Archive - UN
intervention in the domestic turmoil in Somalia and Haiti.

6. The UN is building its own army to enforce its will. In 1992, UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, fulfilling a directive from the UN Secretary Council, unveiled An Agenda for Peace, a plan to strengthen UN "peacekeeping" capabilities. The plan calls for armed forces to be made available to the UN "on a permanent basis." It ominously warns, "The time of absolute and exclusive sovereignty has passed" and proceeds to name a long list of "risks for stability" that would be used to justify use of the "permanent" UN army to enforece its will. Incredibly, U.S. leaders are using American's military to pave the way for this UN army. In Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, and elswhere, foreign UN commanders have controlled our troops.

Even more incredibly, it has been the official policy of the U.S. government since 1961 to disarm America and create a UN army. This policy concludes: "progressive controlled disarmament would proceed to teh point where no nation would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened UN Peace Force."
(State Dept. publication 7277: Freedom From War.)

7. The UN doesn't settle disputes - it makes them worse! Our Ambassador to the UN in 1982, although a UN supporter, admitted, "The UN has become an arena in which countries are drawn into problems they might never have become involved in."

Ask yourself: Should Seychelles or Benin or Guyana or Barbads have to take sides in a clash that breaks out on the other side of the world? When centuries-old animosities erupt in the former Yugoslavia, why does the UN inject its presence with troops, blockades, bombing, and a parade of speeches? American troops serving as globocops for the UN become targets for criminals and terrorists. In 1983, 241 U.S. Marines were blown to bits at the Beirut airport. Five years later, a U.S. Marine Lieutenant Colonel was kidnapped and eventually murdered by Arab terrorists while in a UN unit in Lebanon (he was unarmed - as required by the UN). The UN "peacekeeping mission" in Somalia cost the lives of another 36 Americans in 1993.

8. The UN ignores Communist atrocitiess but targets non-Communist nations and leaders. When Soviet tanks rolled into Hungary in the 1950s, when the Chinese Communists were murdering Tibetans in the 1960s, when the Soviets were butchering civilians in Afganistan in the 1970s and 1980s, when Chechnya was brutalized by the Russians in the 1990s. THE UN DID NOTHING!

But the UN declared tiny Rhodesia "a threat to international peace" in the 1960s, enabling pro-communist terrorist Robert Mugabe to seize power. And it was a UN-led campaign that brought self-described Communist and convicted terrorist Nelson Mandela to power in South Africa in the 1990s.

9. The UN embraces Communist China - history's most murderous criminal regime. In 1949, anti-Communist Nationalist China, one of the UN's founding members, was forced from the mainland to Taiwan by the Communists. In 1971, the UN expelled Taiwan and embraced the brutal Red Chinese goverment - a governemt responsible for over 35 million murders. When the vote admitting Red Chin was announced, UN delegates danced in the aisles to show their contempt for America and their joy at the triumph of Red China.

10. The UN is a moral cesspool filled with perverts and fat cats. In 1993, the UN Economic and Social Council granted consultant status to the International Gay and Lesbian Association which includes the North American Man/Boy Love Association (advocates of child molestation) and the Dutch group Vereniging Martijn (which also promotes use of children as sex objects).

In 1988, the top Belgian UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) official was one of a group convicted of running a child sex ring. Moral bankruptcy is commonplace in UN operations. In Zimbabwe, UNICEF-donated equipment helped terrorists seize power. In Vietnam, the Communists received $13 million from UNICEF while untold thousands of boat people fled for their lives.

Far Cats? UN employees are paid 40% more than comparable U.S. workers and have subsidized rent. An ex-UNICEF official confirmed that "pampered and cosseted staffs" of various aid agencies "absorb 80% of all UN expenditures."

11. American supplies the money, the UN then finances tyrants and assorted enamies of the U.S., and conditions in the nations "aided" grow worse. U.S. taxpayers pay 25% of the UN budget plus 31% of the UN special-agency budgets. Additional billions of our dollars go to the IMF, World Bank, and other UN related lending agencies where they have been used for incredibly wasteful and subversive UN projects. (Not suprising since these agencies were designed by Soviet agent Harry Dexter White and Fabian Socialist John Maynard Keynes.)

Solialist International spokesman Hilary Marquand aptly described the IMF as "in essence a Socialist conception." World Bank "aid" funds went to brutal Marxist dictator Mengistu while he was causing large-scale starvation and death in Ethiopia; to Tanzanian dictator Julius Nyerere as he drove peasants off their land and burned their huts; and to the Vietnamese Communists, sending thousands of boat people into the sea. Even Newsweek magazine concluded that the UN's foreign aid programs tend "to prop up incompetent goverments or subsidize economies so they can never stand on their own."

12. The UN is a war organisation, NOT a peace organisation, Article 42 of the UN Charter claims authority to "take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security." But the UN definition of "peace" is never given. Tyrannical regimes throughout history have defined "peace" as the absence of all opposition.

To achieve "peace" in Katanga in 1961, UN planes bombed hospitals, schools, administrative buildings, and private home. Katanga was an anti-Communist province of the Belgian Congo seeking freedom from the Communist-controlled central government. The UN is not now, and has never been, a peace organisation. It will use whatever military power it is given to force all nations of the world to submit.

(in the jargon of the Rockefeller-Carnegie founded and funded UN, "PEACE" is, and always has been - an absence of opposition to Communism.)

5. The UN Charter outlines the path to worl tyranny. After giving lip service about not intervening "in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state...," the UN Charter continues, "but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII."

Chapter VII discusses sanctions and boycotts, but if these are decided to "be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security." The UN used this broad assertion of authority as the pretext for its armed
Our Global Neighbourhood - the report of the Commision on Global Governance
The Commision report recommends:
--- National governance and law are no longer adequate.
--- Global governance is needed, with global vote on use of all resources, regardless of location or ownership. Nations will continue to exist only as figureheads.

--- All external and internal actions of a "nation", and its population, must comply with U.N. directives, regardless of their effect on the nation.

--- Failure to comply subjects the nation to U.N. "intervention", including armed occupation troops.

--- No nation may permit emigration or immigration without UN approval.

--- The "veto" right, given in the original UN charter, must be eliminated.

The U.S. is required to eliminate its nuclear-weapons, and all weapons of "mass destruction" that are not under the U.N. control. Military force as a legitimate political instrument is reserved for the UN National military capabilities beyond small arms are considered a threat. Possession of weapons by private citizens is prohibited. We are to finance a Demilitarization Fund to provide assistance to developing countries in reducing their military commitments.

We are to finance the IMF International Monetary Fund, in contering destabilizing shocks, is constrained by limited resources. A start must be made in establishing schemes of global financing of global purposes, including charges for the use of global resources such as flight lanes, sea-lanes,, and ocean fishing areas and the collection of global revenues agreed globally and implemented by treaty.

An international tax on foreign currency transactions should be explored as one option, as should the creation of an international corporate tax base among multinational companies. It is time for the evolution of a consensus on the concept of global taxation for servicing the needs of the global neighbourhood. The rules and sense of order, such as policing and justice, financial stability, or environmental protection; generally come from government. The same responsibility applies at an international level. The United Nations and its membership are now facts of life, and compulsory jurisdiction of the World Court should be enforced.

The Economic Security Council (ESC) will continuously assess the overall state of the world economy and the interaction between major policy areas; provide a long- term strategic policy framework in order to promote stable, balanced, and sustainable development; secure consistency between the policy goals of the major international organizations, particularly the Bretton Woods bodies and the World Trade Organization (WTO); and give political leadership and promote consensus on international economic issues. Radical debt reduction is needed for heavily indebted low-income countries.

"We support the European Union's carbon tax proposal on burning fossil fuels, while declaring that all carbon removing processes (i.e. plants and other natural processes) belong to the U.N. Permanent Security Council membership limited to five countries that derive their primacy from events fifty years ago is unacceptable; so is the veto by the U.S. We propose a process of reform in two stages.

First, a new class of five 'standing' members who will retain membership to the second stage of the reform process should be established. They will be selected by the General Assembly and we envisage two from industrial countries (to pay for everything) and one each from Africa, Asia, and Latin America (to make demands). The number of non- permanent members should be raised from ten to thirteen, and the number of votes required for a decision of the Council raised from nine to fourteen. To facilitate the phasing out of the veto, the permanent members should enter into a concordat agreeing to forgo its use save in circumstances they consider to be of an exceptional and overriding nature...

The second stage should be a full review of the membership of the Council, including these arrangements, around 2005, when the veto can be phased out; the position of the permanent members will then also be reviewed, and account taken of new circumstances - including the growing strength of regional bodies.

It is not fair, for example, for the developed countries, which contain 20 percent of the population, to use 80 percent of the natural resources. It is not fair for the permanent members of the Security Council to have the right of veto. In general, it is not fair for one segment of the population to be rich while another segment of the population is poor. The right to earn a fair living implies that there must be some kind of a job available from which people may earn their living.

Under the auspices of a new Economic Security Council, which we will discuss later, the Commission would give the UN responsibility for seeing that all people would have "an opportunity to earn a fair living". The Commission sees pollution of the global atmosphere and the depletion of ocean fisheries as inadequacies of global governance.

We propose, therefore, that the Trusteeship Council.(U.N.) given the mandate of exercising trusteeship over the global commons. Its functions would include the administration of environmental treaties.... It would refer any economic or security issues arising from these matters to the Economic Security Council or the Security Council."

Trusteeship over the global commons provides the basis to levy user fees, taxes and royalties for permits to use the global commons. Global commons are defined to be: "the atmosphere, outer space, the oceans, and the related environment and life-support systems that contribute to the support of human life." This broad definition of the global commons would give the UN authority to deal with environmental matters inside the borders of sovereign states, and on privately owned property.
The U.N. Millennium Assembly
Beginning on Saturday, 2 September 2000 the United Nations Millennium Assembly plans to celebrate the emergence of the new One World Government (OWG) under the U.N.

This particular UN assembly will be the largest gathering of heads of states ever assembled in the history of the world. This assembly has been carefully designed to change the world forever and will set the world on a course of global governance under the authority of the United Nations.

The new scheme of global governance will empower, and
fund, the United Nations to be the supreme governmental authority on the planet. Selected NGOs (non-government organizations), called civil society, will take their place as both representatives of the people, and implementors of U.N. policies. More than 130 international organisations, called IGOs (inter-governmental organisations), will be consolidated as direct administrative agencies of the new U.N. system. National governments will become administrative units, reporting through the appropriate IGOs, to the supreme authority of the U.N. (So MPs will just be civil servants, not our representatives.)

In light of the above actions planned by the U.N., issues (domestic and otherwise) now being debated (Ulster, pensions) are of no little or no consequence, because in every case, without exception, the various and sundry United Nations plans will over-ride every situation now being debated. So the much-reported debates, the Good Friday photocalls, etc.are just a diversion to make us think our government still has some powers.

The overall theme of the September Assembly is "The United Nations in the 21st Century", with proposed sub-topics:

Peace and security, including disarmament
Development, including poverty eradication
Human rights
Strengthening the U.N.

The Assembly is seen as "an opportunity to spur new political momentum for the international co-operation and solidarity that the peoples of the world increasingly demand.". When you look at other themes proposed for discussion, the changes will affect every aspect of our lives, and democracy will be dead. We shall be mere pawns controlled by the U.N. (and the bankers), by means of the press and TV.

The report of the Secretary-General May 1999 included 19 proposals. A blueprint was published by the Commission on Global Governance in 1995. Now a Charter for Global Democracy was made available to the public (with no fanfare!) on UN Day, October 24 1999. This has already been signed by influential leaders in 56 nations - so has someone signed the UK into all this? If so, who signed? The document is, in reality, a charter for the abolition of individual freedom. In the European Union our vote is one in 350 million, but in the UN it will be one in 5 or 6 billion!

The Charter for Global Democracy contains 12 Principles:

1. The consolidation of all international agencies under the direct authority of the U.N.
2. The regulation by the UN of all transnational corporations and financial institutions, requiring an 'international code of conduct' concerning the environment and labour standards.
3. Establishment of an independent source of revenue for the UN, such as the "Tobin tax" [tax on currency dealings] and taxes on aircraft and shipping fuels, and licensing the use of the global commons. The "global commons" are defined to be 'outer space, the atmosphere, non-territorial seas, and the related environment that supports human life'.
4. Elimination of the veto power and permanent member status on the Security Council.
5. A standing UN army.
6. UN registration of all arms and the reduction of all national armies "as part of a multilateral global security system" under the authority of the UN.
7. Individual and national compliance with all UN "Human Rights" treaties and declarations.
8. An International Criminal Court, making the International Court of Justice compulsory for all nations, and giving individuals the right to petition the courts to remedy social injustice.
9. A new institution to establish economic and environmental security by ensuring "sustainable development".
10. The establishment of an International Environmental Court.
11. A declaration that climate change is an essential global security interest that requires the creation of a "high level action team" to allocate carbon emission based on equal per-capita rights.
12. The cancellation of all debt owed by the poorest nations, global poverty reductions, and for "equitable sharing of global resources", as allocated by the United Nations.

If influential people of 56 nations have already signed up to this, they have done so with no referenda and seemingly without the electorate even knowing about it, or it would have filtered through to the world press. (Or would it?). Most of these Principles would require a referendum for each one. The bureaucracy in the European Union is bad enough, with fraud rising up from 5 bn to 6+ billion. The potential for fraud in this UN monolith is limitless and will be uncontrollable.

The Secretary-General in his May 1999 report called for "further intensified discussions" but these must all be secret, behind closed doors, and unknown to the unsuspecting public, because they are getting no publicity on TV etc..

We shall have a General Election in May 2001 if not before. Before that, there is a conference in Nice in December that will hammer the final nails into the coffin of our sovereignty and freedom, but before THAT comes this Millennium Assembly with its all-embracing Charter. Arrogant, powerful know-alls suffering from mind-boggling hubris, have decided they can run the world. Any government that runs just one country well right now will be doing well, never mind running the whole world.
membership in the United Nations poses a very real threat to our survival as a free and independent nation. Britain is even more damaged as it is part of The European Union and has already effectively lost control over its law & its decision making, its Parliament can not effectively govern Britain as it has been subjugated to the European Union.

Let us just concern ourselves here with the UN - here are some very good reasons for YOU to be very concerned - in the UK or the USA:

1. The UN's basic philosophy is pro-totalitarian... The USA Declaration of Independence proclaims the "self-evident" truth that "men... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights."

But, in its Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the UN implies that it grants rights, and then repeatedly claims power "as provided by law" to cancel them out of existence. If any goverment can place restrictions on such fundamental rights as freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms, freedoms of the press, association, movement, and religion, soon there will be no such freedoms.

2. The UN was founded by Communists and CFR members whose common goal was a socialist WORLD GOVERMENT. Sixteen key U.S. officials who shaped policies leading to the creation of the UN were later exposed in sworn testimony as secret Communists. These included: Alger Hiss, cheif planner of the 1945 founding conference, and the assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Harry Dexter White. The Soviet Union under Stalin and the entire Communist Party USA apparatus worked tirelessly to launch the UN. Since its beginning in 1921, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has always worked for world government. The key CFR founder, Edward Mandell House, in his book, Philip Dru: Administor, called for "Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx..."

3. The UN has always chosen socialist one-worlders for leaders. The Secretary-General at the UN founding conference was Soviet spy Alger Hiss. He was followed as Secretary-General (amongst others) by Burmese Marxist U Thant, Austrian former Nazi Kurt Waldheim.

Each has consistently used the full resources of the UN to promote Communist and socialist causes around the world. The Socialist International (which proudly traces its origins to the First internationalists headed by Karl Marx) which today claims millions of members in 54 countries. At its 1962 Congress, it declared: "The ultimate objective of the parties of the Socialist International is nothing less than WORLD GOVERNMENT.... Membership of the United Nations must be made universal..."

4. The UN seeks power to control the environment, population, children.... the WORLD! Both the 1972 UN Environmental Program and the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development laid plans to whip up widespread environmental concerns (some exaggerated, many completely fabricated).

These concerns would then be used as justification for increasing UN authority on environmental issues. The statements and publications of these UN programs leave little doubt that their goal is a WORLD GOVERMENT with power to cancel national sovereignty, regulate economic activity, and control the human race all, of course, under the banner of "protecting the environment."

this is PROBLEM - REACTION - SOLUTION at its nastiest.

In late 1994, UN planners meeting in Egypt approved a 20-year, $17 billion plan to "STABALIZE" the worlds population. The UN's goal is to reduce population selectively by encouraging abortion, sterilization, and controlled human breeding.

Who knows what else they'll either think of, cover up, release of let go un-noticed!
"To achieve One World Government it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, their loyalty to family traditions and national identification."
Brock Chisolm, when director of UN World Health Organisation

More and more Americans are coming to the chilling realization that U.S.