(TIP: Don't forget to share this article with your friends.)
Who Watches the Watchmen? Who watches the UN? Viewed 21,406 timesBy: Bill Tew
Published for Orem, Utah (Area-Info.net May. 25, 2012)
As I sat in the Denver International Airport today waiting for my flight I was reading an old document. That old study set me typing this short article concerning disarmament and also the role the CFR has played in establishing the UN, the supr-national institution most concerned with disarmament of nations.
In the early 1970s over five-million Americans bought a small paperback book by Gary Allen titled “NONE DARE CALL IT CONSPIRACY.” Despite the fact that THE NEW YORK TIMES didn’t publish a book review on Gary Allen’s book, the little book was definitely a best seller. Forty-one years ago, like millions of other Americans, I bought a copy of the book and read it. For me and those millions of others the book was an introduction to a rather secretive, influential, globalist (or internationalist) organization called the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The CFR fashions itself as a membership-by-invitation-only think tank that studies foreign affairs, publishes reports, and publishes a magazine- FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
Founded in 1921, The Council on Foreign Relations has through its membership and publications held a major influence on the policies of the federal government since for decades. A 1988 book, THE SHADOWS OF POWER-THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS AND THE AMERICAN DECLINE, by James Perloff, details decades of CFR influence through domination of the U.S. State Department and either the White House or those governmental leadership positions appointed by presidents.
It would not be unreasonable to say that the CFR could be characterized overall as holding views that favor globalism, or Internationalism, that is the CFR leadership and publications tend to espouse the idea of global or supranational government, global and or supranational “governance” and supra-national governmental solutions for problems both national and international that they believe should be addressed by government actions. NATO for example is a supranational governmental structure organized under the United Nations Charter, chapter VIII that is considered praiseworthy by authors who publish in the CFR’s journal, FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
In 1945, when 50 nations sent delegates to San Francisco, California to attend the founding conference for the creation of the United Nations the delegation from the United States was dominated by members of The Council on Foreign relations. In fact 47 of the delegates from the United States were CFR members. The UN, the descendant of the failed League of Nations, was essentially the brainchild of CFR members at the State Department.
What is the United Nations supposed to function as? Is it just a debating society or is it a supranational governmental institution capable of initiating wars, adjudicating cases between nations, instituting rules that nations and individuals find themselves either forced or coerced into obeying, and negotiating treaties that are more than soft law? The UN was designed by its founders and designers in the State Department and at the secretive Dumbarton Oaks meeting to be the framework of global government that could be strengthened with power to function in such a capacity. We have seen wars or “police actions” fought by contingents of soldiers acting on behalf of the United Nations to enforce UN Security Council Resolutions since the Korean Police Action of the 1950s, haven’t we?
March 10, 1962, the Special Studies Group prepared a study for the Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA) that was submitted to the U.S. Department of State under contract No. SCC 28270, dated February 24, 1961 which was titled: “Study Memorandum No. 7, A WORLD EFFECTIVELY CONTROLLED BY THE UNITED NATONS- A PRELIMINARY SURVEY OF ONE FORM OF A STABLE MILITARY ENVIRONMENT, by Lincoln P. Bloomfield. The Study claims that Dr. J. I. Coffey was the Project Leader and the paper was prepared for project VULCAN, a study of Arms Control and a Stable Military environment. The author of the study, Dr. Lincoln P. Bloomfield, the study explains “has written extensively on the role of the United Nations in international politics. He is Associate Professor of Political Science and Director of the Arms Control Project at the Center for International Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.” The paper doesn’t mention that Dr. Lincoln P. Bloomfield was also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
In the summary of the study we read some conclusions by the author: “A world effectively controlled by the United Nations is one in which ‘world government’ would come about through the establishment of supranational institutions, characterized by mandatory universal membership and some ability to employ physical force. Effective control would thus entail a preponderance of political power in the hands of a supranational organization rather than individual national units, and would assume the effective operation of a general disarmament agreement. While this supranational organization – the United Nations—would not necessarily be the organization as it now exists, the present UN Charter could theoretically be revised in order to erect such an organization equal to the task envisaged, thereby codifying a radical rearrangement of power in the world.”
The Study’s plan by CFR-member Bloomfield is all about power and its rearrangement away from the nation-state and into the hands of the global government envisaged to be embodied in the international institutions of an evolving United Nations. Nations would be compelled to join the UN under the Bloomfield plan. The study is breathtaking in its boldness for disarming nations, including the United States and placing the armaments in the hands of the United Nations.
Bloomfield wrote: “The principle features of a model [world government] system would include the following: (1) powers sufficient to monitor and enforce disarmament, settle disputes, and keep the peace – including taxing powers—with all other powers reserve to the nations; (2) an international [military] force, balanced appropriately among ground, sea, air, and space elements, consisting of 500,000 men, recruited individually, wearing a UN uniform, and controlling a nuclear force composed of 50-100 mixed land-based mobile and undersea-based missiles, averaging one-megaton per weapon; (3) governmental powers distributed among three branches so that primary functions would exist in some recognizable form in a bicameral legislative organ, an executive organ, and an expanded international judicial network; (4) compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court for both legal disputes and legal aspects of political disputes; (5) approximately 130 political subunits, all nominally independent states, within the system; (6) continued jurisdiction over cosmetic affairs by the national governments; and (7) unrestricted international inspection of nuclear research and power equipment, strategic areas and industries, administrative policies and operations, and other key and strategic points in the national economy.”
Have Americans witnessed at least a partial implementation of the Study’s plan? Haven’t we seen a continuous movement to disarm nation-states of nuclear weapons or even an ability to work towards creating such weapons? And hasn’t the UN sought to prevent new nations (Iraq, Iran) from acquiring nuclear arms? Haven’t we seen for decades the UN sending its UN inspection teams inside nations to hold their governments accountable to the UN’s assumed power to control nuclear arms? Haven’t we even seen the supposed national ownership of “weapons of mass destruction” as the cause of war to enforce UN Security Council Resolutions? Certainly that was the chief cause stated in the Public Law passed by Congress to justify President George W. Bush’s launching of a war on March 17, 2003 upon the nation of Iraq.
The international disarmament plan for disarming nation-states while progressively arming the UN world government was further advanced in 1961 with the publication of another U.S. State Department document, #7277. The document was titled “FREEDOM FROM WAR- THE UNITED STATES PROGRAM FOR GENERAL AND COMPLETE DISARMAMENT IN A PEACEFUL WORLD.” On September 25, 1961, President John F. Kennedy unveiled the disarmament program at the United Nations. The FREEDOM FROM WAR document proposed that nations would contribute to a “UN Peace Force” and disband their own military forces. In that plan we read that one goal was to create a global situation in which “No state [including the U.S.] would have the power to challenge the progressively strengthened UN peace force.” Thus the UN’s military power was gradually to be increased as nation-states decreased in military power until the UN would hold an unchallengeable military might. So the plan is to unilaterally disarm national government while arming a global government to a point of holding a monopoly of armed might.
As John Birch Society President John F. McManus has said, however, a peace force is an oxymoron. He pointed out that peace is not peace if it is forced.
If the nation states are disarmed and the UN is progressively armed with conventional and nuclear forces, what keeps the global UN government in check? What keeps the UN leaders at the point from abusing the unchallengeable power they would then hold? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Is a Latin phrase literally translated as “Who will guard the guards themselves?” or also sometimes translated as “Who watches the watchmen?”
If those who ultimately control the UN were to acquire a monopoly of force thanks to nation-states surrendering their military armaments and even supplying the UN with soldiers and weapons, what would prevent the UN's globally-consolidated power holding a virtual monopoly of military force from becoming a global tyranny capable of bullying any nation into submission to the will of the rulers over the United Nations? In fact, isn’t that exactly what the aim is, the establishment of a power in a global government that is such a monopoly of force that no nation, not even America, could ever challenge the UN’s military power?
Let me ask a few questions for Americans to consider concerning America’s 67-year membership in the United Nations would-be world government. Wouldn’t you agree that since the U.S. joined the U.N. in 1945, our presidents have utilized our country’s military forces as UN enforcers and global cops in combat engagements from Katanga to Korea, to Vietnam, to Iraq, to Bosnia, to Kosov, to Libya, etc.? How have these military adventures helped America by intervening in troubles abroad instead of minding our own business at home protecting our own borders and security? How many trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of American lives have the interventionist wars for NATAO, SEATO and the United Nations cost us? How much deeper is America in debt because of our decades of involvement in UN membership? Have we made friends or enemies around the world from all these UN-sanctioned wars and military occupations? Are those who serve in our military better off from being sent into so many wars, invasions, and military occupations? Are their families better off? Has the payment to the UN of dues for 67-years made our nation richer or poorer, safer or a target for terrorists? Did our wars actually result in more freedom for Americans or less freedom? Did the engagement of our soldiers in UN-SEATO-NATO interventions actually bring more freedom and security to people in foreign lands or less? Honestly did our intervention in Kosovo that killed thousands make their lives better and did it somehow provide freedom for Americans or not? Did our military invasion and combat in Somalia free the people of Somalia, somehow make Americans in America free, or just kill thousands of Somali citizens and some American soldiers at great cost while doing nothing to protect American freedom?
Who will protect Americans from a UN “peace force” or global military if such a force is finally is created, empowered, armed with monopoly force and our forces are disarmed and disbanded?
The UN isn’t the world’s last best hope for peace, is it? Rather isn’t the United Nations really the globalist-INSIDERS last best hope for bringing about their planned global dictatorship and global police-state under their control? Who really benefits from creating an unchallengeable global military force if it isn’t those who hold actual power over the United Nations global government where that absolute-power would be centered?
Lord Acton said: “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” If Acton’s axiom is correct, what approximates absolute power more in this world than a global government with a monopoly on deadly force? What then is more likely to be corrupted than such an absolute total power as a world government? Isn’t that precisely the kind of government most to be feared and avoided?
Hold a BS degree from USU with a double major and an Associates degree from UVU. Works in political education field.
(TIP: Share your opinion, or news from your point of view: Go to Your View)