The Socialist Party of the United States of America was formally organized at a unity convention in Indianapolis in 1901. The two merging groups were the Social Democratic Party of Eugene Victor Debs and the "Kangaroo" wing of the older Socialist Labor Party. The SDP had been organized in 1898 by veterans of the Pullman strike of the American Railway Union, led by Debs, and was largely composed of American-born workers. The SLP had its roots in the American circles of Marx's First International and the Workingmen's Party of America, and was primarily composed of immigrants in big cities. By the 1880's, under the rule of Daniel De Leon, it had become increasingly intolerant of internal dissent and had suffered several splits.
From the beginning the Socialist Party was the ecumenical organization for American radicals. Its membership included Marxists of various kinds, Christian socialists, Zionist and anti-Zionist Jewish socialists, foreign-language speaking sections, single-taxers and virtually every variety of American radical. On the divisive issue of "reform vs. revolution" the Socialist Party from the beginning adopted a compromise formula, producing platforms calling for revolutionary change but also making "immediate demands" of a reformist nature. A perennially unresolved issue was whether revolutionary change could come about without violence; there were always pacifists and evolutionists in the Party as well as those opposed to both those views. The Socialist Party historically stressed cooperatives as much as labor unions, and included the concepts of revolution by education and of "building the new society within the shell of the old."
The Socialist Party aimed to become a major party; in the years prior to World War I it elected two Members of Congress, over 70 mayors, innumerable state legislators and city councilors. Its membership topped 100,000, and its Presidential candidate, Eugene Debs, received close to a million votes in 1912 and again in 1920. But as with any ideologically mixed organization, it was forever in internal disputes. An early disagreement was over the Industrial Workers of the World, which Debs and De Leon had helped create as a competitor to the American Federation of Labor. Some Socialists supported the IWW, while others considered "dual unionism" to be fatal to the solidarity of the labor movement and supported the Socialist faction in the AFL led by Max Hayes.
During the First World War the American Socialist Party was one of the very few parties in the international socialist movement to maintain its opposition to the war, and many Socialists were imprisoned, including Debs himself. In 1919 there was a major split in the Party, when those who accepted Lenin's demand for unconditional allegiance to the Third (Communist) International left, to form the Communist Party (composed mostly of the foreign-language federations) and the Communist Labor Party (led by John Reed). Under pressure from the International, the two parties later merged.
Weakened by the loss of the Bolsheviks, the Socialist Party did not run a Presidential candidate in 1924, but joined the AFL and the railroad brotherhoods in support of the independent campaign of the progressive Senator Robert La Follette of Wisconsin, hoping to build a permanent Farmer-Labor Party. In 1928 the Socialist Party revived as an independent electoral entity under the leadership of Norman Thomas, an opponent of World War I and a founder of the American Civil Liberties Union.
In 1932 the impact of the Great Depression resulted in revived support for the Socialist Party, and 896,000 votes were cast for the Party's Presidential candidate, Norman Thomas. But by 1936 the left-liberal policies of the New Deal took a severe toll. In that year David Dubinsky and other socialist union leaders in New York called on their membership to vote for Roosevelt, and formed the Social Democratic Federation to promote socialism within the ranks of the liberal/labor wing of the Democratic Party. The Socialist Party's vote in 1936 dropped to 185,000, little more than 20% of that of 1932. The outbreak of the war against Fascism and the wartime prosperity further weakened all parties on the left.
As of 1957 the SP-SDF was pervaded by a strong sense that the time had arrived to start over and rebuild a major radical party in America. Internally it was the same kind of party it had always been - ecumenical and democratic - and it still commanded a significant reservoir of public sympathy. Many in the Party felt that now, with the McCarthy era over and gone, it would be possible to recruit members to a revitalized revolutionary democratic Socialist Party. By this time, the Communist Party had lost a number of members over its uncritical allegiance to the Soviet government, and these were among those the Party actively attempted to recruit. In addition, unity discussions were launched with two groups believed to be friendly, the Jewish Labor Bund and the Independent Socialist League.
The Bund is an international organization of anti-Zionist, non-religious, democratic socialist Jews. The ISL was a Trotskyite splinter group founded and led by Max Shachtman, with about 400 members.
In 1958 the ISL dissolved, and its members joined the SP-SDF. This ended any hope of further mergers, since Shachtman's intention was to attain control of the Socialist Party. Almost at once a faction fight erupted over the concept of "realignment." Shachtman and his lieutenant, Michael Harrington, argued that what America needed wasn't a third party, but a meaningful second party. The realignment supporters said that in sixty years the Socialist Party had failed to bring labor into the Party, and in fact kept losing their labor sympathizers (such as the Reuther brothers) because they saw they could do more within the Democratic Party. It was also argued that in view of restricted ballot access the Democratic primaries were a better forum for electoral activity than Socialist candidacies. But the basic argument was an appeal to traditional Marxism: Labor is the motor for social change, labor will not come to the Socialist Party, therefore the Socialist Party must go to labor - which means going into the Democratic Party.
Many of those who later would form the Debs Caucus initially bought this reasoning, but they understood it as meaning that when becoming active in the Democratic Party one should do so openly as a Socialist. The suppression of Socialist identity was no part of the thinking of the bulk of the membership. From its inception, the Socialist Party had opposed anything that smacked of manipulative politics, seeing it as directly contradictory to the goal of raising the consciousness and self-confidence of the working class.
There is no doubt that the realignment strategy was successful within its own terms. Former SP labor people like A. Philip Randolph rejoined the Party, and many new people of this type were recruited during this period. But to many Socialists, realignment in practice turned out to be something they could not stomach. The realignment strategy focused on getting hold of power, and Socialist politics is concerned not only with winning power within the status quo but also with redistributing it to build a new society. Furthermore, the result of the strategy was often to tone down everything that distinguished Socialists from liberals, and "where labor is" turned out to be not at the left of the Democratic Party but at the center, in alliance with the big city machines.
Second, and perhaps crucial, was the defection of most of the youth section. The Young People's Socialist League had always been to the left of the Party as a whole; after the ISL merger, which also brought in the ISL's youth section, the YSL, the same conflicts developed in YPSL as in the Party. In the early 60's, a group of left YPSL's obtained control of the Students for a Democratic Society, the youth section of the League for Industrial Democracy, and then disaffiliated it from the LID. At the 1963 YPSL Convention the left held an overwhelming majority. They held views that were intolerable to the SP leadership, in particular the perspective that the CP had broken up into competing sects and was no longer a monolithic enemy, and that Leninist groups could be worked with. That convention formally dissolved the YPSL. SDS, now deprived of contact with sympathetic older comrades in the SP, made a series of errors and later disintegrated.
Third, the ISL merger brought in a number of members who did not agree with the original Shachtmanite-Harrington realignment theology, who found allies among the old SP membership. Starting in Berkeley under the leadership of Hal Draper, a number of "Independent Socialist Clubs" came into existence, in many places replacing the Socialist Party locals. For several years the ISC leadership included SP members, but as time passed more and more of them left the SP.
Fourth, there was constant attrition as left Socialists found they could not tolerate the rightward drift of the SP leadership. This accelerated when the first Vietnam war protests failed to receive any official SP support, even though many members, including Norman Thomas, participated in them.
At the 1968 Socialist Party Convention the Shachtman-Harrington Caucus held a clear majority, though a slim one, and voted down resolutions demanding American withdrawal from Vietnam and urging independent political action. They passed a resolution endorsing Hubert Humphrey - a resolution which Norman Thomas, who had less than six months to live, opposed as best he could from his hospital bed, pleading in vain with the membership to reject it. They elected a clear majority of the Party's National Committee, and installed their own supporters as National Secretary and Editor of the Party paper.
During the Convention itself, knowing themselves defeated, the left wing organized itself as a caucus and proceeded to hire a secretary, start a newspaper, and make plans to hold conferences. At its first conference, it took the name Debs Caucus, and continued to function under that name for nearly five years. The Debs Caucus had a valid claim to recognition as a voice of Socialism, for it included the former National Chairman Darlington Hoopes, the Socialist ex-Mayor of Milwaukee Frank Zeidler, and many of the state and local SP organizations, including Wisconsin, Illinois, California, and locals in Philadelphia, Washington DC, and New York City.
By 1970, with Michael Harrington as National Chairman under Max Shachtman's leadership, the Socialist Party was showing a growing tendency toward democratic centralism in practice. The Party newspaper was effectively closed to all but official views, and the members of the Debs Caucus were treated as non-persons. While Harrington was known to personally disapprove of the war in Vietnam, he could not bring himself to support the demand - now virtually unanimous on the American left -for unconditional immediate withdrawal of US forces. Since this meant the Socialist Party was completely isolated from the anti-war movement, as well as from the so-called "new left," it was virtually the only left party in the country that did not experience a major upsurge in membership during this period.
Nevertheless, Harrington maintained contacts with the liberal wing of the peace movement (such as SANE), and he and his personal followers formed yet a third caucus, the Coalition Caucus, to pursue the realignment strategy within the more liberal sectors of the Democratic Party and the labor leadership. In March of 1972 a Unity Convention was held, to finalize the merger of the Socialist Party with the Democratic Socialist Federation. The tightly disciplined Unity Caucus, as the Shachtmanite wing now styled themselves, were by now suspicious of Harrington, and succeeded in pushing through the Convention a constitutional amendment providing for a "troika" in the Chairmanship. The "troika" was made up of Harrington, Charles Zimmerman of the DSF, and the aging former civil rights leader Bayard Rustin. A resolution opposing the Vietnam war, which was supported by six Party Locals and by both the Debs Caucus and the Coalition Caucus, failed.
In the 1972 Presidential election the division in the Socialist Party came to a head. In the Democratic primaries the Shachtmanites supported Henry Jackson, a hawk and a strong supporter of Israel (the latter having become a litmus test for the Shachtmanites). During the campaign itself they took a neutral position between McGovern and Nixon, following the lead of the AFL-CIO. Harrington and his Coalition Caucus supported McGovern throughout. Most of the Debs Caucus members supported Benjamin Spock, candidate of the People's Party (Frank Zeidler was Spock's "shadow cabinet" Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare).
At the end of 1972 the Socialist Party, now completely under control of the right wing, changed its name to Social Democrats USA. This lit the fuse for the disaffiliation of many of the states and locals within the Debs Caucus, and for many resignations. Early in 1973 the Socialist Party of Wisconsin, with the support of the California and Illinois Parties, called a "National Convention of the Socialist Party," to be held Memorial Day weekend in Milwaukee The Debs Caucus had recently organized a Union for Democratic Socialism, as an "umbrella" organization of both members and non-members of the Socialist Party, and the UDS now made plans for a major conference on "The Future of Democratic Socialism in America" to be held at the same time. The resulting body voted to reconstitute the Socialist Party USA.
Michael Harrington resigned from SDUSA at this time, but he took no part in the reconstituted SPUSA. In October he and his followers founded the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee, now (since merger with the New American Movement in 1982) the Democratic Socialists of America. They have generally functioned as a socialist faction within the liberal wings of the Democratic Party and of the leadership of the AFL-CIO;some of their members have won office running as Democrats.
Since 1973 the Socialist Party USA has focused its attention more on grassroots and local politics, and has dealt with the controversial issue of Presidential politics on a case by case basis. Due to America's restrictive and often undemocratic ballot access laws (which have made it almost impossible to break the two-party monopoly on national politics), the party views the races primarily as opportunities for educating the public about socialism and the need for electoral democracy in the US.
In 1976 the Socialist Party USA ran a Presidential campaign for the first time in twenty years; the candidates were Frank P. Zeidler, former Mayor of Milwaukee, for President and Quinn Brisben, a Chicago school teacher, for Vice President. In 1980 the Socialist ticket was David McReynolds, a pacifist on the staff of the War Resisters League, and Sister Diane Drufenbrock of the Order of St. Francis. One outcome of that campaign was the Party's recognition by the FEC as a political party nationwide in scope. In 1984 there was an ill-fated attempt to form a coalition with the Citizen's Party; when it failed the time was too late to mount a Socialist Party campaign. In 1988 the party chose again to nominate a Presidential slate. Willa Kenoyer, a journalist, and Ron Ehrenreich, a credit union officer and university lecturer, were chosen as the candidates for President and Vice-President. In 1992, the SP nominated Quinn Brisben for President and union organizer Bill Edwards for Vice-President. Sadly, Edwards died suddenly during the race, whereupon the party chose author and playwright Barbara Garson as the new Vice-Presidential candidate.
In 1996 the SP nominated activist and special education teacher Mary Cal Hollis for President and author and economics professor Eric Chester for Vice-President. Due in part to frustration with the free-trade and anti-labor success of the Democratic President Bill Clinton, the end of the Cold War and the advent of the Internet, this election saw an influx of newer, younger members. This wave of new activists brought the party to a size and level of activity not seen since before "Realignment."
As the Socialist Party celebrates its centennial this year, new members and activists are coming on board to help build a new vision of democratic socialism for the 21st century. Our recent electoral efforts have involved running our own candidates at the Congressional as well as community level (Karen Kubby, Socialist councilwoman in Iowa councilwoman her re-election bid in 1992 with the highest vote total in Iowa City history), running SP members as coalition candidates with other independent left and progressive groups, and supporting socialist as well as progressive candidates in a variety of races nationwide. The SP is slowly but surely regaining "party" status in states across the country. We know it's not easy, but it never has been. And just think, without us, things would only be worse. The struggle continues, and if you see yourself as part of that struggle, for socialism and democracy in our time, we invite you to join us.
All you wanted know about the Democrats and the Socialist. Just say Democrat=Socialist.
The Socialists of 100 years ago were honorable self-improvers compared to the cynical welfare thugs of the Democratic Party today, and would probably puke on them.
Old or new, they're all utopian idealists with tin ears to history....destined to keep on beating their collective heads against the wall...because it feels so good when they stop.
International Criminal Court Index
Don't say that we weren't warned.
Put "ICC" in the Search Engine and see what comes up.
"If instant world government, Charter review, and a greatly strengthened International Court do not provide the answers, what hope for progress is there? The answer will not satisfy those who seek simple solutions to complex problems, but it comes down essentially to this: The hope for the foreseeable lies, not in building up a few ambitious central institutions of universal membership and general jurisdiction as was envisaged at the end of the last war, but rather in the much more decentralized, disorderly and pragmatic process of inventing or adapting institutions of limited jurisdiction and selected membership to deal with specific problems on a case-by-case basis ... In short, the 'house of world order' will have to be built from the bottom up rather than f rom the top down. It will look like a great 'booming, buzzing confusion,' to use William James' famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault."
Richard N. Gardner, in Foreign Affairs (April 1974)
Under the U.N. Gavel
By Larry E. Craig
Wednesday, August 22, 2001; Page A19
At its founding, the mission of the United Nations, as stated in its charter, was "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war." It made no claim to supersede the sovereignty of its member states. Article 2 says that the United Nations "is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members," and it may not "intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state."
Since then, the United Nations has turned the principle of national sovereignty on its head. Through a host of conventions, treaties and conferences, it has intruded into regulation of resources and the economy (for example, treaties on "biological diversity," marine resources and climate change) and family life (hyping phoney liberalism while masculinity is scorned and western manhood is amputated - causing untold grief to the family unit) (conventions on parent-child relations and women in society). It has demanded that countries institute racial quotas and laws against hate crimes and speech (while the U.N. itself can jail someone for 30 years without trial). Recently the United Nations tried to undermine Americans' constitutional right to keep and bear arms (with proposed restrictions on the international sale of small arms).
Fortunately, many of these have been dead on arrival in the U.S. Senate, successive presidents have refused to endorse others, and in any case the United Nations had little power of enforcement. But in 1998, one mechanism of global government (there it is in the Washington Post folks) came to life with the so-called "Rome Statute" establishing a permanent International Criminal Court (and abolishing the Magna Carta in Britain). Once this treaty is ratified by 60 countries, the United Nations will wield judicial power over every individual human being -- even over citizens of countries that haven't joined the court.
While the court's stated mission is dealing with war crimes and crimes against humanity (what about their own crimes against humanity when they committed widespread genocide in the Balkans and East Timor? Dare I say they are hypocrites?) -- which, because there is no appeal from its decisions, only the court will have the right to define -- its mandate could be broadened later. Based on existing U.N. tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, which are models for the International Criminal Court, defendants will have none of the due process rights afforded by the U.S. Constitution, such as trial by jury, confrontation of witnesses or a speedy and public trial (that's a communist court system!).
President Clinton signed the Rome treaty last year, citing U.S. support for existing U.N. war crimes tribunals. Many suppose the court will target only a Slobodan Milosevic or the perpetrators of massacres in Rwanda, or dictators like Iraq's Saddam Hussein. But who knows? To some people, Augusto Pinochet is the man who saved Chile from communism; to others he is a murderer. Who should judge him -- the United Nations or the Chilean people?
In dozens of countries, governments use brutal force against insurgents. Should the United Nations decide whether leaders in Turkey or India should be put in the defendants' dock, and then commit the United States to bring them there? How about Russia's Vladimir Putin, for Chechnya? Or Israel's Ariel Sharon? Can we trust the United Nations with that decision (the more evil these premieres are - the more the U.N. loves them)?
The court's critics rightly cite the danger to U.S. military personnel deployed abroad. Since even one death can be a war crime, a U.S. soldier could be indicted just for doing his duty. But the International Criminal Court also would apply to acts "committed" by any American here at home. The European Union and U.S. domestic opponents consider the death penalty "discriminatory" and "inhumane." Could an American governor face indictment by the court for "crimes against humanity" for signing a death warrant?
Milosevic was delivered to a U.N. court (largely at U.S. insistence) for offences occurring entirely within his own country. Some say the Milosevic precedent doesn't threaten Americans, because the U.S. Constitution protects them. But for Milosevic, we demanded that the Yugoslav Constitution be trashed and the United Nations' authority prevail. Why should the International Criminal Court treat our Constitution any better (they're already destroying the 2nd amendment with their gun grab and the 1st with their phoney 'hate crime' nonsense)?
Instead of trying to "fix" the Rome treaty, the United States must recognize that it is a fundamental threat to American sovereignty. The State Department's participation in the court's preparatory commission is counterproductive. We need to make it clear that we consider the court an illegitimate body, that the United States will never join it and that we will never accept its "jurisdiction" over any U.S. citizen or help to impose it on other countries.
The writer is a Republican senator from Idaho.
© 2001 The Washington Post Company
Wake Up! Enemy forces are usurping control!
Paul Joseph Watson
"'It can't happen here' is number one on the list of famous last words"
We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money."
Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., in Foreign Affairs (July/August 1995)
THAT quotation and the following - and many others like them - clearly demonstrate that the words "new world order" are deadly serious and furthermore, have been in use for decades. They did not originate with President George Bush in 1990. The "old world order" is one based on independent nation-states. The "new world order" involves the elimination of the sovereignty and independence of nation-states and some form of world government. This means the end of the United States of America, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights as we now know them. Most of the new world order proposals involve the conversion of the United Nations and its agencies to a world government, complete with a world army, a world parliament, a world court, global taxation, and numerous other agencies to control every aspect of human life (education, nutrition, health care, population, immigration, communications, transportation, commerce, agriculture, finance, the environment, etc.). The various notions of the "new world order" differ as to details and scale, but agree on the basic principle and substance.
"Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order [referring to the 1991 LA Riot]. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond [i.e., an "extraterrestrial" invasion], whether real or *promulgated* [emphasis mine], that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this *scenario*, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government."
Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France, 1991
"The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control.... Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent."
Congressman Larry P. McDonald, 1976, killed in the Korean Airlines 747 that was shot down by the Soviets
"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."
David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991.
"The idea was that those who direct the overall conspiracy could use the differences in those two so-called ideologies [marxism/fascism/socialism v. democracy/capitalism] to enable them [the Illuminati] to divide larger and larger portions of the human race into opposing camps so that they could be armed and then brainwashed into fighting and destroying each other."
"No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian Initiation."
David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative, United Nations
"In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interest, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press....They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers.
"An agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers."
U.S. Congressman Oscar Callaway, 1917
"The world can therefore seize the opportunity [Persian Gulf crisis] to fulfill the long-held promise of a New World Order where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind."
George Herbert Walker Bush
"In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all."
Strobe Talbot, President Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State, as quoted in Time, July 20th, l992.
"We shall have world government whether or not you like it, by conquest or consent."
Statement by Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member James Warburg to The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 17th, l950
"The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes."
Benjamin Disraeli, first Prime Minister of England, in a novel he published in 1844 called Coningsby, the New Generation
"The governments of the present day have to deal not merely with other governments, with emperors, kings and ministers, but also with the secret societies which have everywhere their unscrupulous agents, and can at the last moment upset all the governments' plans. "
British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, 1876
"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the Field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."
Woodrow Wilson,The New Freedom (1913)
"What is important is to dwell upon the increasing evidence of the existence of a secret conspiracy, throughout the world, for the destruction of organized government and the letting loose of evil."
Christian Science Monitor editorial, June 19th, l920
"The real menace of our republic is this invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over city, state and nation. Like the octopus of real life, it operates under cover of a self created screen....At the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller Standard Oil interests and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as international bankers. The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both political parties."
New York City Mayor John F. Hylan, 1922
"From the days of Sparticus, Wieskhopf, Karl Marx, Trotsky, Rosa Luxemberg, and Emma Goldman, this world conspiracy has been steadily growing. This conspiracy played a definite recognizable role in the tragedy of the French revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century. And now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their head and have become the undisputed masters of that enormous empire."
Winston Churchill, stated to the London Press, in l922.
"We are at present working discreetly with all our might to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local nation states of the world."
Professor Arnold Toynbee, in a June l931 speech before the Institute for the Study of International Affairs in Copenhagen.
"The government of the Western nations, whether monarchical or republican, had passed into the invisible hands of a plutocracy, international in power and grasp. It was, I venture to suggest, this semioccult power which....pushed the mass of the American people into the cauldron of World War I."
British military historian MajorGeneral J.F.C. Fuller, l941
"For a long time I felt that FDR had developed many thoughts and ideas that were his own to benefit this country, the United States. But, he didn't. Most of his thoughts, his political ammunition, as it were, were carefully manufactured for him in advanced by the Council on Foreign Relations-One World Money group. Brilliantly, with great gusto, like a fine piece of artillery, he exploded that prepared "ammunition" in the middle of an unsuspecting target, the American people, and thus paid off and returned his internationalist political support.
"The UN is but a long-range, international banking apparatus clearly set up for financial and economic profit by a small group of powerful One-World revolutionaries, hungry for profit and power.
"The depression was the calculated 'shearing' of the public by the World Money powers, triggered by the planned sudden shortage of supply of call money in the New York money market....The One World Government leaders and their ever close bankers have now acquired full control of the money and credit machinery of the U.S. via the creation of the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank."
Curtis Dall, FDR's son-in-law as quoted in his book, My Exploited Father-in-Law
"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson."
A letter written by FDR to Colonel House, November 21st, l933
"The real rulers in Washington are invisible, and exercise power from behind the scenes."
Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, 1952
"Fifty men have run America, and that's a high figure."
Joseph Kennedy, father of JFK, in the July 26th, l936 issue of The New York Times.
"Today the path of total dictatorship in the United States can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by the Congress, the President, or the people. Outwardly we have a Constitutional government. We have operating within our government and political system, another body representing another form of government - a bureaucratic elite."
Senator William Jenner, 1954
"The case for government by elites is irrefutable"
Senator William Fulbright, Former chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, stated at a 1963 symposium entitled: The Elite and the Electorate - Is Government by the People Possible?
"The Trilateral Commission is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical. What the Trilateral Commission intends is to create a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nationstates involved. As managers and creators of the system ,they will rule the future."
U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater in his l964 book: With No Apologies.
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements, arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the worlds' central banks which were themselves private corporations. The growth of financial capitalism made possible a centralization of world economic control and use of this power for the direct benefit of financiers and the indirect injury of all other economic groups."
Tragedy and Hope: A History of The World in Our Time (Macmillan Company, 1966,) Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University, highly esteemed by his former student, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton.
"The Council on Foreign Relations is "the establishment." Not only does it have influence and power in key decision-making positions at the highest levels of government to apply pressure from above, but it also announces and uses individuals and groups to bring pressure from below, to justify the high level decisions for converting the U.S. from a sovereign Constitutional Republic into a servile member state of a one-world dictatorship."
Former Congressman John Rarick 1971
"The directors of the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) make up a sort of Presidium for that part of the Establishment that guides our destiny as a nation."
The Christian Science Monitor, September 1, l961
"The New World Order will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down...but in the end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece will accomplish much more than the old fashioned frontal assault."
CFR member Richard Gardner, writing in the April l974 issue of the CFR's journal, Foreign Affairs.
"The planning of UN can be traced to the 'secret steering committee' established by Secretary [of State Cordell] Hull in January 1943. All of the members of this secret committee, with the exception of Hull, a Tennessee politician, were members of the Council on Foreign Relations. They saw Hull regularly to plan, select, and guide the labors of the [State] Department's Advisory Committee. It was, in effect, the coordinating agency for all the State Department's postwar planning."
Professors Laurence H. Shoup and William Minter, writing in their study of the CFR, "Imperial Brain Trust: The CFR and United States Foreign Policy." (Monthly Review Press, 1977).
"The most powerful clique in these (CFR) groups have one objective in common: they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the U.S. They want to end national boundaries and racial and ethnic loyalties supposedly to increase business and ensure world peace. What they strive for would inevitably lead to dictatorship and loss of freedoms by the people. The CFR was founded for "the purpose of promoting disarmament and submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful one-world government."
Harpers, July l958
"The old world order changed when this war-storm broke. The old international order passed away as suddenly, as unexpectedly, and as completely as if it had been wiped out by a gigantic flood, by a great tempest, or by a volcanic eruption. The old world order died with the setting of that day's sun and a new world order is being born while I speak, with birth-pangs so terrible that it seems almost incredible that life could come out of such fearful suffering and such overwhelming sorrow."
Nicholas Murray Butler, in an address delivered before the Union League of Philadelphia, Nov. 27, 1915
"The peace conference has assembled. It will make the most momentous decisions in history, and upon these decisions will rest the stability of the new world order and the future peace of the world."
M. C. Alexander, Executive Secretary of the American Association for International Conciliation, in a subscription letter for the periodical International Conciliation (1919)
"If there are those who think we are to jump immediately into a new world order, actuated by complete understanding and brotherly love, they are doomed to disappointment. If we are ever to approach that time, it will be after patient and persistent effort of long duration. The present international situation of mistrust and fear can only be corrected by a formula of equal status, continuously applied, to every phase of international contacts, until the cobwebs of the old order are brushed out of the minds of the people of all lands."
Dr. Augustus O. Thomas, president of the World Federation of Education Associations (August 1927), quoted in the book International Understanding: Agencies Educating for a New World (1931)
"... when the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people ... will hate the new world order ... and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people."
H. G. Wells, in his book entitled The New World Order (1939)
"The term Internationalism has been popularized in recent years to cover an interlocking financial, political, and economic world force for the purpose of establishing a World Government. Today Internationalism is heralded from pulpit and platform as a 'League of Nations' or a 'Federated Union' to which the United States must surrender a definite part of its National Sovereignty. The World Government plan is being advocated under such alluring names as the 'New International Order,' 'The New World Order,' 'World Union Now,' 'World Commonwealth of Nations,' 'World Community,' etc. All the terms have the same objective; however, the line of approach may be religious or political according to the taste or training of the individual."
Excerpt from A Memorial to be Addressed to the House of Bishops and the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies of the Protestant Episcopal Church in General Convention (October 1940)
"In the first public declaration on the Jewish question since the outbreak of the war, Arthur Greenwood, member without portfolio in the British War Cabinet, assured the Jews of the United States that when victory was achieved an effort would be made to found a new world order based on the ideals of 'justice and peace.'"
Excerpt from article entitled "New World Order Pledged to Jews," in The New York Times (October 1940)
"If totalitarianism wins this conflict, the world will be ruled by tyrants, and individuals will be slaves. If democracy wins, the nations of the earth will be united in a commonwealth of free peoples, and individuals, wherever found, will be the sovereign units of the new world order."
The Declaration of the Federation of the World, produced by the Congress on World Federation, adopted by the Legislatures of North Carolina (1941), New Jersey (1942), Pennsylvania (1943), and possibly other states.
"New World Order Needed for Peace: State Sovereignty Must Go, Declares Notre Dame Professor"
Title of article in The Tablet (Brooklyn) (March 1942)
"Undersecretary of State Sumner Welles tonight called for the early creation of an international organization of anti-Axis nations to control the world during the period between the armistice at the end of the present war and the setting up of a new world order on a permanent basis."
Text of article in The Philadelphia Inquirer (June 1942)
"The statement went on to say that the spiritual teachings of religion must become the foundation for the new world order and that national sovereignty must be subordinate to the higher moral law of God."
American Institute of Judaism, excerpt from article in The New York Times (December 1942)
"There are some plain common-sense considerations applicable to all these attempts at world planning. They can be briefly stated: 1. To talk of blueprints for the future or building a world order is, if properly understood, suggestive, but it is also dangerous. Societies grow far more truly than they are built. A constitution for a new world order is never like a blueprint for a skyscraper."
Norman Thomas, in his book What Is Our Destiny? (1944)
"He [John Foster Dulles] stated directly to me that he had every reason to believe that the Governor [Thomas E. Dewey of New York] accepts his point of view and that he is personally convinced that this is the policy that he would promote with great vigor if elected. So it is fair to say that on the first round the Sphinx of Albany has established himself as a prima facie champion of a strong and definite new world order."
Excerpt from article by Ralph W. Page in The Philadelphia Bulletin (May 1944)
"Alchemy for a New World Order"
Article by Stephen John Stedman in Foreign Affairs (May/June 1995)
"The United Nations, he told an audience at Harvard University, 'has not been able--nor can it be able--to shape a new world order which events so compellingly demand.' ... The new world order that will answer economic, military, and political problems, he said, 'urgently requires, I believe, that the United States take the leadership among all free peoples to make the underlying concepts and aspirations of national sovereignty truly meaningful through the federal approach.'"
Gov. Nelson Rockefeller of New York, in an article entitled "Rockefeller Bids Free Lands Unite: Calls at Harvard for Drive to Build New World Order" -- The New York Times (February 1962)
"The developing coherence of Asian regional thinking is reflected in a disposition to consider problems and loyalties in regional terms, and to evolve regional approaches to development needs and to the evolution of a new world order."
Richard Nixon, in Foreign Affairs (October 1967)
"He [President Nixon] spoke of the talks as a beginning, saying nothing more about the prospects for future contacts and merely reiterating the belief he brought to China that both nations share an interest in peace and building 'a new world order.'"
Excerpt from an article in The New York Times (February 1972)
"If instant world government, Charter review, and a greatly strengthened International Court do not provide the answers, what hope for progress is there? The answer will not satisfy those who seek simple solutions to complex problems, but it comes down essentially to this: The hope for the foreseeable lies, not in building up a few ambitious central institutions of universal membership and general jurisdiction as was envisaged at the end of the last war, but rather in the much more decentralized, disorderly and pragmatic process of inventing or adapting institutions of limited jurisdiction and selected membership to deal with specific problems on a case-by-case basis ... In short, the 'house of world order' will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great 'booming, buzzing confusion,' to use William James' famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault."
Richard N. Gardner, in Foreign Affairs (April 1974)
"The existing order is breaking down at a very rapid rate, and the main uncertainty is whether mankind can exert a positive role in shaping a new world order or is doomed to await collapse in a passive posture. We believe a new order will be born no later than early in the next century and that the death throes of the old and the birth pangs of the new will be a testing time for the human species."
Richard A. Falk, in an article entitled "Toward a New World Order: Modest Methods and Drastic Visions," in the book On the Creation of a Just World Order (1975)
"My country's history, Mr. President, tells us that it is possible to fashion unity while cherishing diversity, that common action is possible despite the variety of races, interests, and beliefs we see here in this chamber. Progress and peace and justice are attainable. So we say to all peoples and governments: Let us fashion together a new world order."
Henry Kissinger, in address before the General Assembly of the United Nations, October 1975)
"At the old Inter-American Office in the Commerce Building here in Roosevelt's time, as Assistant Secretary of State for Latin American Affairs under President Truman, as chief whip with Adlai Stevenson and Tom Finletter at the founding of the United Nations in San Francisco, Nelson Rockefeller was in the forefront of the struggle to establish not only an American system of political and economic security but a new world order."
Part of article in The New York Times (November 1975)
"A New World Order"
Title of article on commencement address at the University of Pennsylvania by Hubert H. Humphrey, printed in the Pennsylvania Gazette (June 1977)
"Further global progress is now possible only through a quest for universal consensus in the movement towards a new world order."
Mikhail Gorbachev, in an address at the United Nations (December 1988)
"We believe we are creating the beginning of a new world order coming out of the collapse of the U.S.-Soviet antagonisms."
Brent Scowcroft (August 1990), quoted in The Washington Post (May 1991)
"We can see beyond the present shadows of war in the Middle East to a new world order where the strong work together to deter and stop aggression. This was precisely Franklin Roosevelt's and Winston Churchill's vision for peace for the post-war period."
Richard Gephardt, in The Wall Street Journal (September 1990)
"If we do not follow the dictates of our inner moral compass and stand up for human life, then his lawlessness will threaten the peace and democracy of the emerging new world order we now see, this long dreamed-of vision we've all worked toward for so long."
President George Bush (January 1991)
"But it became clear as time went on that in Mr. Bush's mind the New World Order was founded on a convergence of goals and interests between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, so strong and permanent that they would work as a team through the U.N. Security Council."
Excerpt from A. M. Rosenthal, in The New York Times (January 1991)
"I would support a Presidential candidate who pledged to take the following steps: ... At the end of the war in the Persian Gulf, press for a comprehensive Middle East settlement and for a 'new world order' based not on Pax Americana but on peace through law with a stronger U.N. and World Court."
George McGovern, in The New York Times (February 1991)
"... it's Bush's baby, even if he shares its popularization with Gorbachev. Forget the Hitler 'new order' root; F.D.R. used the phrase earlier."
William Safire, in The New York Times (February 1991)
"How I Learned to Love the New World Order"
Article by Sen. Joseph R. Biden, Jr. in The Wall Street Journal (April 1992)
"How to Achieve The New World Order"
Title of book excerpt by Henry Kissinger, in Time magazine (March 1994)
"The Final Act of the Uruguay Round, marking the conclusion of the most ambitious trade negotiation of our century, will give birth - in Morocco - to the World Trade Organization, the third pillar of the New World Order, along with the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund."
Part of full-page advertisement by the government of Morocco in The New York Times (April 1994)
"New World Order: The Rise of the Region-State"
Title of article by Kenichi Ohmae, political reform leader in Japan, in The Wall Street Journal (August 1994)
"The new world order that is in the making must focus on the creation of a world of democracy, peace and prosperity for all."
Nelson Mandela, in The Philadelphia Inquirer (October 1994)
The renewal of the nonproliferation treaty was described as important "for the welfare of the whole world and the new world order."
President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, in The New York Times (April 1995)
The 45 Goals of Communism
The forty-five "communist goals" listed below appeared in the Congressional Record of January 10, 1963. In both WWI and WWII the American Government fought on the side of the Communists.
Despite the "cold war" that followed, the goals of the communists were steadfastly imposed upon the American people. Ask yourself Americans, what kind of leaders have you elected?
How could it be that Americans so blindly followed corrupted politicians?
How can Americans even assume that they are still a free people? Men who elieve that they are free when in reality they are mere slaves are to be pitied more than those who know that they are slaves.
These 45 communist goals are a matter of public record. Wake up people, wake up and see to it that your fellow citizens wake up also! Those hiddeous men who have sold out the entire American contintent and its people have made their goals "current". Read them here now:
1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.
43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.
24 Reasons to Oppose NATO
(1) NATO is a creature of the Cold War and should be abolished, not expanded.
(2) NATO's official military doctrine reserves for itself the right to use nuclear weapons despite the fact that in 1996 the World Court made such use, or threat, illegal. NATO's "first use" nuclear weapons policy means it is willing to use nuclear weapons even when none have been used against them. The use of nuclear weapons contravenes International Humanitarian Law because civilian deaths would be massive and indiscriminate. NATO's nuclear weapons also pose the risk of environmental catastrophe, including the global holocaust of "nuclear winter." NATO's nuclear weapons policy also contravenes the Nonproliferation Treaty (to which all NATO members are signatories) that requires all states to press quickly to abolish nuclear weapons. NATO member states (US, UK and France) now have more than 9,000 nuclear warheads in active service, about 60% of the world's nuclear arsenal. These three NATO states have committed some of their nuclear weapons to NATO for its use in war. NATO itself maintains between 60 and 200 nuclear weapons at airbases in Western Europe. NATO's nuclear weapons and the threat of their use are a means of coercion and intimidation, especially against states that do not possess these weapons.
(3) NATO's powerful core members (the U.S., the U.K., France, Germany, Holland, Belgium and Spain) have a long history of controlling vast empires. Former colonies of these NATO countries -- today's Third World -- still suffer from tragic economic inequalities resulting from hundreds of years of imperialism imposed by nations that are now members of NATO. Transnational corporations controlled by economic interests in NATO countries continue to dominate these former colonies under a neoliberal economic system now labeled "corporate globalization."
(4) According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, about 80% of the world's total military equipment was produced by NATO members in 1996. The following NATO members are among the world's top ten military producers: the U.S., the U.K., France, Germany, Italy and Canada. The U.S., U.K. and France alone contributed about 70% of world's total arms production for that year.
(5) After the disappearance of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, NATO became increasingly irrelevant and needed a reason for its continued existence. NATO therefore escalated its efforts to foment ethnic wars in the Balkans in order to create excuses for its own military interventions in the region. NATO's interventions -- so-called "humanitarian wars" -- were then sold to the public as a means of settling conflicts between ethnic groups. NATO's real purpose is to expand the colonial spheres of influence of its member states and their corporate allies.
(6) NATO waged a war of aggression against Yugoslavia that was illegal under its own Charter and various international laws.
(7) NATO forces used 1,200 warplanes and helicopters to fly 35,000 combat missions against Yugoslavia. It dropped 20,000 bombs and missiles containing 80,000 tons of explosives on that country. Contrary to international law, NATO targeted civilian infrastructure, including over 1,000 targets of no military significance, such as: schools, hospitals, farms, bridges, roads, railways, waterlines, media stations, historic and cultural monuments, museums, factories, oil refineries and petrochemical plants.
(8) NATO's illegal bombing campaign severely impacted the health of Yugoslavia's civilian population. Thousands of civilians were killed, at least 6,000 were injured and countless others, especially children, suffered severe psychological trauma.
(9) According to the UN Environmental Program, NATO's bombing campaign triggered an ecological catastrophe in Yugoslavia and the surrounding region.
(10) In its war against Yugoslavia, NATO used weapons that are prohibited by the Hague and Geneva Conventions and the Nuremburg Charter, such as depleted uranium missiles that are radioactive and highly toxic weapons with long-term, life-threatening health and environmental consequences, and anti-personnel cluster bombs designed to kill and maim (that contravene the "Ottawa Process on Landmines" because many "bomblets" do not explode during initial impact). NATO continues to stockpile these prohibited weapons for use against civilian populations in future wars.
(11) After its bombing of Yugoslavia, NATO refused to disarm the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) as required by United Nations resolution 1244. Instead, NATO converted the KLA into the Kosovo Protection Force supposedly to maintain peace and order in NATO-controlled Kosovo. Under the watchful eye of 40,000 NATO troops, the revamped KLA terrorists ethnically cleansed the area of 250,000 people who were not of Albanian heritage (as well as some ethnic Albanians loyal to Yugoslavia). During NATO's occupation, 1,300 citizens have been killed and another 1,300 have been reported missing. Kosovo's remaining minorities have no freedom of movement, live in ghettoes and face frequent terrorist attacks and property destruction.
(12) NATO appointed Agim Ceku, an alleged war criminal, as commander of the Kosovo Protection Force. Ceku, an Albanian Kosovar, led the Croatian army's "Operation Storm" that ethnically cleansed the Serbian population from their ancestral lands in Croatia. If the Hague were to pursue an indictment of Ceku, and other such terrorists, it would be a major embarrassment to their NATO bosses.
(13) As an occupying colonial power, NATO forces helped to enforce the cancellation of election results in Bosnia, shut down the offices and transmission towers of media stations that were critical of NATO's presence and seized the assets of political parties that refused to cooperate with them.
(14) The exploitative behavior rampant in military culture is exemplified by the actions of NATO troops based in the Balkans. For example, NATO troops fuel the demand for prostitution in both Bosnia and Kosovo. The women who service NATO troops live in deplorable conditions and are frequently held against their will by local captors. When evidence of UN or NATO involvement in this trade has surfaced, implicated officers have been discharged and sent home but no criminal proceedings have ever been initiated against them.
(15) NATO has been a prime source of destabilization in Macedonia by giving military assistance to Albanian terrorists there. The London Times (June 10, 2001) reported that NATO's appointee to the Kosovo Protection Force, Agim Ceku, sent 800 KLA troops to Macedonia to aid the nascent Albanian insurgency there. This June, NATO troops intervened to evacuate KLA fighters when Macedonian forces closed in on the rebels near Aracinovo. German media reports state that NATO's evacuation was ordered because 17 former U.S. military personnel -- hardened by years of Balkan fighting and working for a private U.S. mercenary group -- were among the KLA terrorists. NATO has also used diplomatic means to pressure the Macedonian government to succumb to Albanian demands.
(16) NATO's aggressive policy of expansion into Eastern Europe severely threatens international stability. With NATO's annexation of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland now complete, Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia have declared an interest in joining the NATO juggernaut. NATO has also set its sights on penetrating even further into former Soviet spheres of influence by trying to encompass Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan and the Ukraine. NATO's intention to press beyond the former borders of the Soviet Union is dangerously confrontational and risks provoking war with Russia.
(17) NATO's expansion into Central and Eastern Europe is a means of integrating the military forces within those countries under NATO (and largely U.S.) control As military units within NATO, the armed forces of new NATO member states must submit to demands for standardization of military training, weapons and other military equipment. Requirements that new members standardize their military equipment to NATO's exacting specifications is a tremendous boon to U.S. and European military industries that profit greatly from these expanded export markets.
(18) New NATO member states may also lose sovereignty over other important aspects of their armed forces, such as the command, control, communications and intelligence functions, which also risk being subsumed under the auspices of NATO standardization.
(19) The reasons for NATO's expansion eastward are largely economic. For instance, NATO's military access and control over Eastern Europe helps Western European corporations to secure strategic energy resources such as oil from the Caspian Sea and Central Asia. The U.S. and Western European corporations will greatly benefit from NATO's control of the oil corridor through the Caucasus mountains. NATO wants its troops to patrol this pipeline and to dominate the Armenian/Russian route to the Caspian Sea. The Caucasus also link the Adriatic-Ceyhan-Baku pipeline with oil-rich countries even farther east, in the former Soviet Central Asia republics of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Billions of dollars in oil may someday flow through these corridors to Western Europe for the benefit of Western-based oil companies.
(20) NATO's growth is not only a provocation to Russia, it also threatens the security of China and other Asian states that may respond in kind by increasing their military spending, thus diverting resources from the essential needs of their citizens. NATO's expansion may eventually provoke an anti-NATO alliance in Asia, further destabilizing peace and leading to possible future wars.
(21) As part of the "NATO Defence Capabilities Initiative," NATO member states have committed themselves to increase their military abilities for "power projection, mobility and increased interoperability." This will require significant additional military expenditures. European NATO countries have already increased their expenditures for military equipment by 11% in real terms since 1995. Meanwhile, military budgets in the U.S. and Canada have also increased over the past two years. The military budgets of NATO countries amounted to about 60% of the world's total military spending (US$798 billion) for the year 2000. Rather than focusing on such genuinely humanitarian priorities as providing food, housing, health care, education, environmental protection and public transportation for their populations and the rest of the world, NATO is intent on increasing their military budgets for future interventions even farther afield.
(22) The testing and training conducted by NATO to prepare for war, also has numerous negative impacts on people and the environment. NATO's war preparations include military exercises, the training of pilots and the testing of weapons and warplanes. For instance, low level flight training areas and bombing ranges in Nitassinan threaten the traditional lifestyle of many in the Innu Nation. Their unceded territory in Quebec and Labrador is being turned into a military wasteland by NATO test flights. NATO nations also carry out dangerous bombing practices on Vieques Island, off Puerto Rico.
(23) In the late 1940s-early 1950s, at the bidding of the CIA, NATO helped to set up secret paramilitary, anti-communist cells in at least 16 European states. Originally called Operation "Stay Behind," this network of guerrilla armies was created to fight behind the lines in case of a Soviet invasion. It was codified under the umbrella of the Clandestine Co-ordinating Committee of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (which became NATO). These clandestine armies were condemned by the European Union in a resolution (Dec. 22, 1990) that blamed the CIA and NATO for their 40 year role in overseeing this covert operation. Widely known by the code name for the Italian campaign (i.e., "Operation Gladio") these organizations, which the EU feared may still have been operating in 1990, were accused of illegal interference in political affairs, conducting terrorist attacks, jeopardizing democratic structures and other serious crimes.
(24) Key NATO representatives have interfered with internal electoral/political developments in Europe. Although recent elections in Albania were fraught with irregularities and fraud (ballot box stuffing, ghost voters, selective disenfranchisement) NATO General Secretary George Robertson pronounced the election fair and legitimate. Earlier this year, another NATO spokesperson openly threatened that if the Movement for a Democratic Slovakia (the party of former premier Vladimir Meciar) entered a coalition government, Slovakia would not be welcomed into NATO or allowed early European Union membership.
NATOs Terror Campaign
NATOs "victory" over what remains of Yugoslavia offers even less cause for patriotic celebration than the Spanish-American War. The U.S.-led terror campaign against Yugoslavia pitted the massed assets of the worlds largest and wealthiest nations against a country the size of Vermont,
whose gross domestic product is smaller than that of Idaho. Compounding this indecency is the fact that the NATO leadership collective chose not to engage the military assets of our "enemy," but instead focused on Yugoslavias civilian population in what has to be considered an act of international terrorism.
According to Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK), who was a bomber pilot in World War II, it is perverse even to refer to the campaign against Yugoslavia as a war. "They never came to war with us," Senator Stevens told reporters at a Washington, DC breakfast meeting in early July. "We just bombed the hell out of them until they signed an agreement. We had 780 million people [in the NATO alliance] attacking 20 million people, and they finally came to their knees.... [After] defeating 20 million people the way we defeated them, I dont think thats something we should go around holding our head high in the air [about] and saying were superior...."
"They Needed Some Bombing"
The chief author of the Yugoslav terror campaign was Bill Clinton, and the effort displayed his distinctive combination of arrogance, mendacity, cowardice, and bullying. In a videotaped speech broadcast into Serbia the day after the war began, the impeached President insisted: "I cannot emphasize too strongly that the United States and our European allies have no quarrel with the Serbian people.... The NATO nations have tried to avert this conflict through every means we knew to be available. Each of us has ties to Serbia. Each respects the dignity and courage of the Serb people.... I call on all Serbs and all people of good will to join with us in seeking an end to this needless and avoidable conflict."
Given that the source of these statements was Bill Clinton, it is not surprising that they are mostly penetrable lies all except for the description of the war as "needless and avoidable." As has been previously noted in these pages ("Why the Bombing?" July 19th issue), "Appendix B" of the Rambouillet "peace" agreement amounted to an ultimatum, demanding that the Serbian government submit to the occupation of its country by an international "peacekeeping" force. During the Rambouillet conference, one Clinton Administration official explained to reporters: "We intentionally set the bar too high for the Serbs to comply. They needed some bombing, and thats what theyre going to get."
After the 78-day bombing campaign, with much of Serbias infrastructure including bridges, hospitals, schools, and power plants in ruins, Mr. Clinton announced that Serbia would be excluded from a proposed Balkan reconstruction program. "What the Serbian people decide to do, of course, is their own affair," stated the President in a June 25th press conference. "But theyre going to have to come to grips with what Mr. Milosevic ordered in Kosovo. Theyre just going to have to come to grips with it. And theyre going to have to get out of denial.... And then theyre going to have to decide whether they support his leadership or not."
Invoking the image of "all those tens of thousands of people
killed, and all those hundreds of thousands of people [who] were run out of their homes
all those little girls [who] were raped, and all those little boys [who] were murdered" by Serb forces in Kosovo, Mr. Clinton concluded: "If [the Serb people] think its okay, they can make that decision. But I wouldnt give them one red cent for reconstruction if they think its okay, because I dont think its okay, and I dont think thats the world were trying to build for our children."
In other words, it appears that Mr. Clinton does have a "quarrel" with the Serb people, whom he insists on holding accountable for the actions of Slobodan Milosevics regime. Mr. Clintons statements presuppose that the calculated destruction of Serbias civilian economy and infrastructure is justified by atrocities allegedly committed by that nations government against Albanians in Kosovo. Nothing in U.S. law or in Western just war tradition supports the notion that it is right to "punish" an evil ruler by terrorizing and slaughtering his subjects. Furthermore, the parade of atrocities cited by Mr. Clinton has proven to be largely a work of embellishment, if not outright propaganda.
This is not to say that the Serbian paramilitary and regular Army units deployed in Kosovo are blameless. Ben Works, head of the Strategic Research Institute of the United States (a private intelligence consulting firm), who has analyzed Balkan affairs for more than a decade, told The New American: "Its pretty clear that there is a pattern of war crimes by Serb forces in Kosovo. Its by no means of the magnitude that NATO officials have suggested, and there have been plenty of outrages committed by all sides including NATO. But it would be dishonest to say that the Serb forces in Kosovo are completely innocent."
Canadian photojournalist Paul Watson was one of the few Western reporters who covered the Kosovo tragedy on-site. In an interview with CBC radios As It Happens program, Watson testified: "I have spoken personally to people who have been ordered to leave their homes by police in black. Ive also spoken to people who are simply terrified.... I dont think that NATO member countries can, with a straight face, sit back and say they dont share some of the blame for the wholesale depopulation of this country." While Serb forces were doing some terrible things, Watson explained, there was no evidence of systematic, genocidal "cleansing." "It is very hard to hide an anarchic wholesale slaughter of people," he pointed out. "There is no evidence that such a thing happened" in Kosovo.
Watsons account was corroborated by a July 2nd USA Today front-page story documenting that the casualty and refugee figures as well as the lurid atrocity accounts peddled by NATO and Clinton Administration mouthpieces during the 78-day war "now appear greatly exaggerated as allied forces take control of the provinces.... Instead of 100,000 ethnic Albanian men feared murdered by rampaging Serbs, officials now estimate that about 10,000 were killed." How many of those victims perished as a result of the NATO bombing campaign, we may never know.
In a May speech before a veterans group, Mr. Clinton asserted that 600,000 ethnic Albanians were "trapped within Kosovo itself lacking shelter, short of food, afraid to go home, or buried in mass graves dug by their executioners." In fact, reported USA Today, "Though thousands [of Albanian men] hid in Kosovo, they are healthy." Additionally, "Kosovos livestock, wheat, and other crops are growing, not slaughtered wholesale or torched as widely reported." "Yes, there were atrocities," commented House Intelligence Committee Chairman Porter Goss (R-FL). "But no, they dont measure up to the advance billing."
Bill Clintons allusion to accounts of "little girls" being raped a singularly audacious charge, coming as it did from a plausibly accused rapist also embroiders the facts that are becoming available. In the Kosovo conflict, as in nearly every other military struggle, the tragedy of rape was a tangible reality. However, as Lori Montgomery of the Sydney Morning Herald reported in a July 3rd dispatch from Prizren, there is no evidence of "systematic" rape conducted by Serb forces. Such rape as did occur was "a vicious aberration among Serb forces, an opportunistic act perpetrated by the mean and the drunken who tried to hide it from their superiors."
Further complicating efforts for Bill Clinton and others who wish to depict the Serbs as genocidalists is the fact that no threat was made to evict or exterminate Belgrades population of 100,000 ethnic Albanians; the only threat they faced came from NATOs bombing runs. Furthermore, the Yugoslav government actually provided weapons to loyalist ethnic Albanians in Kosovo.
By way of contrast, NATOs leadership collective has shown little concern over the "ethnic cleansing" campaign being waged against Serbs in Kosovo under the leadership of the Marxist Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). While many Kosovo Albanians are exacting revenge against specific Se