Read the first two articles in our six-part series:
Exploit a Tragedy! Empower the U.N.!
New World Order – Full Steam Ahead
The U.N. is a threat to our national sovereignty and political liberties. NATO is not – or at least that's what some Bush apologists would like you to believe.
On Oct. 7, when it was announced out of Brussels, Belgium, that NATO spy planes – AWACS – were requested by the Bush administration to patrol U.S. skies as part of Bush's Homeland Security apparatus (180 airmen and civilians from 13 nations), many ordinary American patriots came unglued. But, as we've already alluded to, others cheered them on, for to Pollyannas and propagandists NATO is simply an old friend meeting an old obligation, to the benefit of the United States.
We wish it were so. But entangling alliances are never that simple. That's why the Founders steered cleared of them.
NATO Fairy Tales
The familiar claim is that NATO is a collective defense arrangement of democratic states. Its original "unofficial" mission was to check Soviet expansionism and serve as a liberating counter to a United Nations Organization, which in 1949 was already manifesting itself as a friend to communism and terrorism, and an enemy to the United States and liberty. The Soviet Union consistently used its absolute veto power in the U.N. Security Council to thwart everything American. This was frustrating. Hence, NATO.
Partly true, partly false.
1. True, the U.N. has been an enemy to the U.S. and liberty.
2. True, the Soviet Union frequently used the veto power against the interests of the United States.
But here the truth ends. Bear in mind:
3. NATO was never designed to check the spread of communism. The anti-Communist angle was a masterful sales stroke – the product of the thinking of Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) chief John J. McCloy, who advised "one way to insure a viewpoint gets noticed is to cast it in terms of resisting the spread of communism." (1) Bottom line: If you can't get a conservative to let go of the neutrality doctrines of Washington and Jefferson, scare the hell out of them.
Harry Truman, one of the loudest proponents of NATO, the U.N. and the Marshall Plan, picked up on this technique. When Secretary of State Marshall cabled Truman, concerned that the president's "Truman Doctrine" speech was too anti-Communist in tone, "The reply came back from Truman: without the rhetoric, Congress would not approve of the money." (2)
4. NATO is not a simple collective defense arrangement. It was, and is, a political arrangement – or, as Truman called it, a "first step" of a much larger plan. (3)
The National Archives and Records Administration says of NATO: "This alliance created a military and political complement to the Marshall Plan." (4)
The Marshall Plan was the economic component – all pointing toward the integration of Europe, to be followed by a transatlantic integration and, finally, global government.
The original Article 2, which remained Top Secret until 1985, unveils this revelation of NATO's real purpose: "The parties will encourage cooperative efforts ... to promote the general welfare through collaboration in the cultural, economic, and social fields." Get the hint? (5)
5. Portraying NATO "unofficially" as a counter to the U.N. Was, at best, disingenuous, for NATO is legally an integral part of the United Nations.
NATO and the U.N. Are One
Let's stop kidding ourselves – the North Atlantic Treaty is the daughter of its mother, the pro-communist/fascist United Nations. (6)
Consider: In this succinct 14-article treaty, the most frequently quoted phrase – one which repeats 11 times – is "The United Nations," the supposed nemesis of NATO's designers. In fact, the Treaty is very clear, the U.N. is the boss.
Some examples:
- The preamble begins: "The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations."
- Loyalty to commitments under the United Nations Charter supersede NATO loyalties and commitments. Article 7 mandates: "This Treaty does not affect, and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way, the rights and obligations under the Charter of the Parties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary responsibility of the [U.N.] Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security."
- "The right of individual or collective self-defense ... [proceeds not from God, or from the laws of NATO states, but from] Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations." (Article 5)
- "Any ... armed attack [against a member] and all measures taken as a result thereof [retaliation] shall immediately be reported to the [U.N.] Security Council."
Further, NATO may retaliate swiftly when attacked, that is, without first seeking the approval of the U.N. Security Council, (Article 5) but this liberty "shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the [U.N.] Security Council ... to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security." [United Nations Charter, Article 51] That is, NATO may continue a war only with the consent, and as per the directions, of the U.N. Security Council.
- "Such [retaliatory] measures shall be terminated when the [U.N.] Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security." (Article 5)
Or, as history has demonstrated in Germany, Japan, Korea, Iraq, Bosnia and Kosovo – there is no exit strategy for international standing armies when the advice and consent of the U.N. Security Council is involved. If this pattern holds, NATO spy planes are just the beginning of a permanent foreign military presence on our soil.
- "After the Treaty has been in force for ten years, or at any time thereafter, the Parties shall, if any of them so requests, consult together for the purpose of reviewing the Treaty," so as to consider a more "universal [role] ... under the Charter of the United Nations." That is, member states will consider full absorption into the military command structure of the United Nations, either as a regional arm of the U.N., or as a full global partner, to go wherever the U.N. sends them. (Article 12)
- The idea of regional arrangements of "free states" to counter the U.N.'s pro-Soviet bloc did not pop up by necessity, as claimed, but was part of the U.N. master design. Article 52, paragraph 3 of the U.N. Charter establishes that "local disputes" be settled by "regional arrangements or ... agencies," and that such measures be taken as necessary under the "initiative of the states concerned or by reference from the Security Council." (7)
- While NATO is designed to become a military arm of the United Nations, since 1949, it has been simultaneously involved in promoting the disarmament of individual states. In the Mutual Defense Assistance Act of 1949 which implemented portions of the North Atlantic Treaty we read:
In furnishing such military assistance, it remains the policy of the United States to continue to exert maximum efforts to obtain agreements to provide the United Nations with armed forces as contemplated in the Charter and agreements to achieve universal control of weapons of mass destruction and universal regulation and reduction of armaments, including armed forces, under adequate safeguards to protect complying nations against violation and evasion. (8)
Another strange goal for a supposed "defense alliance" against a mass-murdering communist enemy, especially one that Western dollars were arming.
Indeed, as all of the above verifies, the North Atlantic Treaty is the best witness of its ball and chain relationship to the United Nations. But it isn't as if the truth wasn't out there for those who were willing to listen.
President Truman affirmed NATO subordination to the U.N. on April 12, 1949, when he informed the U.S. Senate:
"The 12 nations which have signed this treaty undertake to exercise their right of collective or individual self-defense against armed attack, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, and subject to such measures as the [U.N.] Security Council may take to maintain and restore international peace and security." (9)
U.N. Ambassador Warren A. Austin agreed. The next day, before the U.N. General Assembly, he added: "The North Atlantic Treaty fits squarely within the framework of the [U.N.] Charter."
Epilogue
In a 1960 speech and pamphlet "The Goal is Government of All the World," CFR member Elmo Roper reiterated the importance of NATO and regionalism to the big picture.
"For it becomes clear," he said, "that the first step toward world government cannot be completed until we have advanced on the four fronts: the economic, the military, the political and the social." NATO was an important part of that advance. And, he noted, "the Atlantic Pact (NATO) need not be our last effort toward greater unity. It can be converted into one more sound and important step working toward world peace. It can be one of the most positive moves in the direction of One World." (10)
Two decades later, in 1980, NATO Secretary-General Joseph Luns, a thorough one-worlder, likewise commended the utility of the regional approach, remarking, "The slowly but steadily advancing unity of Europe is the most promising guarantee of our ideals of world government." (11)
This is the truth about NATO. NATO and the U.N. are one in purpose, mission and principles. And as such, no matter the propaganda, no matter the short-term benefit, the long-range goal of NATO is, as it is at the U.N., to subvert the sovereignty of the United States, and the rest of the world with us, into a global fascist state.
Positive Solutions
Tell President Bush, your senators and your representative that you are not happy about NATO AWACS spying on Americans. That you are not comfortable with NATO troops and civilians stationed in Oklahoma. That you are fully aware of the non-existence of Globalist exit strategies. That you have read the Declaration of Independence – and that they ought to also. That you would be delighted if they would co-sponsor H.R. 1146, Ron Paul's American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2001. Tell them we can win this war without compromising our sovereignty. Finally, get involved with the committed and informed folks at www.getusout.org, who will give you the tools to win in this eternal struggle for our national sovereignty.
Contact Steve & Steve at StiffRightJab@aol.com.
Remember, Read the first two articles in our six-part series:
Exploit a Tragedy! Empower the U.N.!
New World Order – Full Steam Ahead
Footnotes
1. United States of Europe, William F. Jasper, April 10, 1989, The New American. Return
2. Ibid. Return
3. Press Release, dated April 12, 1949, by President Harry S. Truman to The Press, Truman Presidential Library. Return
4. 50th Anniversary of the North Atlantic Treaty, National Archives and Records Administration. Return
5. Proposed North Atlantic Security Arrangement, Dec. 24, 1948, Truman Library – NATO documents. Return
6. The Un-American United Nations, by Steve Farrell, NewsMax.com. Return
7. The North Atlantic Treaty, Washington, D.C., April 4, 1949 & Article 51 of the U.N. Charter. Return
8. The New American, Feb. 5, 1996. Return
9. Press Release, dated April 12, 1949, by President Harry S. Truman to The Press. Return
10. "The New World Army: The U.N. Takes Command," William Norman Grigg, The New American, Nov. 29, 1993. Return
11. Ibid. Return
Related Products:
Have an Opinion About This? Send an URGENT PriorityGram Today
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
United Nations
War on Terrorism
