dependency on the UN, its banks, and the international community.
• The UN’s military uses brute force to decide the fate of wars between sovereign nations and or internal warring factions as it did in the Belgium Congo, Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Bosnia, and Haiti. Presently, the UN is engaged in 17 “peacekeeping” operations (wars) enlisting troops from 77 nations (world wars), and has waged war 59 times in its brief 55 years of existence. Some peace organization! More quietly, it has murdered hundreds of thousands through trade embargoes, a half million children in Iraq alone[24], robbing innocent civilians of the necessities of life, all because the UN denies the sovereign right of nations, like Iraq, to maintain a modern national defense system. Perhaps we don’t understand the power of precedent setting.
• UNESCO and the World Health Organization have wormed their way into member governments promoting sex education, homosexuality as normal and healthy, abortion, the right of a child to “privacy,” population control, and scientific breeding[25].
• The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), first led by passionate socialist and New Ager Maurice Strong, has set fear-driven environmental standards which are currently being implemented in the United States and many other “free” nations. Targeted is the US who is the “guilty” party that must pay the world’s environmental bill. Aligned with that charge are calls for the worldwide redistribution of wealth and technology. And because environmental threats are in this fanatical view, “the number 1 international security concern,” national sovereignty has been identified by UNEP as a barrier that must be breached[26].

Truth is there are so many regulatory agencies listed on the UN’s homepage, branching off in so many different directions with sub-agencies, and sub-agencies of sub-agencies, that are designed to interfere with the sovereignty of nations, that one could spend a week of research trying to come up with an honest head count.

The UN aids Communists and attacks non-Communists and Capitalists

In the 1950’s the UN undermined freedom’s victory in Korea by accepting rules of engagement and passing on secrets to Russia and China which made victory impossible for South Korea and the United States[27]. They then chose silence and inaction while Soviet tanks rolled into Hungary crushing freedom fighters who fought these tanks with sticks and stones.

In the 1960’s the UN invaded Katanga (in the Belgium Congo) and foiled that provinces quest for independence from communist murderer and torturer Patrice Lamumba[28]; and likewise declared tiny Rhodesia “a threat to international peace,” enabling pro-Communist terrorist Robert Mugabe to seize power. Both the result of an official UN “anti-colonialist”[29] policy which in the name of democracy spread communism throughout Africa, Asia, and the Americas from the 1950’s clear up into the 1980’s. Showing their pro-Communist partisanship, Russia, China, and Cuba’s influence on all of these revolutions was perennially and officially denied by the UN, who dubbed all communist revolutions as “spontaneous” uprisings of the poor and politically ostracized.

In the 1970’s, the UN admitted mass murderer Red China, despite the Charter rule to admit “peace-loving nations”[30] only. They added insult to injury by granting China the power and prestige of permanent Security Council status, while simultaneously kicking out free Taiwan. They winked while Security Council member the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, but then suppressed IMF loans to Nicaragua and Iran at key moments in their battle against communist backed revolutions in their nations, citing “human rights” violations[31].

In the 1980’s, the UN organized an international boycott against South Africa which favored the Soviet, PLO, and Cuban-backed African National Congress, which in turn toppled the South African government (the key UN anti-colonial victory in Africa), leading to an immediate turn toward socialism (his first act was to socialize medicine), foreign aid, reverse discrimination, and a nullification of a promised coalition government. Amazingly, the UN pushed for and enforced the boycott even though Mandela upon release from prison publicly declared his loyalty to and the ANC’s alliance with the South African Communist Party[32].

In the 1990’s, the UN disarmed anti-Communist forces in Nicaragua; imposed economic sanctions on Iraq for invading old Soviet friend Kuwait, hypocritically sent annual foodstuffs to communist North Korea, imposed a coalition government on Muslims with Communists in Bosnia, opposed US sanctions against Cuba, indicted President Pinochet for his suppression and imprisonment of communists in Chile, and continues to support the right of Russia and China to suppress liberty in Chechnya and Taiwan.

Truth 3: The UN is a Fraud, and Yet It Continues Unabated

Soviet Dictator Vladimir Lenin in his work Imperialism and World Economy predicted a day of capitalistic imperialism wherein a “new social order” would be introduced which under the leadership of “a single world trust,” would “swallow up all enterprises and all states without exception.”

Under this system, capitalism would move toward a mixture of private capital and social production. (That form of socialism is called fascism, or state monopoly capitalism.) But before this melting of “economic, political, [and] national” systems finished its job of “world union,” he predicted, “imperialism will inevitably explode, [and] capitalism will turn into its opposite [communism][33].”

A dire prophecy, and one which should focus our attention on the real, more subtle communist threat in the world today — the United Nations.

Earl Browder, general secretary of the Communist Party USA, admitted in his book Victory and After, that “the American Communists worked energetically and tirelessly to lay the foundations for the United Nations which we were sure would come into existence,” and that, “the United Nations is the instrument for victory [the victory of communism][34].”

But he was dreaming, I believe. Because too many Americans have woken up to the fact that they were lied to by their state-run schools, by UN-generated pamphlets, and by the “big liberal three.” These sensible and freedom-loving Americans realize that we can do better in our goals to achieve peace and liberty than provide moral support, cash, and housing for such a sham for liberty and peace as the United Nations.

Steve Farrell  

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis

Joseph F Barber

Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of leaders…and millions have been killed because of this obedience…Our problem is that people are obedient allover the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves… (and) the grand thieves are running the country. That’s our problem.

Steve Farrell is the former Managing Editor of Right Magazine and Newmax.com’s staff writer.
Published in the August 23, 1999 issue of Ether Zone Online. Copyright © 1999 Ether Zone Online (http://etherzone.com). Reposting permitted with this message intact.

footnotes:

[1] See Humanist Manifesto I and II

[2] Howard Phillip’s Conservative Caucus, Phyllis Schaffly’s Eagle Forum, Pat Buchanan’s American Cause, but most especially Robert Welch’s John Birch Society (which has fought the UN for 40 years).

[3] Postwar Foreign Policy Preparation, 1839-1845, U.S. State Department; Interlocking Subversion in Government Departments, U.S. Senate Internal Security Subcommittee report, July 30, 1953.

[4] Jasper, William F. Global Tyranny Step By Step: The United Nations and the Emerging World Order (Appleton, WI: Western Islands 1992) pp. 47-48.

[5] Ibid., pp. 47-48.

[6] Ibid., pp. 67-71.

[7] Ibid., pp. 16-17.

[8] “Activities of US Citizens Employed by the UN,” hearings before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 1952, pp. 407-408.

[9] U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater, Congressional Record, October 26, 1971, p. S16764.

[10] See The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, The UN Conference on the Child. See also, the assortment of resolutions and addendum’s found at the UN’s web pages which have been added over the years.

[11] The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 29, Verse 3. Note: Verse 2 also utilizes the tactic of the old Soviet and “new” Russian Constitution when it states: “in the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law.” And of course the law then rules against rights, which rights are inalienable in the US system.

[12] Griffin, G. Edward. The Fearful Master: A Second Look at the United Nations (Boston, MA, Western Islands, 1964), pp. 126-127.

[13] UN Charter, Articles 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, and 18.

[14] Ibid., Articles 23-54, 83-84, 93-94.

[15] Ibid., Article 99.

[16] Ibid., Article 36, Verse 3.

[17] Ibid., Article 23.

[18] The absolute veto, unlike the veto power of US Presidents, cannot be subject to an override vote. It is, as it says, absolute, and thus a dictatorial power.

[19] UN Charter, Article 12, Verse 1.

[20] Ibid., Article 52, Verse 3, Article 53, Verse 1, and Article 54.

[21] Madison, James. Federalist Papers, Article 47.

[22] Griffin, p. 120.

[23] Structural loans require loan recipients to comply with political terms in order to get the cash.

[24] BBC, “Iraq Reports Attacks Outside No-Fly Zones,” August 17, 1999. UNESCO is the source the BBC quoted as per the half-million figure.

[25] Jasper, Chapters 8 and 9.

[26] Ibid., Chapter 7.

[27] This author’s article, “The No-Win Wars of Internationalism: Korea,” at www.usiap.org (broken link).

[28] Griffin, pp. 3-64

[29] UN Charter, Article 3. The UN has ignored this provision, preferring “universality .”

[30] This policy, based on UN Article 1, Verse 2’s respect for “self-determination of peoples,” has translated into the UN promotion of socialist revolutions where any minority or group of minorities can be identified and convinced that he or she is not fairly represented or treated. Self-determination is not, however, looked upon by the UN as the right of free majorities, or laiser faire believing minorities.

[31] Somoza, Anastasio; and Cox, Jack. Nicaragua Betrayed (Western Islands, Boston MA, 1980), pp. 398-399.

[32] McAlvaney, Don. Revolution and Betrayal: The Accelerating Onslought Against South Africa (Appleton, WI, American Opinion Book Services). Mandela’s 1990 salute to South African communist party reads “I salute the South African Communist Party for its sterling contribution to the struggle for democracy. You have survived 40 years of unrelenting persecution. The memory of great communists like Moses Kotane, Yusuf Dadoo, Bram Fischer and Moses Mabhida will be cherished for generations to come. I salute General Secretary Joe Slovo — one of our finest patriots. We are heartened by the fact that the alliance between ourselves [the ANC] and the Party [South African Communist Party] remains as strong as it always was.”

[33] As quoted by William Z. Foster, founder of the Communist Party USA, in a reprint of his 1932 work, Toward a Soviet America. The book was reprinted under the direction of the Committee on Un-American Activities (Balboa Island, CA, Elgin Publications, 1961), pp. 172, 269-270.

[34] Browder, Earl. Victory And After (New York: International Publishers, 1942) pp. 110, 160, 169.