Слике страница
PDF
ePub

working at the United Nations
has a unique part to play in
projecting this picture....
(Emphasis ours. United Nations
Guardian Of Peace, Department
of State Publication 7225, Sep-
tember, 1961, Page 36.)

One of the tactics used by the United Nations propaganda network to attract the support of the American people is the claim that the Communists are trying to destroy the U.N., and it is therefore in America's interest to support it. An attempt is usually then made to discredit Americans who oppose the United Nations by claiming they are working for the same end as the Communists. It's a clever pitch, but what is the truth about the Communist attitude towards the U.N.?

Hiss, Truman, Stettinius at U.N. founding.

2

Let's look at a sampling of the record.

Political Affairs is the monthly theoretical journal of the Communist Party, U.S.A. In April of 1945 - two months before the San Francisco Conference at which the U.N. was founded

that journal told its readers: "Great popular support and enthusiasm for the United Nations policies should be built up, well organized and fully articulate. . . . The opposition must be rendered so impotert that it will be unable to gather any significant support in the Senate against the United Nations Charter and the treaties which will follow."

In June of 1945, Alger Hiss (who had been described by Time magazine in its issue for April 16, 1945, as “one of the State Department's brighter young men," and who was later convicted of perjury for lying about his activities on behalf of the Soviet Union) presided as Secretary General of the San Francisco Conference. And shortly thereafter, under a barrage of Leftist propaganda, the U.S. Senate ratified the Charter with only two dissenting votes. The opposition had indeed been rendered "impotent."

On March 23, 1946, Josef Stalin was quoted by Pravda as having declared: "I attribute great importance to U.N.O. since it is a serious instrument for preservation of peace and international security." And in November of 1946 the Soviet publication Bolshevik (No. 22, Page 51) asserted that "The masses know that peace is possible only on the basis of cooperation among the existing

The Review Of The NEWS

[graphic]
[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed]

Pass to U.N. founding conference, signed by Communist Alger Hiss as U.N. Secretary General."

states.... The Soviet Union is fighting to have the United Nations as effective as possible."

By December 21, 1954, we find the Communist Daily Worker pointing out to its readers that "... it's not the U.N. that merits your scorn and active opposition, but the policies that have undermined the U.N...." That is, the U.N. must be consistently supported by Communists unless specific notice is given to the contrary. This attitude on the part of the Comrades began to be even more forcefully presented in 1961. For by that time opposition to the United Nations in the United States was beginning to grow and --more important to become effective. Instead of remaining diffused, opposition to the U.N. was being September 9, 1970

[ocr errors]

mounted in a manner that was causing real concern to those running the United Nations Organization. And so, on October 7, 1961, the West Coast newspaper of the Communist Party, People's World, carried an editorial entitled, "Save the U.N." It declared, in part:

The U.N. commands a great reservoir of support in our country.

This support should now be
made vocal.

People should write President
Kennedy, telling him --

Do not withdraw from U.N.
Restore U.N. to the Grand
Design of Franklin Roosevelt
the design for peaceful coexis-

tence.

3

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 pre-
pare 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 in-
sidious 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.].*

*It should not surprise anyone that U.N.E.S.C.O. would sponsor a symposium honoring Lenin. As far back as 1956, the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee noted in its Annual Report for the year: "What appears... to be by far the worst

5

[merged small][ocr errors]

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

« ПретходнаНастави »