« ПретходнаНастави »
entitled Postwar Foreign Policy Prepa once again, that very attack ration, 1939-1945, which listed the makes the members realize more following men, among others, as being keenly that they are members of key U.S. Government figures in U.N. a community and causes them to planning: Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter draw together. (Emphasis ours. White, Virginius Frank Coe, Noel United Nations Guardian Of Field, Laurence Duggan, Henry Julian Peace, Page 24.) Wadleigh, John Carter Vincent, David Stevenson's reference to Soviet at. Weintraub, Nathan Gregory Silver- tacks on the post of Secretary General master, Harold Glasser, Victor Perlo, is especially noteworthy. He was reIrving Kaplan, Solomon Adler, Abra- ferring, of course, to the Soviet deham George Silverman, William L. mands for replacement of that office Ullman and William H. Taylor. All with a “Troika” system. You will sixteen were later identified in sworn recall that prior to September of 1961 testimony as secret Communist agents! the Soviet demands for the “Troika"
This does not mean, of course, that were very firm – so much so, in fact, the Communists do not now and then that Adlai Stevenson and then-Secrepretend to oppose the United Nations. tary General Dag Hammarskjöld and To the contrary, the Communists others told us that the very existence realize better than anyone else just of the U.N. was thereby threatened. In how repulsive their system is to the mid-September of 1961, however, vast majority of mankind, and they Hammarskjöld was killed in a plane are perfectly willing to attack the crash in the Congo and the position of U.N. and its policies from time to Secretary General became vacant. Here time if their mere vituperation will was an unparalleled opportunity for help to rally public opinion in non- the Soviets to wreak havoc in the U.N. Communist countries behind policies by pressing their “Troika" demands they really want. Former Ambassador and refusing to accept a new Secretary Adlai Stevenson helped to confirm General. But what actually happened? this thesis a few years ago when he The Soviets turned off their “Troika” declared:
talk like a water faucet, backed Bur... the Soviet Union has mese Marxist U Thant as Hammarattacked the United Nations, has skjöld's successor, and “permitted” refused to pay its share of the the U.N. to go right on supporting Congo expenses, and has laid Soviet interests. siege to the institution of the Another unintended confirmation Secretary-General. Thus, as often of this Communist duplicity was given before, the Soviets have pressed on March 3, 1966, when Leftist (and their attack at a moment when pro-U.N.) news commentator Howard the (U.N.] community seems K. Smith spoke at Brigham Young most divided against itself. But, 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 Nations 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 quesKatanga 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.” from the United Nations – again, in the name of "peace.”
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
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 there as a "peace-keeping” operation.
However, if we set aside the United Nations Communist definition of peace, and simply use the word as most Americans think it should be used and expect it to be used, it becomes obvious that the United Nations is actually a war organization.
One of the most astute international lawyers of our time, Ambassador J. Reuben Clark Jr., drafted an important cursory analysis of the United Nations Charter in August of 1945, at about the time the ink on the new Charter was drying. Ambassador Clark, who served as both Under secretary of State and Ambassador to Mexico, and authored the authoritative Memorandum On The Monroe Doctrine, charged in his analysis of the Charter:
There seems no reason to doubt that such real approval as the Charter has among the people is based upon the belief that if the Charter is put into effect, wars will end.... The Charter will not certainly end war. Some will ask – why not? In the first place, there is no provision in the Charter itself that contemplates ending war. It is true the Charter provides for force to bring peace, but such use of force is itself war .... The Charter is built to prepare for war, not to promote peace .... The Charter is a war document not a peace document....
'Not only does the Charter September 9, 1970
Organization not prevent future wars, but it makes it practically certain that we shall have future wars, and as to such wars it takes from us the power to declare them, to choose the side on which we shall fight, to determine what forces and military equipment we shall use in the war, and to control and command our sons who do the fighting.
Remember, this was August of 1945. In the light of the U.N. record since that time, can there be any doubt as to the accuracy of Ambassador Clark's analysis?
President Herbert Hoover was another who came to recognize the truth about the U.N.'s alleged role as a promoter of "peace.” In a speech delivered on August 10, 1962, President Hoover admitted: “I urged the ratification of the United Nations Charter by the Senate. But I stated at that time, 'The American people should be under no illusions that the Charter assures lasting peace.' But now we must realize that the United Nations has failed to give us even a remote hope of lasting peace. Instead, it adds to the dangers of wars which now surround us.”
This same general conclusion has been affirmed editorially by a number of the nation's newspapers which have stood firm against the barrage of proU.N. propaganda and pressure. One such paper, the highly respected Santa Ana Register, commented on March 2, 1964: “Most of those folks who say they like the United Nations proffer
their affections on the grounds that of its tasks will be "to convey to the the U.N. is a 'peace-making' organiza- American people a balanced and realistion. Now, that simply isn't so. The tic understanding of the United Nations whole purpose and, indeed, the family of agencies ....” This will not method of the U.N. is to use armed be accomplished, of course, because the might against any nation presumed to Commission is heavily stacked with be an aggressor. Its function is to make U.N. advocates, and its Chairman is war .... We object to it (the U.N.] former U.N. Ambassador Henry Cabot because, though it professes peace, it is Lodge. (The Vice-Chairman is Frederobviously a war-making agency. Even ick Ehrman, chairman of Lehman the U.N. has not been able to disguise Brothers, the enormously wealthy this fact altogether, though, in its early banking partnership famous for its supdays, it deceived a great many." port of Leftist activities.) Americans
And a practical illustration of how who would like to gain a “balanced well the United Nations has “preserved and realistic understanding” of the peace" appeared in the Indianapolis U.N. will have to look elsewhere.* News on April 29, 1963, where a The United Nations was purreport headlined, “There Is No Peace portedly formed to ensure peace and – 18 Years, 57 Wars,” catalogued the extend freedom in the world. Yet, escalation of wars since the year the since its inception, there has been U.N. was founded. Yes, even seven continual warfare and over a billion years ago there had already been fifty- people have been enslaved by the seven of them. The United Nations Communists. Obviously, from the was allegedly founded as a fire com- standpoint of real peace and freedom, mission to extinguish the flames of the United Nations has been a cataswar. Yet, from the very beginning, the trophe. Yet, from the standpoint of world's most notorious pyromaniacs - the Communists, it has been a smashthe Communists – have had control. ing success. It is tragic, but nevertheling influence over the commission. less true, that United States participa
On July 9, 1970, President Nixon tion in the United Nations makes appointed a special forty-five member every American taxpayer, in effect, a Commission for the observance of the supporter of the largest Communist U.N.'s twenty-fifth anniversary. Ac- Front organization in the world. It is cording to Executive Order 11546, the task of informed Americans to tell which established the Commission, one the truth about the United Nations as
widely as possible, in the hope that the *As one source of excellent information, we
day may soon come when the antisuggest the United Nations Packet available (at one dollar) from American Opinion, U.N. slogan "Get US out!" can be Belmont, Massachusetts 02178.
changed to “Keep US out!” 1.
| Reprints of this copyrighted article are available at the following prices: One to 99 copies, ten for one dollar; 100-999 copies, eight cents each; 1,000 or more copies, seven cents each.
Order from The Review Of The News, Belmont, Massachusetts 02178.