The Plan to Have the UN Rule
by John F. McManus
President, The John Birch Society

The very first purpose claimed for the United Nations in Article 1 of the UN Charter reads as follows: "To maintain international peace and security." The UN has always promoted itself as a champion of peace. The word "peace" (or "peaceful") appears five times in the very first sentence of Article 1. And the UN's claim that it stands only for "peace" has been repeated by journalists and government officials throughout the world ever since the organization was founded.

In 1945, however, at the very moment the world organization was being created, former U.S. State Department official J. Reuben Clark read the United Nations Charter and immediately stated:

... there is no provision in the Charter itself that contemplates ending war. It is true the Charter provides for force to bring peace, but such use of force is itself war.... The Charter is built to prepare for war, not to promote peace.... The Charter is a war document, not a peace document.

Not only does the Charter organization not prevent future wars, it makes it practically certain that we shall have future wars, and as to such wars it takes from us the power to declare them, to choose on which side we shall fight, to determine what forces and military equipment we shall use in the war, and to control and command our sons who do the fighting.

J. Reuben Clark's assessment of the UN Charter was correct in every detail. But so great was the horror of the still uncompleted World War II (it did not end in the Pacific until several weeks after the UN Charter was approved) that only two of the 96 senators then serving in the U.S. Congress opposed our nation's entry into the United Nations. The conspirators seeking world government and tyrannical rule had failed in 1919 to get the United States entangled in their League of Nations web. But they succeeded in 1945 when America joined the United Nations.

The U.S. Senate debated the matter of joining the League of Nations for nine months in 1919 and rejected the proposal. But the Senate in 1945 devoted a mere six days to deliberations about the UN Charter and approved it. During those six days, Senator Burton Wheeler of Montana presented his grave concerns. He told his Senate colleagues:

If we enter into this treaty, we take the power away from the Congress, and the President can send troops all over the world to fight battles everywhere.

That very correct assessment of what joining the United Nations would mean didn't impress many senators. Amazingly, even Senator Wheeler himself voted in favor of U.S. membership in the world body a few days later. The pressure to "do something, do anything to prevent future war" was immense.

Another person who understood the war-making purpose of the United Nations was Lebanon's Charles Malik. A delegate to the San Francisco founding conference from his nation, Malik eventually served as the President of the General Assembly in 1959. In his 1963 book entitled Man In the Struggle for Peace, he wrote:

When responsible representatives deliberated the United Nations Charter at San Francisco in 1945, nobody thought for one moment that the new world organization was going to abolish war for all time.... the whole organization is predicated on the distinct possibility of war.

But few Americans, and I expect few Europeans or anyone else, have ever read the UN Charter. Yet it must be understood because it is such a grave threat to freedom. And it is being promoted by powerful forces in America as the world's only hope for peace.

No one can understand the reasoning behind self-defeating policies of the United States government without an awareness of the enormously harmful influence of the Council on Foreign Relations. This organization has worked to destroy America's national sovereignty and create a tyrannical world government ever since its inception in 1921. It members are the leaders in government, the mass media, the wealthy foundations, the military, religion, education, the corporate world, and other important segments of our nation's life. They are betrayers from within, and their influence has spread to numerous other parts of the world.

As certainly should be expected, the UN Charter briefly mentions the importance of national independence. If it had failed to do so, few nations would have accepted it because all nations want to remain independent. A careful reading of the Charter, however, shows that even though Article 2 pledges to maintain "the sovereign equality of all its Members," the Charter violates that pledge in the very same Article.

The Charter's main authors were Americans Alger Hiss and Leo Pasvolsky and the Soviet Union's Vyacheslav Molotov. Hiss was a secret communist and a member of the world-government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations. Pasvolsky was also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. And Molotov was an official of the murderous Soviet Union whose criminal leaders expected the United Nations to bring about a communist-controlled world.

These men surely did not want the nations of the world to remain independent. Instead, they wanted all to become subject to the authority of the United Nations, an organization they expected to control. And they wrote the UN Charter to accomplish that goal.

The Charter's attack on national independence begins in Article 1, paragraph 7. But it hides its ultimate goal by stating: "Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state, or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter...."

Anyone who reads only that statement will likely conclude that the UN intends to protect a nation's right to govern within its borders, a major ingredient of sovereignty. But the sentence in Article 1, paragraph 7 does not end there. It continues: "... but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII." So the UN Charter does not prevent the organization from meddling in the affairs of nations. What then are these "enforcement measures under Chapter VII" of the UN Charter? And how might they be employed?

Chapter VII of the Charter begins with Article 39 by proclaiming that "the Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of peace, or act of aggression... and shall decide what measures shall be taken...." So the UN shall make the decision as to whether and when it shall act militarily. Then, in Article 42, the UN Security Council is authorized to -

... take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and operations by land, sea, or air forces of Members of the United Nations.

That's no guarantee of peace, it's a blueprint for war. Clearly, a nation that balks at being controlled by the UN will be deemed to be a threat to the UN's definition of peace. And the UN has authority under this section of its Charter to wage war to accomplish its idea of peace.

But nowhere in the Charter is there a definition of peace. Yet it is obvious that peace, according to Molotov, Hiss, all members of the Council on Foreign Relations, and all communists and socialists, has always meant the absence of opposition, not the absence of war. This, I contend, is what the authors of the Charter intended.

Among the numerous routes to gain world dominance, UN-style peace will begin to reign after the UN employs "action by air, sea, or land forces" to completely destroy all who oppose the UN. Of course, this is "enforced" peace which isn't real peace. Enforced peace exists when opposition is crushed as it was in the former Soviet Union, in the former Nazi Germany, and today in the vast Communist-controlled prison known as the People's Republic of China. This isn't peace; it's tyranny.

As J. Reuben Clark said in 1945, the UN Charter "is a war document, not a peace document." And so is the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is also falsely portrayed as a peace document.

My country was born in 1776 with our Declaration of Independence from Great Britain. This document presents the philosophical base upon which the United States of America has been built. Its most important point states as a "self-evident" truth that "Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." In other words, the rights that are so often taken for granted (to life, speech, assembly, religion, ownership of a weapon, etc.) aren't granted by a government and cannot justly be taken away by a government. They are God-given and cannot be limited. These rights were then mentioned specifically in the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights.

But the UN never mentions God and never asserts that rights are granted by God. Its lavishly praised 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states instead that rights are "granted ... by the constitution or by law." If a law grants rights, another law can cancel them. And this is precisely what the UN intends. It even says so in this same Universal Declaration where it states: "In the exercise of his rights and responsibilities, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law." In other words, a UN law, or a law approved by the UN, can be enacted to cancel whatever rights are granted by the UN.

This totalitarian attitude is then amplified in Article 29 of the UN's Declaration of Human Rights where one can read the following: "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." No one, therefore, shall have any rights if the enjoyment of them conflicts with the UN's desires.

Then in 1966, the UN produced its International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. Again, various rights are mentioned but the power of the UN to cancel or modify them appears as each is mentioned. This is a blueprint for tyranny.

Anyone who has ever seen the Constitution of the former Soviet Union would recognize that the UN has followed the USSR's lead in mentioning rights and canceling them out in the very act of their being mentioned. In the Soviet Union, all persons were guaranteed freedom of religion, speech, assembly, etc. by the Soviet Constitution. But no one in the USSR was allowed to exercise those rights because the Constitution gave government the power to create laws suspending them. And these laws were indeed created. This is precisely what should be expected if the UN should ever become dominant.

The parallel between the United Nations and the totalitarian Soviet Union cannot be denied.

For the United Nations to become totally dominant, three powers would have to be added. These are taxing power that would make it independent of the nations of the world, judicial power which the already created International Criminal Court will supply, and its own military power to enforce its will.

There will be a conference in Mexico in 2002 to address the UN's desire to have taxing power. The International Criminal Court was created in Rome only a few years ago and will soon be functioning. It claims power to arrest and try any person on earth for a series of broadly defined crimes. But I have been asked to address the "militarization" of the United Nations.

Let me begin by noting that the United Nations has never had a military arm of its own. The UN would prefer to have its own blue-helmeted force, but it has to date been satisfied if UN control over one or more nation's armed forces can be accomplished. It has always relied on member nations to supply forces for its military campaigns.

One such UN campaign took place in 1961 in Belgium's former colony in Africa known as the Belgian Congo. This example of the UN acting militarily occurred after Belgium had granted independence to its colony, and after a Moscow-trained communist named Patrice Lumumba gained control of the newly formed government.

Lumumba and his communist allies immediately began a brutal consolidation of power. In response, Moise Tshombe, the pro-Western, anti-communist, black leader of the Congo's province known as Katanga, seceded and declared his region an independent nation. The United Nations immediately sent a military force into Katanga that bombed hospitals and schools, murdered civilians indiscriminately, and did everything possible to force the breakaway province to submit to the rule of the communist-led central government.

So horrifying were the atrocities committed by the UN forces that the 46 civilian doctors of Elizabethville, Katanga's capital city, sent an urgent appeal to the International Red Cross and elsewhere documenting the atrocities and asking the world to force the United Nations to cease its vicious attack on their land. Their appeal was endorsed by Belgium's Senate and published in the United States by The John Birch Society. Entitled 46 Angry Men, it presented convincing evidence of the intent of the United Nations to use military force to have its way, and its way in this instance was to force a free and productive people under communist rule.

During this incredibly brutal UN campaign, American military transports were pressed into service to bring the UN's murderers to Katanga. What happened in that freedom-loving portion of Africa showed the UN's true intentions and exposed the falsehood claiming that the UN stands for peace.

In numerous instances, the United States has experienced the effect of UN authority over its own military forces. In 1950, Communist North Korea invaded anti-Communist South Korea. American forces were immediately sent to the area under the command of General Douglas MacArthur. But the entire operation was turned over to the United Nations. Also, there was no declaration of war as required by the U.S. Constitution. MacArthur's forces actually won the war but the Chinese Communists then entered it and, even then, the U.S. forces could have ended the struggle in triumph but the UN would not allow them to proceed to victory.

A completely frustrated General MacArthur protested the restrictions given him and he was removed from his command by President Truman and sent home. The war continued until 1953. It has never been concluded and the state of war still exists in that part of the world.

It was eventually learned that everything the American forces did in Korea was first sent to the UN for authorization. Years later, Chinese General Lin Piao revealed to his fellow Chinese: "I would never have made the attack and risked my men and military reputation if I had not been assured that Washington would restrain General MacArthur from taking adequate retaliatory measures against my lines of supply and communication."

It was the United Nations that gave the Chinese general that assurance. And it was traitorous influences within the U.S. government that permitted this betrayal. Over 50,000 Americans died in the Korean War that was called merely a "police action" by President Truman.

In 1949, one year before the Korean War, 12 nations formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Its Charter containing a short introduction and 14 brief articles mentions the United Nations five times. In a speech urging the U.S. Senate to approve the treaty, Secretary of State Dean Acheson (of the CFR) said that the treaty "is designed to fit precisely into the framework of the United Nations" and that "it is an essential measure for strengthening the United Nations." From its creation in 1949, NATO has always been a part of the United Nations. It derives its right to exist under Chapter VIII of the UN Charter entitled "Regional Arrangements." Anyone who has ever served under NATO's command, no matter what country's uniform he wore, has always been serving the United Nations.

In 1954, eight nations formed the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization known as SEATO. It was under SEATO that U.S. forces went to Vietnam to fight in another undeclared, UN-directed, no-win war. The brain behind the creation of SEATO was Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, one of the disciples of CFR founder Edward Mandell House and himself a prominent member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

The conclusion we have reached in The John Birch Society is that the U.S. military is being delivered to the United Nations. At times, it is delivered directly and obviously, and at other times through the UN stepchildren known as NATO or SEATO. SEATO did its work well and the U.S. forces were actually defeated in Vietnam when numerous field commanders stated that they could have won the war any time the restrictions on their activity were removed. Another 50,000 Americans died in that conflict and countless more Vietnamese. It never should have happened. Once SEATO had done its job, it was abolished. But NATO still exists and its control of U.S. forces, and the forces of other nations, is obvious. That control is ultimately UN control.

One certain effect of these undeclared wars is that our nation's military leaders, and their counterparts in other nations, have been trained to accept jurisdiction from other than their own countrymen. They have become NATO's forces and hardly any understand that they have become part of the UN's military arm.

In 1990, Iraq invaded neighboring Kuwait and U.S. President George Bush (the elder) went to the United Nations for authorization to defend Kuwait and oppose Iraq's move. Mr. Bush repeatedly stated that his goal was to "reinvigorate" the United Nations and build a "new world order." He succeeded, but the UN-directed war against Iraq has never ended. American-led actions against Iraq have caused the deaths of approximately one million Iraqi civilians over the past ten years. And some Americans wonder why our nation is hated in the Arab world, and why fanatical Moslems would convert passenger planes into suicide bombs to destroy life and property in our country.

In 1992, American forces numbering many thousands were sent to Somalia under UN authorization. In 1994, tens of thousands of U.S. troops were sent to Haiti to enforce another UN resolution.

President Bill Clinton, another member of the Council on Foreign Relations, sent American forces into the former Yugoslavia. These Americans were directed by NATO from the outset. American generals had to go to Brussels to ask for permission to engage in whatever military action they wanted to undertake. Mr. Clinton promised an early exit date that came and went, but the American forces are still there. Eventually, Sir Michael Rose of England wearing a UN blue helmet joined with UN diplomat Yasushi Akashi of Japan to order U.S. fighter planes from NATO to attack positions in Bosnia. These two men didn't bother to contact President Clinton and the American commanders in the field did not hesitate to follow these orders.

And now, American forces are warring against Afghanistan. One day after the attack on New York and Washington, the UN Security Council gave the U.S. permission to launch military action against Afghanistan. On that same day, NATO invoked Article 5 of its Charter which states that an attack on any NATO member is an attack on all. This was the first time this portion of the NATO Charter has ever been invoked.

On September 28th, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1373 sponsored by the United States. It obliges the 189 member nations to cooperate in the fight against terrorism. Secretary of State Powell (CFR) explained that the U.S. action in Afghanistan was authorized by Article 51 of the UN Charter. He had earlier explained that "when it comes to our role as a member of the Security Council, we are obviously bound by UN resolutions." And great numbers of Americans either see no problem with that attitude or have no awareness of it.

On October 8th, President Bush requested NATO to supply surveillance aircraft to patrol airspace over the United States, the first time since our War for Independence in the 1780s that foreign forces have been used to defend the United States.

The point I wish to make here is that either the UN itself or its NATO subsidiary directs what the U.S. military does. The armed forces of the United States have become an arm of the United Nations.

Plans Created 40 Years Ago

In September 1961, President John Kennedy delivered a speech at UN headquarters in New York in which he presented the United States program for complete disarmament of the entire world - except for the United Nations which would become the only military power on earth. Entitled "Freedom From War," the Kennedy three-stage plan was designed to be implemented over many years. It called for all nations to give up their military power while arming the United Nations. The final step stated: "progressive controlled disarmament ... would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened UN Peace Force."

The document also calls for the disarming of citizens.

It immediately became unavailable for examination by the general public. But The John Birch Society obtained a copy and has reprinted it in its entirety many times. It is an incredible betrayal of our nation that most Americans have never seen and those who are shown a copy find it hard to comprehend. This plan was produced by the staffs of Secretary of State Dean Rusk and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, both of whom were members of the Council on Foreign Relations. And it was delivered to the UN by President John F. Kennedy, also a CFR member.

On numerous occasions, we have contacted federal officials to ask the status of this plan to disarm America and provide the UN with unchallengeable military power. The response has always been that it is the fixed and determined policy of the government of the United States. Anyone who examines it will see that many of the interim steps it contains have already been accomplished.

The year 1961 also saw the U.S. State Department finance the creation of a document entitled "A World Effectively Controlled By the United Nations." Written by Professor Lincoln P. Bloomfield, it lists the many steps needed to bring about a UN-controlled world. Completed in 1962, this document was originally classified as secret and kept from public view. It is, therefore, written in very clear language. Once declassified, we obtained a copy and have circulated it widely.

In order to establish a world controlled by the United Nations, the Bloomfield report called for UN taxing power, a UN military arm of approximately 500,000 men, compulsory jurisdiction of a UN court, and unrestricted power to carry out inspection any place on earth.

Professor Bloomfield, another member of the Council on Foreign Relations, expected that the goal could not be reached completely for many years. But, he wrote, "a crisis, a war, or a brink-of-war situation so grave or commonly menacing that deeply rooted attitudes and practices are sufficiently shaken" could lead more quickly to the desired goal. The recent terrorist attacks have given our nation's leaders the type of crisis they want in order to complete the sellout of America to a world government.

Six months ago, before the destruction of New York's World Trade Center and the attack on the Pentagon in Washington, I spoke to a group of Americans about what was happening to our nation's military forces. I reported portions of what I have just stated today. But some of what I said then actually forecast the horrors occurring on September 11th. Here is what I said in April 2001, five months before the terrorists converted those civilian airliners into terrorist bombs.

One of the logical consequences of our forces being sent into the middle of local disputes is hatred for our country. It seems true that our bombs have destroyed electrical service, water supplies, medical capability and more in the nations we have targeted. Certainly this is the case in Iraq. Is there any surprise that retaliation has been forthcoming?

1993: World Trade Center bombing (6 Americans dead); 1995: U.S. military headquarters in Saudi Arabia bombed (7 dead); 1996: another U.S. military barracks blown up (19 dead); 1998: U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania bombed (224 dead); 2000: USS Cole attacked in Yemen (17 dead).

And now in the year 2001, President George W. Bush unleashes bombers on Iraq as did his father. The adventurism of several presidents has made all Americans vulnerable.

Let me add now to what I said then. The distinct possibility that my nation's armed forces are already under UN control must be considered. And the terrorist crisis has given our leaders the opportunity, as Professor Bloomfield indicated, to lead the United States into formal control by the UN as the major step in bringing about a world effectively controlled by the world body.

What Must Be Done

The only sensible response to all of this treachery is to force our leaders to withdraw from the United Nations and to bring our military forces home from the four corners of the earth. To give a brief idea of where America's armed forces are stationed, we have 69,000 in Germany, 40,000 in Japan, 36,000 in South Korea, 11,000 in Italy, 11,000 in England, 7,000 in Bosnia, 5,000 in Kuwait, 5,000 in Serbia-Kosovo, 5,000 in Saudi Arabia, and more thousands in Spain, Turkey, Iceland, Belgium, Bahrain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Greece, Diego Garcia, and even in Cuba where the U.S. has actually maintained a naval base during all the years since Fidel Castro took control of that nation in 1959.

The John Birch Society has advocated withdrawing from the UN for 40 years. Just recently, however, we have revitalized this effort with new books, new pamphlets, new video programs, and other new tools that we are working to share with fellow Americans. It is our single most important project.

In 1997, largely as a result of our many years of effort, the U.S. House of Representatives voted on a measure to have our nation withdraw from the UN. Only 54 of the 435 members of the House voted yes. But this was the first time since 1945 that such a measure had even been considered.

Then, in 1999, a similar vote was taken and 74 members of the House voted yes. In 2001, other votes have been taken and the numbers are similar. Now, pressure from the people across the nation, generated by members of The John Birch Society, is causing many members of Congress to rethink America's involvement in the UN.

We are making progress. But we still have much work ahead of us if we are to succeed. We believe that U.S. withdrawal from the UN will alter much that is happening in the world. National sovereignty of all nations will be protected if the U.S. will quit the United Nations. And the world conspiracy will have been dealt a severe blow.

I expect that all of you here wish us great success. And for that I thank you on behalf of our organization, its tens of thousands of members, and the millions of sleeping Americans we are working to awaken in this time of great peril.