U.N. and NATO – New World Order Partners {NATO and the U.N. Are One}

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.

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.

2. True, the Soviet Union frequently used the veto power against the interests of the United States.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

1. United States of Europe, William F. Jasper, April 10, 1989, The New American. 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

7. The North Atlantic Treaty, Washington, D.C., April 4, 1949 & Article 51 of the U.N. Charter. 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

Gorbachev: Anti-Terror Coalition Should Become Coalition for New World Order

Saturday, October 20, 2001

MOSCOW — The U.S.-led international coalition against terror must become a coalition for a new and fair world order if it is to succeed, former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev said in an interview published Saturday.

"If the fight against terrorism is reduced to force actions, the world will eventually lose," Gorbachev told Rossiiskaya Gazeta. "If it becomes part of joint efforts to build a just world order, everybody shall win, including those who today are not supporting the U.S. actions and the coalition."

He urged politicians to remember the notions of solidarity and said developing nations must be helped to overcome poverty. The U.N. Security Council, he added, should take the initiative in developing corresponding programs.

Nuclear and chemical disarmament and control over the remaining stockpiles must become a top priority, he said.

Gorbachev also noted that despite Russia's strong support for the U.S.-led military operation in Afghanistan, many in his country are concerned about the bombings and question whether America would also back Russia in such an hour of need.

Such thorny issues as the expansion of NATO and the future of the U.S.-Soviet anti-missile agreement "would be easier to resolve when we have a joint strategy of moving to the new world community," Gorbachev wrote.

As Soviet leader, Gorbachev presided over the 1989 Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, which ended a humiliating 10-year involvement during which his country lost more than 15,000 soldiers.

He remains respected in the West for initiating the reforms in the former Soviet Union but is widely despised at home, where he is blamed for the Soviet collapse and the often chaotic years of transition.

OPERATION: ENDURING FREEDOM

Moscow: U.S. 'blitzkrieg' has failed Russia wants U.N. to 'act as a unifying body' in war on terror

By Toby Westerman

Just as the U.S. began to use ground troops in its war against terror in Central Asia, Moscow declared that "the blitzkrieg against Afghanistan has failed."

The assumed failure, according to Russia, has caused "high-ranking politicians [in the U.S.] to feel hesitant" about the "further prospects" of military operations in Afghanistan.

Moscow is also declaring that "the United Nations must act as a unifying body in the anti-terror crusade" for a global effort to succeed, and warns against "an even more threatening dimension" if the war against terror expands to include other nations.

The remarks were made over the Voice of Russia World Service, the official broadcasting service of the Russian government.

Despite the alleged failure of the American military operation, "the Pentagon generals," Moscow asserts, now "demand that military action be extended beyond Afghanistan." According to Moscow, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has "demanded that the chiefs of staff should draw up plans for attacks on other countries."

Describing the U.S. as "drawing itself into a corner," Russia declared that "Washington is now aware of the need of a political settlement" and urged negotiations.

Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov – speaking at the recently concluded Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, or APEC, summit in Shanghai, China – reiterated the official position of the Russian government regarding the anti-terror campaign.

Any anti-terror campaign "must be based exclusively on the United Nations Charter and the relevant Security Council resolution," Ivanov declared.

Attending the same conference, Russian President Vladimir Putin supported Ivanov's statement. Although stating that "we have declared our direct support for the United States," Putin also said, "The world's governments must create legal instruments to enable a response to terrorism."

The APEC summit concluded on Sunday.

In addition to Somalia, an oft-mentioned future target of the anti-terror campaign is one of Russia's prime allies in the Middle East, Iraq.

Iraq has been consistently mentioned in connection with research and development of weapons of mass destruction and the terrorist group led by Osama bin Laden, as well as a possible source of the strains of anthrax currently encountered in the United States.

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty has tied Iraq to anthrax in the U.S., citing reports that operatives from Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network obtained anthrax from sources in the Czech Republic.

The Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross, however, dismissed the possibility of Iraqi intelligence passing anthrax on to al-Qaida terrorists, according to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri denied claims that Iraq supplied al-Qaida, describing the allegation as "bulls---," Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty stated.

Whether or not Iraq is involved in the present anthrax attacks upon the U.S., it remains committed to the development and production of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons of destruction.

Even more disturbing, Iraq's major ally, Russia, is a potential source for the development of such weapons. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Russian weapons scientists are known to have sought employment outside of Russia, and old Soviet materials stockpiles are known to be poorly guarded.

In January, a report from the Russian Military News Agency revealed that Russia was unable to complete its destruction of chemical weapons. In October 2000, an article entitled "The Secret of the Killer Bacteria" in the German weekly newsmagazine Der Spiegel reported the inability of verifying Russian compliance with biological weapons agreements and the possibility that biological and chemical weapons are still being produced.

In April 1997, Radio Netherlands carried a report that Russia had developed a new and particularly deadly strain of anthrax and timed the completion of the new strain to circumvent an international convention which came into effect that same April.

And the paranoia about our moral esteem and confidence runs real low in other parts of the world... http://rcaam.milparade.com/free/213/3-05.shtml

US ABM aimed against Russia, China nuclear forces

Plans to deploy the United States antiballistic missile (ABM) system attest to its being spearheaded against Russia's and China's nuclear forces, Major-General Yuri Lebedev, an expert of the international organisation Generals and Admirals for Peace and Security, told RCAAM, commenting on the statement on the Pentagon spokesman about the readiness of the U.S. military to put weapons into space.

The general said creation of space-based ABM elements shows that the Pentagon is planning to intercept and destroy intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) during amassed attacks which can hypothetically be launched only by two nuclear powers, Russia and China.

The decision of the U.S. administration to create sea-based and air-based mobile elements of ABM defense is another conformation of the fact that the U.S. ABM is not meant against the still nonexistent missiles of "rogue" countries and against accidental launchings of Russian missiles. The U.S. side seems to forget that the deployment of such forces is prohibited under the operating 1972 ABM treaty, Lebedev believes.

----

There is a Gorbatchev rhetoric about the US poluting the whole Earth with space based nukes in additional articles (all of which can ironicaly be accessed in anotherwise restricted site)http://rcaam.milparade.com/0105.htm. Russians are appealing to peace nicks and eco-terrorists as usual.

With the leadership of Russia and China, we are encouraged to lose our moral confidence via abortions, gay rights, EPA madness and what not other forms of humanism, and by the same token we are made to lose moral confidence in the usage of arms, technology and the right to bear arms in general.

Russia and China are wrong to believe that a weak USA will shelter them. There is nothing further than the truth. A strong almost unipolar moraly confident USA is the basis of stability in this world today. THere is no protection from the wrath of the heavens or of rogue states aside from militarisation of outer space and free transparent developments. Ironicaly Russia and China are anything but transparent, yet they claim that they do not trust the US. After all, Kosovo was horrible, but it was no subversive effort, the equations were very clear as ugly as Rambouillet was.

The bottom line is this: NATO and the UN are the leading institutions that lack any moral confidence and which attempt to replace anti-humanist pro-liberty moral with an alphabet soup of feel good humanist organisations. All power balances are removed in favor of subserviance to this god, this pagan fetish, the human feeling and psyche.

But there won't be any protection for fools. Sooner or later, this Earth that we venerate amongst other gods venerated by Gorbatchev, will stab us in the back and we will die, unprepared to counter the powers of a cold natural world, because we werer afraid of testing our morality, we were humanist losers.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.