Слике страница
PDF
ePub

And on January 21, 1962, The Worker (no longer a daily) carried an article headlined, "Birchers Take Warpath Against UN Peace Hopes," to tell the Comrades:

The John Birch Society has instructed its members to prepare a hate campaign against the United Nations. In his secret "bulletin" for members, Robert Welch... orders his followers to place this anti-United Nations drive at the top of their 1962 political agenda.... It was in the spring of last year that the ultra hate campaign to destroy the United Nations actually began. The origins of this insidious business can be traced to... a so-called "United States Day Committee," the purpose of which was to replace United Nations Day with "United States Day.

In late 1964 and early 1965 the Xerox Corporation sponsored a television series to present the most blatant sort of U.N. propaganda. In commenting on one of these programs the Communist People's World for January 23, 1965, noted: "It's not a little horrifying that in our country at this time a pitch is needed for the UN and for peace, but that is the case, and we're all for figuratively hitting people over the head with the message. The [Xerox] program did that."

And on June 27, 1965, Mikhail Sergeyevich Lvov, an official Soviet spokesman on U.N. affairs, told a Moscow Radio audience: "There can September 9, 1970

be no doubt that with the United Nations constituted as it is at present, the consistent line of the Soviet Union in pressing for the United Nations to face fully up to the problems of strengthening peace and ensuring freedom is producing more and more positive results." (Congressional Record, August 4, 1965, Page A4317.)

In the Aesopian language of Communism the word peace means "an absence of resistance to Communism.” If it were possible to find an island somewhere on which there had not been even a fist fight for fifty years, that island would still not be "peaceful" to the Communists until it had become completely subjected to their rule. And in light of this Communist use of the word, the following Associated Press dispatch from the Los Angeles Times of April 7, 1970, takes on special meaning:

Secretary General U Thant praised Vladimir I. Lenin, founder of the Soviet Union, as a political leader whose ideals were reflected in the U.N. charter.

Thant released Monday the text of a statement sent to a symposium on Lenin at Tempere, Finland, sponsored by the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [U.N.E.S.C.O.].*

[blocks in formation]

"Lenin was a man with a mind of great clarity and incisiveness, and his ideas have had a profound influence on the course of contemporary history," Thant's statement said.

[ocr errors]

"(Lenin's) ideals of peace and peaceful coexistence among states have won widespread international acceptance and they are in line with the aims of the U.N. charter . . . . Earl Browder, former General Secretary of the Communist Party, U.S.A., and twice its candidate for President of the United States, wrote in his book Victory And After: "The American Communists worked energetically and tirelessly to lay the foundations for the United Nations, which

danger spot, from the standpoint of disloyalty and subversive activity among Americans employed by international organizations, is UNESCO .... Mr. Pierce Gerety, former Chairman of the International Organizations Employees Loyalty Board... expressed the opinion that there existed in UNESCO a clique of people who placed the interests of the Communists and Communist ideology above any service to UNESCO, and above their own country."

In 1962, U.N.E.S.C.O. published a blatantly pro-Communist tract entitled, Equality of Rights Between Races and Nationalities in the USSR, the slant of which is well-illustrated by this quotation from Page thirteen: "The Soviet Union is a brotherhood of free and equal peoples comprising 15 sovereign Soviet republics in voluntary association on a footing of complete equality. Under the Constitution of the USSR, each of these republics retains the right to secede from the Union. Each of them embodies the collective will of its people and can decide its own future in entire freedom."

September 9, 1970

we were sure would come into existence." And a Preamble to the Constitution of the Communist Party, U.S.A., states that the Party believes "the true national interest of our country and the cause of peace and progress require... the strengthening of the United Nations as a universal instrument of peace." Clearly, the belief that the Communists actually oppose the U.N. cannot withstand the massive evidence to the contrary.

In its issue for December 12, 1952, U.S. News & World Report noted: “An informed estimate suggests that as many as one-half of the 1,350 administrative executives in the UN are either Communists or people who are willing to do what they want." A few years later, on March 22, 1954, the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee reported:

In our investigation of United States citizens employed by the United Nations, we found considerable evidence to indicate that Communists used the same techniques in infiltrating the U.N. Secretariat, as had previously been used in infiltrating the United States Government.

Some of these persons exposed in our Government investigation played key roles in the actual establishment of the U.N. itself as well as the establishment of U.N.'s specialized agencies. (Activities of United States Citizens Employed By The United Nations, Page 9.)

Four years earlier, in 1950, the State Department had issued a volume

7

entitled Postwar Foreign Policy Preparation, 1939-1945, which listed the following men, among others, as being key U.S. Government figures in U.N. planning: Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, Virginius Frank Coe, Noel Field, Laurence Duggan, Henry Julian Wadleigh, John Carter Vincent, David Weintraub, Nathan Gregory Silvermaster, Harold Glasser, Victor Perlo, Irving Kaplan, Solomon Adler, Abraham George Silverman, William L. Ullman and William H. Taylor. All sixteen were later identified in sworn testimony as secret Communist agents!

This does not mean, of course, that the Communists do not now and then pretend to oppose the United Nations. To the contrary, the Communists realize better than anyone else just how repulsive their system is to the vast majority of mankind, and they are perfectly willing to attack the U.N. and its policies from time to time if their mere vituperation will help to rally public opinion in nonCommunist countries behind policies they really want. Former Ambassador Adlai Stevenson helped to confirm this thesis a few years ago when he declared:

8

the Soviet Union has attacked the United Nations, has refused to pay its share of the Congo expenses, and has laid siege to the institution of the Secretary-General. Thus, as often before, the Soviets have pressed their attack at a moment when the [U.N.] community seems most divided against itself. But,

once again, that very attack makes the members realize more keenly that they are members of a community and causes them to draw together. (Emphasis ours. United Nations Guardian Of

Peace, Page 24.)

Stevenson's reference to Soviet attacks on the post of Secretary General is especially noteworthy. He was referring, of course, to the Soviet demands for replacement of that office with a "Troika" system. You will recall that prior to September of 1961 the Soviet demands for the "Troika" were very firm so much so, in fact, that Adlai Stevenson and then-Secretary General Dag Hammarskjöld and others told us that the very existence of the U.N. was thereby threatened. In mid-September of 1961, however, Hammarskjöld was killed in a plane crash in the Congo and the position of Secretary General became vacant. Here was an unparalleled opportunity for the Soviets to wreak havoc in the U.N. by pressing their "Troika" demands and refusing to accept a new Secretary General. But what actually happened? The Soviets turned off their "Troika" talk like a water faucet, backed Burmese Marxist U Thant as Hammarskjöld's successor, and "permitted" the U.N. to go right on supporting Soviet interests.

Another unintended confirmation of this Communist duplicity was given on March 3, 1966, when Leftist (and pro-U.N.) news commentator Howard K. Smith spoke at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. During his

The Review Of The NEWS

talk, Mr. Smith made this point: "The Russians attacked us bitterly over the Congo, but the key fact is they voted for U.N. intervention in the Congo. The Russians attacked us bitterly over the Cyprus crisis, but the main thing is they did not veto U.N. action; they let it go in."

And in 1964, when the Afro-Asian bloc at the U.N. was pressing for an increase in membership on various councils of the world body, the Communists pretended to oppose this move in public debate, but then quietly reversed themselves when it counted. A dispatch of June 13, 1964, from the News Service of the New York Herald Tribune described the situation this way: "The Soviet Union quietly backed down in its opposition to Afro-Asian demands for an expansion of the United Nations Security Council and economic and social council.... During the assembly's debates on these resolutions, the Soviet Union and the entire Communist block... opposed the proposal." Later in the same year, Associated Press writer Max Harrelson commented on this Communist tactic. In a report carried in the Salt Lake Tribune for November 8, 1964, Harrelson noted:

Those who have observed
Soviet actions at the United Na-
tions over the past 18 years are
sure only that the Russians can
and do
change their minds.

They may walk out of a U.N. body today and return without so much as a word to explain their reversal.

September 9, 1970

Over the years they have made many threats they have never carried out, and they have suddenly abandoned policies which they previously held to be absolutely unchangeable.

One of the instances then discussed by Mr. Harrelson was that of the Korean situation in 1950. The Soviets, using the non-membership of Red China in the U.N. as an excuse, walked out of the Security Council. The Council, with Russia absent, then voted U.N. intervention in Korea - "a decision," wrote Harrelson, "which the Soviet Union could have blocked with its veto if it had been present." After the vote, and with Red China still not seated in the United Nations, the Soviets returned to the Security Council. And they must have given a Br'er Rabbit-like chuckle at having been thrown into the very Korean brier patch which history has shown they had sought from the beginning especially as they watched U.S. and U.N. officials chortle about how the Soviet walkout "backfired" on the Communists.

The placing of American forces under U.N. command in Korea was most obviously in the interest of the Communists, since the U.N. post of Undersecretary General for Political and Security Council Affairs, which has the responsibility of controlling the military and police functions of U.N. "peace-keeping" forces, was then (and always has been) held by a Communist.

This last point brings us to a ques

9

U.N. troops in Congo fire on civilians. tion of some importance: If the ideals of "peace" held by Lenin are in line with the aims of the U.N. Charter (as U Thant claims they are), and if the U.N. post responsible for control of U.N. "peace-keeping" operations is supervised by a Communist, then is the United Nations really a peace organization? The answer, in one sense, is "yes." As we mentioned earlier, the Communists define peace as an absence of resistance to Communism. And the record clearly shows that this is what the U.N. means when it talks of "peace." For instance, when the United Nations waged war against black-ruled, anti; Communist Katanga in the early Sixties, it described its atrocities

Katanga was firm in its opposition to the desires of the Communists in Africa, and the U.N. mercenaries were sent in to bomb hospitals and bazooka ambulances until this "resistance to Communism" was removed. The operation, in Communist and United Nations terms, was therefore "peaceful."

The principle holds true in 1970 in the case of white-ruled, anti-Communist Rhodesia. Rhodesia refused to go along with plans for a Communiststyle drive for a phony "independence," and instead declared her own real independence contrary to the Communist timetable. This resistance to Communist plans was met with vicious propaganda, economic sanctions, and threats of physical violence

[graphic]
[graphic]

there as a "peace-keeping" operation. U.N. soldier views the wounded and dead.

10

The Review Of The NEWS

« ПретходнаНастави »