by Theresa Dunford

I will begin with some historical background. Although it appears that preparations for the United Nations’ one world government go further back, initially we need to look at the Round Table organisation which was first formed as a highly secretive inner circle in 1891 by Cecil Rhodes in England. In 1913 an outer circle of the still secret cabal was formed. The overall goal, according to Professor Carroll Quigley, in his Tragedy and Hope, was 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.” Secrecy was essential, and the use of war was considered to be a way to hasten the realisation of their plans. A complementary Round Table group was also set up in America. Certain events which took place led the American people to accept being involved in World War I and before that war ended President Wilson and his advisor, Edward Mandell House, were calling for a League of Nations. According to an article by John F. McManus, in The New American (1), Edward Mandell House authored a book entitled: Philip Dru: Administrator (1912) in which he clearly states his desire for world government, an income tax, and a central bank. He even advocated abolishing the U.S. Constitution. After World War I ended in 1918 the United States Senate rejected America’s entry into the League of Nations, but Edward Mandell House and team continued to work with their British counterparts. As a result, the British formed the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) and the Americans formed the Council on Foreign Relations. The goal of both of these organizations has always been to bring about a world government.

Briefly, it is now known that the then United States White House Presidency and State Department deliberately provoked the Japanese government into attacking Pearl Harbour in December 1941, and also withheld pre-knowledge of this attack from the U.S. army and navy commanders at Pearl Habour. This was an incredible betrayal, but achieved the globalists goal of involving America in the second world war. In 1942 delegates from several countries met to issue a Declaration of the United Nations and, in 1944, a U.S. State Department official, Alger Hiss, subsequently identified as a conscious Soviet agent, and the Soviet Union’s Vyacheslav Molotov, constructed the UN Charter. Quoting John F. McManus in “The UN, the EU, and America”: (From a transcript of a speech given on November 26, 2001 at the Mut Zur Ethic (“Courage to Take a Moral Stand”) conference held in Switzerland, November 24-30, 2001): “I can recall as a boy hearing General Dwight Eisenhower’s voice telling the American people that the war in Europe had ended. It was in May 1945 when he stated that ‘the forces of the United Nations are victorious’ at a time when the United Nations organization hadn’t even been founded [on 28 July 1945]. Within weeks, however, the United Nations did come to life at a meeting in San Francisco. The founding conference’s Secretary General was the same Alger Hiss, a traitor to America and the world. The long-awaited organization designed to rule mankind had been created and the United States Senate approved it overwhelmingly in a matter of days. A conspiracy to control the world had passed a most significant hurdle; the United States was now within its grasp. Other nations joined eagerly.” In “The World Order: Our Secret Rulers” (1992) by Eustace Mullins, the author comments on the United Nations, saying: “….the Rockefellers donated the most expensive parcel of real estate in Manhattan for its world headquarters. It was against this background that the Governor of New York, Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller, addressed a meeting at the Sheraton Park Hotel on July 26, 1968, in which he called for the creation of ‘a new world order’.” The Rockefeller family head one of the main international banking corporations.

Within an international coterie of world planners called the Bilderberg Group exists a small core known as the Steering Committee. They meet every year at various, closely guarded, locations around the world. James P. Tucker Jr. of The American Free Press (formerly Spotlight (2)) informs us that at a recent (June 2002) Bilderberg meeting in Chantilly,Va., we learn that: “..unity was expressed with kind words, smiles, hand shakes and embraces on Bilderberg’s long-term agenda: Empowering the United Nations until it becomes a de jure (in law, by right), as well as de facto (actually, in fact), world government. Advancing this goal by creating a direct UN tax on ‘world citizens,’ expanding NAFTA throughout the Western Hemisphere as a prelude to creating an ‘American Union’ similar to the European Union and empowering international bodies to further erode the sovereignty of nations. Further establishing NATO as the UN’s world army was also discussed…..”

James P. Tucker Jr. further informs us that: “NATO has been functioning as the standing army of the United Nations since celebrating its 50th anniversary in Washington during the invasion of Yugoslavia. NATO’s first shot fired in anger was not in defense, as its charter required, but in an offensive war. At that time, leaders announced that NATO was no longer confined to Europe but would undertake military ventures anywhere in the world - at the direction of the UN Security Council. Bilderberg is reinforcing this world army doctrine while doing early work on the third great region of the world: the emerging ‘Asian-Pacific Union’. …Ultimately there are to be three great regions for the administrative convenience of the world government: the European Union, American Union and Asian-Pacific Union.”

As can be seen, the UN Security Council is the main decision making body of the UN, but how many of us know this, and who the Council members are today? In the Introduction of “The United Nations Exposed” (2002) by William F. Jasper, we read: “He (William Jasper) shows indisputably, in the UN proponents’ own words, that their real agenda is world government, whether they deceptively call it world governance (same definition), or the international rule of law….If one understands that the United Nations was designed and brought to life by the Council on Foreign Relations, then the parent’s continued interest in and domination of its offspring should not be surprising. However, the Council has gone to great lengths to hide its domination and to create the illusion that the United Nations truly represents the interests of a community of independent member nations.” (My italics - TD).

Looking at some of the history of the European Union. The idea of a United States of Europe was espoused as early as 1941(3) when André Malraux was advocating a ‘European New Deal, a federal Europe excluding the USSR’. It was also given support by Winston Churchill in 1946 when he stated that ‘we must build a kind of United States of Europe’. The following provides a short history:

1951: Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg form the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC).
1957: ECSC becomes the European Economic Community. (EEC).
1962: EEC unveils its Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) guaranteeing farmers a minimum income.
1968: EEC becomes a customs union.
1973: Denmark, Britain, Ireland join, expanding EEC to nine members.
1979: EEC launches European Monetary System to stabilize exchange rate fluctuations among national currencies.
1981: Greece becomes the 10th EEC member.
1986: Single European Act. Spain and Portugal join, making 12 members.
1992: Treaty of Maastricht. The EEC becomes the European Union, adding a common foreign and security policy to its activities and taking a first step to a single currency.

In his lecture entitled “Courage to Take a Moral Stand” in Switzerland in November 2001, John F. McManus further informs us that: “What isn’t generally known about this dangerous progression toward world government in Europe is that every bit of it was promoted and given funding from America by world government advocates in my country. Some of the early and important American contributors to Europe’s present predicament were William Donovan, Walter Bedell Smith, and John Foster Dulles. (Donovan was the head of the World War II group known as the Office of Strategic Services that became, in 1947, the Central Intelligence Agency, John Foster Dulles was a disciple of Edward Mandell House and a collaborator in the formation of the Council on Foreign Relations.) …Just last year, [2000], England’s Ambrose Evans-Pritchard would write in the London Telegraph of his discovery that Americans had funded and organized much of what has happened to Europe via the European Union….In 1974, State Department veteran Richard N. Gardner stated in the CFR magazine Foreign Affairs that ‘….an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.’ Many other globalists have summarized the overall goal in less-explicit terms. ..More recently, in January 2000, current UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said ‘…state sovereignty, in its most basic sense, is being redefined by the forces of globalization and international cooperation’….In America we are immersed in the North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA). It is an economic union involving Canada, Mexico and the United States….These globalists want to expand NAFTA into the newly promoted Free Trade Area of the Americas. They have begun the Asia-Pacific Economic Community (APEC) another economic union. All of these groupings fit the pattern of economic union first, then political union then world government.” (My italics - TD).

In an article entitled “Global Reconstruction” by William Norman Grigg, dated 8th January 1996 (4) we learn the following about NATO’s connection with the EU: “During the 1960s and ‘70s, Javier Solana was a member of Spain’s Socialist Worker’s Party and a supporter of the Soviet Union, he remains a committed friend of Fidel Castro [Cuban President]. Before becoming an ‘ex-Marxist’, Solana was also a vehement critic of NATO. However, now that the alliance [NATO] has dropped its pretense of anti-Communism, Solana has become one of its most energetic supporters. A highly placed NATO official enthused to The European that Solana’s appointment ‘sends a very clear message that we are now more than just a military alliance. We are evolving into a political organization.’ NATO’s political function is to accelerate the consolidation of Europe as a socialist megastate. In testimony offered before the House Committee on International Relations and National Security on November 30th, Defense Secretary William Perry proudly pointed out that the NATO/UN Implementation Force [IFOR] will include troops from 32 nations, including Russia. ‘The wide participation in the IFOR is a symbol of the new Europe,’ Perry emphasized.”

The following is a list of most of the United Nations organisations: Many of these are listed on: <http://library.vassar.edu/electronics/etc/gov/un.html> 

United Security Council: the UN’s highest body.
NATO: Created in 1949. North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. A “peacekeeping” enterprise under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
SEATO: South East Asia Treaty Organisation (formed under Articles 52 & 53 of the UN Charter).
IFOR NATO “implementation force” under the authority of the UN Charter.
UNESCO: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
UNICEF: United Nations Children’s Fund
UNFPA: United Nations Population Fund.
UNIFEM: United Nations Development Fund for Women
OECD: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization
ICC: International Criminal Court, The Hague, Holland. Officially opened on 1st July 2002. (5)
NAFTA: North American Free Trade Association
LIMUN: London International United Nations (6) (There are other organisations for the various member countries).
WHO: World Health Organization
OAS: Organization of American States
ASEAN: Association of Southeast Asian Nations
NGO: Non-Governmental Organisations

International Atomic Energy Agency
United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention
United Nations Commission on International Trade Law
United Nations Development Programme
United Nations Environment Programme
United Nations Missions: Missions in New York, Geneva and Vienna.
United Nations Population Fund
POPIN: United Nations Population Information Network
World Bank
World Meteorological Organization
World Trade Organization

Other Regional Organizations:

Asian Development Bank
Europa (European Union)
Inter-American Development Bank

Also (not an official UN organisation)

MPRI: Military Professional Resources Incorporation, Virginia, USA. William Norman Griff in “Selective ‘Justice’ Turns Blind Eye to Croatian Atrocities”(7) informs us that a massacre in Mrkonjic Grad, a small town in southwestern Bosnia was discovered to have taken the lives of at least 185 Serb civilians. He quotes Nick Kostich, a defense attorney from Milwaukee: “There are videotapes of the exhumation of that site, and the New York Times published one photograph of the site with a caption identifying it as the scene of an atrocity, but there was no story to accompany the photo.” Furthermore, the discovery “has led to no indictments yet, despite the fact that an investigator from the UN Tribunal’s office of the prosecutor has visited the site.” Griff goes on to say: “One reason for the apparent indifference to the atrocity in Mrkonjic Grad is the fact that the Croatian army unit implicated in it may have been trained and equipped by Military Professional Resources Incorporated (MPRI), a private military and intelligence consulting firm based in Virginia. MPRI literature describes the firm as ‘a professional services company engaged primarily in military-related contracting in the U.S. and international defence markets.’ MPRI’s roster of founders, executives, and directors includes 14 retired U.S. generals, three of whom - Richard D. Lawrence, Jack Merritt, and Carl Vuono - are members of the Council on Foreign Relations, the focal point of America’s foreign policy elite. MPRI information officer Joseph Allred, a professor at Brigham Young University, explains that through his firm ‘the U.S. [read United Nations - TD] can have influence as part of its national strategy on other nations without employing its own army.’ In accordance with the Clinton Administration’s Balkan strategy - which reduced the complex and tragic Bosnian civil war into a war of ‘Serbian aggression’ - MPRI was hired by the Croatian regime of ‘ex’-communist President Franjo Tudjman in 1995 to refine his Soviet-created Ministry of Defense into a modern fighting force.

The February 18th Boston Globe reported that several months after MPRI signed its contract with Tudjman’s regime ‘the Croatian army mounted a summer offensive into the Serb-controlled region of Krajina, forcing more than 150,000 Croatian Serbs from their homeland.’….Although British and French observers on the scene accused MPRI of planning and directing the assault on Krajina, the firm’s spokesmen insisted that MPRI’s role had been limited to instilling ‘democratic values’ in the ‘ex’-communist army. Some qualified observers have greeted that account sceptically. ‘No country moves from having a ragtag militia to carrying out a professional military offensive without some help,’ observes Roger Charles, a retired Marine lieutenant colonel who monitored MPRI’s activities in Croatia…..MPRI’s renewable 13-month, $140 million contract in Bosnia is underwritten by a consortium of Islamic states from Asia and the Persian Gulf. Coupled with the $100 million worth of weapons pledged to Bosnia by the Clinton Administration (including tanks and artillery).”

What is the motive for this and earlier atrocities in other countries by UN troops, i.e. Vietnam, the Congo etc? (8) I believe one of the main reasons is to create chaos and devastation in any nation that wishes to keep its independence and national sovereignty; then the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank go in to “rescue” them. In an article entitled: “A Dozen Good Reasons to Get US Out! Of the United Nations” (June 2002) (9) we read: “The UN ignores Communist atrocities 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 Afghanistan in the 1970s and 1980s, when Chechnya was brutalized by the Russians in the 1990s, the UN did nothing! But the UN declares 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.”

This Court is situated in The Hague, Holland. Previously called “The Criminal Court of Justice”, it officially opened on 1st July 2002. In an article entitled “Template for World Justice” (13 October 1997) by William Norman Grigg (10) we read: “Nikola Kostich, a defense attorney from Milwaukee, is well-acquainted with the Tribunal’s peculiar version of ‘justice’. Kostich is a first-generation American who was born in Yugoslavia during World War II. His father fought the Nazis under the heroic leadership of General Drazha Mihailovich, a stalwart anti-communist who was betrayed by his supposed allies in the American government and executed by Tito’s communists. Kostich is volubly proud of his Serbian roots and has served as a legal adviser to the government of the Republika Srpska (the Serbian portion of the UN-created ‘nation’ of Bosnia-Herzegovina). However, he readily admits that ‘all sides did horrible things in that war’….Kostich is intimately familiar with the workings of the UN’s war crimes tribunal, having represented Bosnian Serb prison camp guard Dusko tadic during his recent trial in The Hague. He has also provided legal counsel to several other Bosnian Serbs who have been indicted by the UN for ‘crimes against humanity’.” This article goes on to say: “It is the UN Tribunal’s lack of accountability that most deeply offends Kostich’s sense of justice. ‘If a district attorney or a federal prosecutor is guilty of malfeasance, there are people above him who will hold him accountable. The same is true for the other officers of the court who might be corrupt, incompetent, or abusive. But the Hague Tribunal, its prosecutors, and its officers are all completely unaccountable. They define their own rules of procedure, their own rules of evidence, and their own jurisdiction. The law they apply is newly minted by them in their courtrooms. And they have no difficulty employing criminal means in the pursuit of what they define as the global good. After all, who’s going to stop them’?” (My italics - TD).

Whilst I believe that some spiritually aligned NGOs have attempted to exert pressure on the UN to walk its talk, some researchers say that they enhance the UN’s power, prestige and credibility. In “EU Adapts UN’s NGO Strategy” in the 15th July 2002 issue of The New American we read: “In recent years, many conservative and pro-family groups in the U.S. and elsewhere have created UN-accredited non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in order to participate in UN conferences and summits. Such activists reason that there is value in having a seat at the table to network with like-minded people from other nations to restrain the more outrageous elements of the UN’s agenda….The problem with this approach is that it actually enhances the UN’s power, prestige, and credibility, and forces traditionalists who choose the NGO route to support the ‘purposes and principles’ of the UN as a condition for accredition. And in any case, the UN always arranges to control what it calls ‘international civil society’ by funding an ever-expanding chorus of radical NGOs, thereby ensuring that genuinely independent voices are shouted down. In a critique of the European Union’s constitutional convention published in the June 8th issue of The Spectator of London, Daniel Hannan, a Conservative Member of the European Parliament (MEP), describes how this charade functions in the EU. To the Eurocrats, writes Hannan, ‘the goal of a united Europe is a self-evident good, and anyone who opposes it is either foolish or wicked. If ordinary voters are insufficiently enthusiastic, they must be better educated. If they persist in voting the wrong way, they must be made to change their minds…. Additionally, the architects of what Mikhail Gorbachev called the ‘new European soviet’ have taken a page from the UN’s playbook by creating a forum for NGOs representing ‘international civil society.’ This would be dominated by NGOs such as ‘the European Movement, the Union of European Federalists, the European Women’s Lobby, the European Council of Artists, the European Humanist Federation, and the European Social Action Network. These are not simply NGOs that happen to be pro-EU. They are, in many cases, creatures of the European Commission, dependent on Brussels for their funding.”

The following article in Living Lightly (comes with Positive News Autumn 2002, entitled “Summing up the Summit” by Rory Spowers ( www.hope.se  <http://www.hope.se> ) provides some grassroots information:

“Summing up the Summit

Several worlds co-existed and collided in and around Johannesburg and many felt that the real action was not necessarily going on in the Sandton Convention Centre but in the numerous parallel activities, as existing networks of NGOs and activists started fusing to­gether, expanding into one global coalition calling for radical action and change. As indigenous tribal elders joined activists from around the globe in their exasperation and despair at the Summit proceedings, something else was going on at a different level, something new, something that promises to both eclipse and transcend the stagnant world of international diplomacy. While the US, Canadian and Australian delegations system­atically undermined the official process, seemingly hell-bent on making sure that nothing of any consequence came out of the whole event, people from around the world were coming together with a common purpose.

“The escalating power and influence of multi­national corporations, has now become so glaringly transparent that many began to see the futility of even engaging with the official process. For many, the ultimate conclusion from Johannesburg was that we can forget all aspirations of the change we want to see coming from the top down. It is more evident than ever that the step change, the paradigm shift, the quantum leap that so many of us want to see, has to come from us, from the grass roots, from people just like you and me. We have to build the world we want to live in.

“Many now feel that energy expended in fighting the existing system is energy misdirected and energy wasted. As Buckminster Fuller once said, ‘You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model which makes the existing model obsolete.’ Similarly, Einstein remarked that ‘Problems are never solved by the same level of awareness that created them.’ There is much to suggest that the new model is now emerging, consisting of new economic frameworks, new systems of governance, breakthroughs in ecological design, the principles of 'industrial ecology', agro-ecological farming methods and sustainable lifestyles. In fact, for many of the NGOs in Johannesburg, the official process had become so corrupted by the corporate agenda that they refused to engage any further as a matter of principle.

“This is not to say that the direct lobbying tactics so expertly handled by organisations like Friends of the Earth does not continue to play an important part. One of the most comforting realisations of the week was to see that veteran campaigners like Tony Juniper and Charles Secrett, who were doing such a skilful job at the interface between governments, the UN and the Civil Society, appeared infinitely more articulate and informed than those on the other side of the table. However, despite winning several battles, most notably within the media war, they remained realistic about the overall situation. ‘Basically these people have convinced themselves that free trade is the same thing as sustainable development,’ Tony Juniper told me. ‘Rather than implement­ing measures for corporate accountability, they are pushing the agenda in precisely the opposite direction.’

 “My mission in Johannesburg was to distribute 4,000 copies of a Little Book of Hope, the first publication from The Web of Hope initiative and something we had decided to give out for free to as wide a spectrum of people attending the Summit as possible. By the end of the week, everyone from UK Environment Minister Michael Meacher and Indian activist Vandana Shiva, through to UN delegates and local school children, had been presented with copies of our pocket-sized book, containing succinct information about 'best practice' initiatives from around the world. One thing seemed to be agreed, across all boundaries and between all parallel worlds - that there's one thing we all need right now, and that's Hope.

“Sandton, site of the official UN Summit, certainly seemed the most alien of the parallel worlds. I made my way towards the entrance, expecting to find huge rooms heaving with heated negotiations. Instead, I found myself inside a five storey shopping mall, confronted with a vast BMW promotion, surrounded by well dressed men and women eating lobster, drinking chilled Chardonnay and browsing through Gueei. It took a full ten minutes to find my way past this unashamedly ostentatious commercialism to gain access to the Convention Centre itself, where the passion and conviction of Civil Society representatives continued to fall on deaf ears all week.

“Amongst the many other parallel activities which had been planned for the week, perhaps the most radical and challenging to the mainstream agenda was the People's Earth Summit at St Stithians College, a 200 acre school campus just outside the Sandton district. This was not only home to the international Friends of the Earth delegation but also the focus for many of the most prominent activists from around the world, including Vandana Shiva, Martin Khor and the Third World Network, Herbie Girardet representing the Earth Emergency Call to Action, and a diverse collection of writers, local Sangomo healers and tribal elders from the ice sheets of Greenland to the humid tropics, largely coordinated through the auspices of the London­ based Gaia Foundation. When Michael Meacher visited the event, he commented that, ‘This is where it's all happening,’ and there were certainly moments during the week that the charged atmosphere of the event was palpable: landless local farmers and their wives singing modified protest songs from the apartheid era with such gusto that the police appeared; marathon drumming circle sessions which encompassed men and women of every race, colour and creed; intense late night discussions about building networks and the acceleration towards critical mass; disturbing debates about the implications of new nano-technologies and heart rending accounts of corporate malpractice inflicted on indigenous populations.

“However, despite the pervasive doom and gloom and the inevitable frustration with the official process, many feel that Johannesburg will be remembered as an important moment in the crystallisation of a global movement creating a tide of Hope. Little may have been achieved in the corridors of power, but existing global networks are coalescing into one coherent voice like never before. The world we want to live in may seem further away than before, but the lines of communication which link this rising tide are buzzing louder than ever.

“There is considerable evidence that the paradigm shift so many of us read and talk about is already upon us, manifesting in progressive examples in the corporate sector which have actively embraced new frameworks like the Swedish Natural Step movement, through to new initiatives for global governance and the expanding web of eco-villages and ecological communities which are already living a new way. Robert E Kennedy once said that ‘Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the life of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends a tiny ripple of hope, and those ripples, crossing each other from a million different centers of energy, build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.’ Despite the abject failure of world leaders to produce anything of any consequence out of this Summit, Kennedy's words serve as an inspiration for our times. The runaway train of the corporate neo-liberal agenda may be racing towards the end of the line, but the cyclical networks which will replace it are laying the foundations for a new and different world. Each one of us can become a ripple of Hope within this ever-expanding network, spinning the web to the four corners of the globe.”

The following information is taken from the Bulletin “Committee to Restore the Constitution” dated July 1986, regarding a rebuttel (hearing) dated 26th September 1969 by Archibald E. Roberts, Lt. Col. AUS, ret., Director, Committee to Restore the Constitution, USA (11), to Congressman Richard L. Ottinger, Director, U.S. Committee on the United Nations.

“Should the United States participate in and encourage development of the United Nations Organization?

….Col. Roberts’ testimony, rebuttal to Rep. Ottinger’s opening remarks, and extended question and answer period, explain how a Federal policy of ‘perpetual war for perpetual peace’ generated no-win wars in Korea and Vietnam. This same UN control over US military forces may in today’s climate of political crisis commit a new generation of Americans to a UN no-win war in Africa.

Congressman Ottinger, honored guest, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. I hold for the prosecution. During the next 20 minutes, the prosecution will attempt to prove the following charges against the United Nations organization:

Number 1. That the United Nations is a subversive organization.

Number 2. That vital powers of government held in trust for the American people have been illegally transferred to the United Nations organization in violation of the prohibitions of the Constitution.

Number 3. That the United Nations Charter was foisted upon the American people to serve those who seek to overthrow the Constitution and to coerce American citizens into a Socialist animal farm.

Consonant with facts presented in official documents, and we will use some of these official documents, and of public testimony by elected officials and others, I intend to use the war in Vietnam to prove these accusations and to expose the real objectives of the United Nations and those who promote its cause. During the course of my indictment of the United Nations it might be well to keep in mind the following axiom.

Let us begin our introduction for the prosecution by calling on the testimony of Lyndon B. Johnson, who was then President of the United States.

Mr. Johnson told the American people on 13 July 1965 that their soldier sons were dying in South Vietnam because of our commitment to the South East Asia Treaty Organization: SEATO. During a White House news conference on this date, 13 July 1965, President Johnson stated, and I quote, ‘I think it is well for us to remember that three Presidents have made the pledge for this nation; that the Senate has ratified the SEATO treaty by a vote of 82-1, pledging the United States to come to the aid of any nation on their request who are parties to that treaty.’ Then President Johnson went on to say, ‘We expect to keep that commitment; our national honor is at stake.’

Four years later, nearly to the day, President Richard M. Nixon, was to use the same words in describing our commitment to the SEATO treaty. On Monday, 29 July 1969, in Bangkok, Thailand, which of course is headquarters for the SEATO organization, Mr. Nixon reiterated his pledge to the SEATO treaty in these words. ‘We are determined,’ Nixon testified on worldwide television, ‘to honor our commitment to the SEATO treaty, the Southeast Asia Treaty.’

Of course neither Mr. Nixon nor his predecessors have admitted that the Southeast Asia Treaty, a treaty which our sons honor in blood and agony, was framed under the provisions of Articles 52 and 53 of the United Nations Charter. As we shall see, however, SEATO is a regional arrangement [as is Yugoslavia today (12)] a regional arrangement formed to deal with matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security, consistent with the purposes and principles of the United Nations. The prosecution will prove that the no-win war in Vietnam is secretly a United Nations war and that it is being conducted to serve the purposes and principles of the United Nations. We will also reveal why this strange war has clearly failed to reduce the political power of the Communist enemy. [Remember: this hearing took place in 1969-TD] Instead this war has increased the political power of the United Nations and thus serves the secret objectives of a concealed enemy. (My italics - TD)

The first exhibit for the prosecution is ‘The Story of SEATO’, a booklet published by the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization. This is a copy. Anybody can get a copy of this booklet, ‘The Story of SEATO’. On page 5 of ‘The Story of SEATO’, we find the following declaration, and I read: ‘the members of SEATO have chosen a collective defense system under the authority of the Charter of the United Nations.’ SEATO in this statement of purpose, asserts that it is an agency, an extension, of the United Nations organization.

Now let us join this information, that is the declaration of the SEATO people, let’s take this information and join it with Exhibit number 2, for the prosecution; the SEATO treaty itself. In the back of the same book we find the SEATO treaty, The Southeast Asia Treaty, sometimes called the Manila Pact because it was signed in Manila on 8 September 1954. In these articles, and I am going to quote a part of some of them, we find the following information, ‘The party,’ says Article 1 of SEATO, ‘undertakes as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may become involved by peaceful means, and to refrain and listen to this, ‘and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.’ Well, I would say that American casualty figures in this interminable war in Vietnam is evidence that the military force used in Vietnam is applied, is applied in a manner consistent with the purposes and principles of the United Nations. As a matter of fact, the United States Ambassador to Vietnam, Elsworth Bunker, made this point crystal clear in his personal testimony on Meet the Press, 19 November 1967. I quote a part of his testimony before the public on this television show. ‘It seems to me that what we are doing in Vietnam is to make credible our commitments under the United Nations and under SEATO treaty to resist aggression. We have made a commitment.’ Doesn’t that sound familiar?

Unfortunately, Ambassador Bunker failed to identify the UN agency which is charged with conducting this Vietnam war under the United Nations. But the information to fill this important vacuum is found under Article 4 of the SEATO Treaty. Again I quote, ‘Measures,’ now when they say measures, they mean military action, ‘Measures, taken under this paragraph shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations.’ However, let’s pinpoint the UN Articles that make credible our commitment under the United Nations, because you see, ladies and gentlemen, this statement, ‘reporting all actions to the Security Council,’ this statement means that the chain of command is very specific. It could not be more specific than that. Because you see the Security Council is the war-waging arm of the United Nations. (My italics -TD).

To make credible this commitment, let’s quote again, as Mr. Bunker so lucidly explained on Meet the Press, let us now present exhibit number 3 for the prosecution, the United Nations Charter. We will find, as predicted in ‘The Story of SEATO’, that the authority for the construction of this UN-SEATO collective defense system is revealed in Chapter 8 of the United Nations Charter. Chapter 8 is called regional arrangements, and we will find that a comparison of UN and SEATO articles also shows that the quotations that I made a moment ago from SEATO are in fact faithful duplication of the United Nations Charter, specifically of provisions 52 and 54 of the United Nations Charter, this is the Bible of the One Worlders, the Constitution for world government. ‘Nothing in the present charter,’ says Article 52, ‘Nothing in the present charter precludes the existence of regional arrangements, providing that such arrangements or agencies are consistent with the purposes and principles of the United Nations.’ Where have we heard that before? Why in the Charter of the SEATO Treaty.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is immediately apparent that Article 1 of SEATO exactly reproduces the authority of Article 52 of the United Nations Charter. Don’t you see? In the same way Article 4 of SEATO similarly reflects the provisions of Article 54 of the United Nations Charter. Again I quote, ‘The Security Council’, commands Article 54, ‘shall at all times be kept fully informed of activities undertaken or in contemplation under regional arrangements.’ Undertaken or in contemplation. This means, of course, the US military operations ‘undertaken or in contemplation’ in Vietnam are first submitted to the UN Security Council for their approval.

Ladies and gentlemen, the evidence permits but one conclusion, just one conclusion. The strategy of ‘perpetual war for perpetual peace’, a strategy which sends Americans into battle with neither the promise nor the hope of victory, is the strategy of the United Nations. It is United Nations strategy, don’t you see? As a matter of fact these UN war making powers, and the usurpation of governmental authority which permits it, was dramatically illustrated by James Reston in his column of 13 July 1967, which was entitled Isolations Echoes by US Move in Congo. Do you remember when we sent troops to the Congo under the United Nations? I quote Mr. Reston, ‘The administration’s position is that it is committed under the Charter of the United Nations, under various treaties and under the Truman Doctrine, to do whatever it can to maintain peace anywhere in the world.’ You realize, of course, that the real objective of these ‘no-win wars’ is not international peace and security as UN supporters are led to believe. The true purpose and principle of these UN military adventures is to manipulate the United States armed forces under the United Nations Security Council. To force all of the nations of the world into line and to deliver them up to one world government. That’s what it’s all about.

For proof I invite your attention to Chapter 5 of the United Nations Charter, headed the ‘Security Council Functions and Powers’. I quote, ‘In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its members confer upon the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.’ Again, Article 25, ‘The members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.’

In simple language, ladies and gentlemen, these two UN articles transfer the power of self defense given to the Congress by the sovereign states into a blanket authority to send American soldiers into battle anywhere in the world at the direction of the Security Council of the United Nations. Now, the Constitution [of the United States] is very specific about the powers of keeping peace and waging war. Nowhere does the Constitution authorize the transfer of these powers to an international agency. The prosecution has therefore established the fact that the Senate ratification of the United Nations Treaty on 28 July 1945 is in violation of the Constitution of the United States. Being illegal, it must be put down. (My italics -TD).

Perhaps the members of this jury have wondered why the wars in Korea and Vietnam saw the outpouring of vast resources of US men and material in a land war without a formal declaration of war by the Congress of the United States. Well, Article 39 of the United Nations Charter explains why, and more importantly why the UN Security Council can at any time force this nation and the entire population of the United States into a military posture without the consent of Congress. Again I quote from the U.N. Charter, Article 39, ‘The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, or breach of the peace or act of aggression. And it shall decide which measures shall be taken, in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.’

Articles 41 and 42 spell out the full authority and extent of UN military action, authorizing the use of air, sea and land forces. I’m quoting, I’m quoting, ‘The use of air, sea and land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.’ Additionally, the military muscle needed to endorse these Security Council edicts is provided by usurped sovereign power as spelled out in Articles 43 and 46 of the United Nations Charter. These UN laws, Articles 43 and 46, order ‘the transfer of armed forces, assistance and facilities from member nations,’ we are a member nation, [as is the United Kingdom -TD] ‘to the UN Security Council for use as the Security Council may determine in its application of armed force anywhere in the world.’ Anywhere in the world. (My italics -TD)

To give legal coloration to this breach of public trust, the Congress of the United States, on 26 September 1961, just eight years ago tonight, ratified Public Law 87-297, the ‘Arms Control and Disarmament Act’. This unbelievable legislation purports to legalize the transfer of the United States Military establishment and American citizens in uniform, to a United Nations World army. Members of the jury, fellow Americans, your sons now serving in Vietnam, are by UN Charter definition, a United Nations world army, and they take their orders from the United Nations Security Council ‘consistent with the principles and purposes of the United Nations.’ (My italics - TD).

As final proof in the case for the prosecution, I read from House Joint Resolution Number 1145, called the ‘Gulf of Tonkin Resolution’. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution is often quoted as Congress’ approval to commit Americans to the Vietnam war. This is what the Resolution says. ‘This resolution (Section 3) shall expire when the President shall determine that the peace and security of the area is reasonably assured by international conditions created by the United Nations.’ Not the United States but the United Nations.

Ladies and gentlemen, I respectfully submit that the prosecutions’ case against the United Nations is now legally established. The prosecution has demonstrated that the Articles of the United Nation’s Charter amend by deceit and subterfuge the Constitution of the United States, in a manner not sanctioned by Article 5 of the Constitution. The United Nations is therefore a subversive organization and it is a threat to the freedom of persons and property guaranteed to the people by the Constitution. The prosecution has demonstrated that the authority to commit Americans to battle anywhere in the world has been surreptitiously transferred from the Congress of the United States to the Security Council of the United Nations. Therefore vital powers of government held in trust for the American people have been illegally usurped by the organization of the United Nations in violation of the Constitution.

The prosecution has demonstrated that the real but concealed objectives of the United Nations organization is to place the military power of the United States at the disposal of the United Nations Security Council, to force all of the nations into line and to deliver them up to a one world government. The United Nations was therefore foisted upon the American people to serve those who seek to overthrow the Constitution and to coerce our citizens into a Socialist animal farm. In this brief indictment of the United Nations, the prosecution has also revealed that, as the political power of the United States is dissipated in no-win military ventures all over the globe, the political power of the United Nations and those who serve and promote its purposes is increased….

The Honorable Ottinger made some splendid points in support of world government in his presentation. I believe that he may have impressed you with the urgency for such world government, protecting us from a nuclear holocaust, which is today’s example of international wars, we must embrace world government under the United Nations, or a similar agreement. I think we are familiar with this technique of harassment and terror. It has been used against us for a good many years. I don’t think that it is necessary to refute the fact that there is a nuclear potential. But, let us keep in mind who actually controls the nuclear trigger on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean.

I believe also that Congressman Ottinger attempted to paint the United Nations as the ‘good guy’. For purposes of illustration, on the reverse side of this coin, we ought to identify some of these ‘good guys’. And since I talked about the Security Council, I would like to identify some of the good guys in the Security Council. In fact, specifically, I would like to identify the Under Secretary for political and Security Council Affairs in the United Nations. The Under Secretary post is actually the supreme director of the Security Council. He is the permanent member, whereas the President of the Security Council rotates, as you know, every year. But the permanent official, selected by the United Nations Secretary, is the Under Secretary for Political and Security Council Affairs. These are the men who have held this post since the beginning of the United Nations. [Remember this lecture was given in 1986, before the supposed collapse of Communism in Soviet USSR, when America was supposedly in a state of cold war with the USSR - TD]:

1946-49 Arkady Sobolev USSR
1949-53 Constantine Zinchenko USSR
1953-54 Ilya Tcherychev USSR
1955-57 Dragoslav Protich YUGOSLAVIA
1958-59 Anatoly Dobrynin USSR
1960-62 Georgy Arkadev USSR
1962-63 Eugeney D. Kiselev USSR
1965-67 A.E. Nesterenko USSR
1968-(present; 1969) Leonid N. Dutakov USSR.

These are the ‘good guys’.

The Congressman also mentioned that in as much as we have the veto power we are not bound to any distasteful decisions of the Security Council. I would like to point out that we no longer have the veto power in the Security Council. This was taken away from us by the ‘Uniting for Peace Resolution’, passed by the General Assembly in 1950. At that point the General Assembly assumed all of the prerogatives and powers which formerly were limited to the Security Council therefore effectively circumventing U.S. veto power in the Security Council.

I would also like to point out that the Congressman stated that UNESCO [United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation] and its humanitarian activities is of considerable pride to the United Nations. Many of us realize that UNESCO is the propaganda arm of the United Nations. Its purpose is to convince the American people that the United Nations is the hope of the world….. And now, in order to further examine the United Nations we will have a question and answer period.

Yes, I believe that it is now general knowledge that, although it has not been officially admitted, there are something like 42 area treaties committing this nation to send her sons to defend other countries; what may not be generally known is that this number exceeds 5,000 separate agreements, treaties and other involvements, which now commit the American government, if you will, to place at the disposal of the U.N. Security Council, United States citizens in uniform for the purpose of defending against aggression anywhere in the world. This of course, has been highly publicized in the discussions in the Senate of the United States, in their discussion of Senate Joint Resolution 85, and has uncovered such things as the agreement with Thailand, which now permits the placement of American soldiers, citizens in uniform, at the disposal of Thailand commanders. In other words I believe that these agreements very lucidly and dramatically show that the Congress of the United States holds the American people and their sons in utter contempt. Because the American soldier in uniform is now a paid mercenary who can be sent to fight as a paid mercenary in any nation in the world under these agreements.

Just happen to have a note here. I believe that we can show who these people are by placing this question within the parameter of the United Nations, because this is what we are talking about. It ought to be explained that the United Nations was spawned two weeks after Pearl Harbor in the office of Secretary of State, Cordell Hull. In a letter to the President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, dated 22 December 1941, Secretary Hull, at the direction of his faceless sponsors, and we are going to identify them in a minute, recommended the founding of a Presidential Advisory Committee on Post War Foreign Policy. This Post War Foreign Policy Committee was in fact the planning commission for the United Nations, and its Charter. The purpose of this Committee, Mr. Hull stated, would be preparing for ‘effective participation in the solution of vast and complicated problems of international relations which will confront the United States and the world after the final defeat of the forces of aggression.’ Now, without going into too much detail as to the structure of this Committee, which was the planning committee for the United Nations, I’d like to identify the men who made up the Committee, beside Secretary of State, Hull.

Mr. Sumner Welles, Under Secretary of State, who was Vice Chairman of the Committee. A member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Mr. Norman Davies, President of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Mr. Myron C. Taylor, member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Mr. Dean Acheson, who was then Assistant Secretary of State, also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Mr. Hamilton Fish Armstrong, Editor of Foreign Affairs, which is the official publication of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Mr. Adolf A. Berle Jr., Assistant Secretary of State, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Mr. Isaiah Bowman, President of John Hopkins University, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Mr. Benjaman V. Cohen, General Council for the National Power Policy Committee, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Mr. Herbert Feis, Department of State Advisor on International Economic Relations, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Mr. Green N. Hackworth, Dept. of State legal advisor.
Mr. Harry C. Hopkins, Chief, Department of State, Division of Commercial Policy.
Mrs. Anne O’Hare McCormick, editorial staff, New York Times.
Dr. Leo Pasvolsky, who was then a Special Assistant to the Secretary of State, Chief of Departments Division of Special Research, and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

I point out that since it is apparent that each member of the Committee, chosen to create and write the Charter of the United Nations was, without exception, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, or under the control of the Council on Foreign Relations, it is obvious that the secret government of the United States is the Council on Foreign Relations. And that they manipulate and operate our foreign policy through the Secretary of State and the State Department as the supreme directors of our policy.

I believe that it must be stated that the United Nations does have an army - OURS. As a matter of historical accuracy, let me remind you that the American military establishment in Korea is still called the United Nations Command.

I believe that it must be brought out that under Article 5 of the Constitution of the United States there are only two ways in which the Constitution can be amended and that is by a convention of the states or by ratification of two thirds of the states. Now we have shown in the preceding discussion that powers of government, namely the power to declare war and to control military ventures anywhere in the world, to transfer our soldiers into these conflicts without the approval of the Congress, is a violation of the constitution. Because the Congress by Constitutional edict and direction is the only authority which can authorize the declaration of war and the commitment of our national economy and the lives of our young sons in a defense posture to preserve and protect the United States.

The point was made that we are fighting Communist aggression, therefore it is in juxtaposition to the United Nations, vis-à-vis Russian Communism. Well, let us dispel that faulty premis immediately. I think it must be apparent that there is something vitally wrong with the conduct of the war in Vietnam when the number 26 military power in the world is able for seven years to thwart the military might of the number 1 military power, the United States. Further, I would point out that this montage of military action against the backdrop of mainland Asia is in fact a subterfuge. It is a subterfuge because we are supporting both sides of this war. We are supporting both sides. We send business groups to Moscow to make deals with this enemy, to make arms and ammunition to send to the Communist enemy fighting our sons in Vietnam. We find that the major port of Haiphong, through which most of the military hardware is processed, is left intact. It is never bombed and never will be because the United Nations Security Council in Vietnam, just as they did in Korea, control both sides of the action. To create conflict. Why? Because ‘No-win Wars’ create a resignation on the part of the American people, and through terror and ‘giving up’, will persuade the American people that the resolution of these evil wars all over the world must be world government. World government is the objective. (My emphasis -TD).

No, I’m not.

Yes, Douglas McCarthy III, U.S. State Department, in 1965, in response to a letter from Florida, asking the question, ‘Is Article 54 of the United Nations Charter being observed in Vietnam’, answered in the affirmative. His answer was, ‘Yes all of the actions undertaken in Vietnam are being reported, in compliance with the provisions of Article 54, of the United Nations Charter, to the Security Council.’ ‘This is proof positive that U.S. military action has to have the approval of the Security Council before it can be implemented.’

I think it is significant to remember that one of the framers of the United Nations Charter was Leo Pasvolsky. Leo Pasvolsky was born in Russia of Communist parentage and came to this country at a very early age. He was inserted into our government and rose by rapid progression into a position from which he was able to ultimately transfer certain sovereignty of the United States into the United Nations. I think this is significant for this reason: You can take these two documents, that is the United Nations Charter and the document you mentioned, the Constitution of the USSR, and you can compare these and you can see where the material from the USSR Constitution has been taken and inserted into the Charter of the United Nations. It is that close.

I would like to present two sides of the same coin. The one side Congressman Ottinger presented was international peace and security. The other side of the coin is full and complete disarmament. Now, ‘full and complete disarmament’ presupposes the creation of a disarmed world. But this is a false goal, you see, because what the internationalists, and apparently Congressman Ottinger, really propose is a central political authority backed by overwhelming military power. And that military power is to be controlled by the United Nations. Not as a world international peace force but the same kind of peace enjoyed by the Soviet citizen under Soviet bayonets. (My italics - TD).

I should like to point out that the international peace and security that you will enjoy under this world government, is already spelled out in a Bill of Rights for world government published by the United Nations General Assembly on 12 January 1967. It is called the ‘International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’. This is the same Bill of Rights for world citizenship which you will enjoy very soon unless you do something about it, unless we change the march to the animal farm. You know we have a Bill of Rights under the Constitution. This is the Bill of Rights for world citizenship. It is a duplication, by and by, of our own Bill of Rights. I’d like to show you the comparison. Article 18, of the new Bill of Rights: Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed. Article 19: Everyone shall have the right to hold opinion without interference but it may be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law. Article 21: The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restriction may be placed on the exercise of this right other than imposed in conformity with the law.

I believe that for clarification it should be noted that the United States is the only nation that ratified the Charter of the United Nations as a treaty. So we are the only ones actually legally bound by it. It must be very obvious that the purpose of the United Nations was to collect and control the military establishment of the United States. I served in Korea, just as Congressman Ottinger did. I was with the 187th Airborne Regimental Combat Team. The other nations serving in Korea were token forces. The brunt of the action was always carried by United States military forces. And one of the shocking things that I witnessed, and which actually began my thinking and investigation, was this: for the first time in American history, I saw American dead being buried under a foreign device, the United Nations banner.

The headquarters of the Council on Foreign Relations is the Harold Pratt House, 58 East 68th St., New York City 10021. And the way you attend these meetings, and they are held all over the United States - there are something like 39 subcommittees of the Council, is to be a leader in your community, either as an industrialist, banker or military leader or in some other top level echelon. Then you may be invited to become a member. Either a member of the New York committee or a subsidiary committee. And to answer your first part of the question. The Council on Foreign Relations comprises some 1800 leading individuals on the American scene: industry, banking and military and every other social/government facet. Of these 1800 we believe there are about 300 who are the decision makers and who have created this monster called the United Nations.

The question of course does not relate to statutes but to Executive Order. The Executive Order is a technique, a rather recent technique, which was devised by some preceding presidents, to circumvent the Constitution’s restrictions in so far as ‘a state of emergency’. There are today something in excess of 3,000 of these executive orders which have been inserted into the Federal Register. These Executive Orders automatically, without the consent of Congress or anyone else, become the law of the land, once they are signed. Provision of all of these Executive Orders is to transfer control of every facet of our economy and industry, military, communications and the entire structure of these United States and to create a dictatorship under the President. They provide for, in case of a national emergency - and national emergency is not defined - so that any condition which is determined by the President (or more accurately his faceless advisors) to be an emergency, will be the excuse for implementing these Executive Orders and transferring us wholesale into a world government. I believe we might come to a conclusion by reducing the problem to the central issue.

Congressman Ottinger has again and again extolled the virtues of the United Nations and his belief that we must have world government if we are to resolve the threat of war. What has been ignored by all of us so far, is the fact that such a world government presupposes the transfer of sovereignty to a world international body. Now, nowhere in the Constitution is the Congress authorized or permitted to dissolve the Constitution. Congressman Ottinger, and every other member of Congress, has taken an oath to defend and preserve that Constitution. They are not doing it!” Unquote

It is interesting to note that the United Nations Charter was only ratified by the United States, although other countries can become members. The European Union Treaties have to be ratified by each member state. The most recent EU Treaty, the Nice Treaty, was not ratified by the Irish people in a referendum. However, pressure is being brought to beaer on the political parties and people of this country to hold a second referendum and vote yes! This basically makes a mockery of a referendum when pressure can be brought to bear on people - unless they vote the way of the globalists agenda. Where is the free will of the people here?

To conclude: This information is meant to provide an overall picture of the United Nations and those non-peaceable activities with which it is connected. It is my belief that there are many well-intentioned people working in the “lower” echelons of this organisation who truly believe that good work is being done. Obviously, the United Nations provides them with some financial support but truly they, and others, need to be aware of what is going on behind the scenes, so that they can make an informed decision, for the sake of this planet and its inhabitants.

This article was compiled by Theresa Dunford, Perthshire, Scotland, UK, November 2002. Copies available by e-mail: theresa@sacredconnection.ndo.co.uk  <mailto:theresa@sacredconnection.ndo.co.uk> 

FOOTNOTES

(1) Website: www.getusout.org 

(2) www.americanfreepress.net

(3) The Messianic Legacy (1986) by Michael Bagent, Richard Leigh & Henry Lincoln

(4) www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1996/vol2no01/vol2no01_reconstruction.htm 

(5) "Palestinians demand prosecution of Israel" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/worldmiddle_east/2150246.stm 

(6) www.londonmun.org.uk 

Farming Politics Government Posters Humour Technology Religion Nature Me Links  
Email - b e r n a r d - c l a y s o n @ s h u a r t f a r m . f s n e t . c o . u k