« ПретходнаНастави »
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.
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
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
September 9, 1970
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
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.
The Review Of The NEWS
from the United Nations again, in the name of “peace.”
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 Undersecretary 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
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 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.
ELSMAN, YOUNG & O'ROURKE,
Detroit, Mich., April 30, 1975. Re U.N. Charter review hearings. Senator JOHN SPARKMAN, Chairman, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR SPARKMAN: I would like to be considered to give testimony at the above hearings. I'm a private lawyer with a rather "establishment” background who is concerned that the U. S. is not exerting enough leadership in promoting a regulated world under law. Such void allows many of the observable world conflicts and tragedies we read about to go on-and-on, when, I believe, creative men can build a better structure. U. N. Charter Reform is the best means, it seems to me.
In the course of my concern, I tried my hand at a proposed World Constitution which I enclose herein. It has had considerable circulation amongst lawyers around the world.
My Martindale-Hubbell biographical sketch is enclosed for your information.
Please let me know if and when you desire my testimony. Please respond to the Birmingham address underlined above. Best v ishes in your important work, Very truly yours,
JAMES L. ELSMAN. [Enclosure is on file with the Committee.]
STATEMENT OF ROBERT Y. GROMET, M.D., CHAIRMAN, NORTH AMERICAN GROUP,
WORLD FEDERAL AUTHORTY COMMITTEE
We humans have less than 9 years left to us to create a new government to be placed over the governments of the individual nations. If we fail to do this, George Orwell's "1984" will arrive, and we will all become like ants or robots under the several "Big Brothers" who will be the totalitarian rulers of the few super-powers which will rule the whole earth. Everybody will be equal, but of course some will be more equal than others. Human liberty will be dead, private thoughts will be manipulated by drugs in the water supply, and intimate actions of individuals will be under covert surveillance.
In today's world, traditional foreign policy, which is based on "power politics," can no longer be effective, because of many developments which have made such policy, strategy, and tactics, as dead as the extinct dodo. Some of these existing and expanding phenomena and situations are:
1. Intercontinental ballistic missiles carrying hydrogen bomb warheads, which can traverse 3 or 4 thousand miles in 15 minutes, and can wreak instantaneous destruction of people by the tens of millions, annihilate whole cities with their thousand-square-miles of suburban areas, and even of all plant and animal life on earth, through their delayed radiological effects.
2. Pollution of air, land and sea, not only as a result of the possible Armageddon just mentioned, but through cumulation of radioactive poisons consequent to testing of atomic and thermonuclear weapons by ever-increasing numbers of nations, ever third-rate in size. Also, ordinary types of pollution due to industrial waste-products are of course large dangers, with alarming growth-rates.
3. Overpopulation of the world in relation to supplies of available foods. Huge birth-rates contribute seriously to this peril.
4. Guerrilla, anarchist, and terrorist attacks arising in one country and invading another, as well as hi-jacking of airplanes, sending explosives to other countries through the postal services, fomenting revolutions and civil wars for ulterior purposes, and similar lawless activities.
5. Monopolistic control of natural resources such as oil, accompanied by financial and commercial pressures of such proportions on other nations, as in effect to be practically equivalent to "blackmail".
6. Hazards attendant on competitive exploitation of undersea oil and mineral wealth.
7. Numerous other international situations and problems, each laden with its own kind of threat to world peace, economic justice, financial stability, industrial