CHAPTER 2
In the Name of Peace
The U.N. jets next turned their attention to the center of the city.
Screaming in at treetop level ... they blasted the post office and
the radio station, severing Katanga’s communications with the
outside world.... One came to the conclusion that the U.N.’s action
was intended to make it more difficult for correspondents to let the
world know what was going on in Katanga....1
• Smith Hempstone,
Rebels, Mercenaries, and Dividends, 1962
Early in 1987, millions of American television viewers tuned in to
watch the dramatic ABC mini-series, Amerika. What they saw was a
grim, menacing portrayal of life in our nation after it had been
taken over by a Soviet-controlled United Nations force. Their TV
sets showed a foreboding picture of America as an occupied
police-state, complete with concentration camps, brainwashing,
neighborhood spies, and Soviet-UN troops, tanks and helicopter
gunships enforcing “the rule of law.” Liberals angrily denounced the
mini-series, claiming it demonized both the Soviets and the UN and
insisting that it would rekindle anti-communist hysteria at a time
when Soviet-American relations were at their best point since the
end of World War II.
The fact that Soviet troops were at that very
time committing real atrocities against the peoples of Afghanistan
didn’t matter. UN officials, furious about the way their
organization was being portrayed, even tried to have the program
cancelled.2 Why all the furor? Is the UN’s image so sacrosanct or
the goal of U.S.-Soviet rapprochement so sacred that even fictional
tarnishing is akin to blasphemy? After all, it was just a television
program. Haven’t there been scores of highly acclaimed Hollywood
productions depicting the U.S. military and American patriots in
similarly bad or even far worse light? Besides, the totalitarianism
depicted in Amerika could never happen here. Could it?
Dress Rehearsal?
You may be surprised to learn that it has already happened here. No,
not in the same manner and on the same scale as viewers saw in the
television series, but in an alarming real-life parallel of that
dramatic production. What follows is the true, but little-known
story of the “invasion” of about a dozen American cities by “UN
forces,” as told by economist/author Dr. V. Orval Watts in his 1955
book, The United Nations: Planned Tyranny.
At Fort MacArthur, California, and in other centers, considerable
numbers of American military forces went into training in 1951 as
“Military Government Reserve Units.” What they were for may appear
from their practice maneuvers during the two years, 1951-1952. Their
first sally took place on July 31, 1951, when they simulated an
invasion and seizure of nine California cities: Compton, Culver
City, Inglewood, Hawthorne, Huntington Park, Long Beach, Redondo
Beach, South Gate and Torrance. The invading forces, however, did
not fly the American flag. They came in under the flag of the United
Nations, and their officers stated that they represented the United
Nations.
These forces arrested the mayors and police chiefs, and pictures
later appeared in the newspapers showing these men in jail. The
officers issued manifestoes reading “by virtue of the authority
vested in me by the United Nations Security Council.” At Huntington
Park they held a flag-raising ceremony, taking down the American
flag and running up in its place the United Nations banner.
On April 3, 1952, other units did the same thing at Lampasas, Texas.
They took over the town, closed churches, strutted their authority
over the teachers and posted guards in classrooms, set up
concentration camps, and interned businessmen after holding brief
onesided trials without habeas corpus.
Said a newspaper report of that Texas invasion:
“But the staged
action almost became actual drama when one student and two troopers
forgot it was only make-believe. ‘Ain’t nobody going to make me get
up,’ cried John Snell, 17, his face beet-red. One of the
paratroopers shoved the butt of his rifle within inches of Snell’s
face and snarled, ‘You want this butt placed in your teeth? Get
up.’”
The invaders put up posters listing many offenses for which
citizens would be punished. One of them read:25
“Publishing or
circulating or having in his possession with intent to publish or
circulate, any printed or written matter ... hostile, detrimental,
or disrespectful ... to the Government of any other of the United
Nations.”
Think back to the freedom-of-speech clause of the United States
Constitution which every American officer and official is sworn to
support and defend. What was in the minds of those who prepared,
approved and posted these UN proclamations? The third practice
seizure under the United Nations flag occurred at Watertown, New
York, August 20, 1952, more than a year later than the first ones.
It followed the same pattern set in the earlier seizures in
California and Texas.
Is this a foretaste of World Government, which so many Americans
seem to want?3 Who ordered these “mock” UN invasions? And to what
purpose were they carried out? Do answers to these questions really
matter? Or are these merely idle concerns about curious but
irrelevant events that happened decades ago and have no bearing on
our lives today?
Events, developments, and official policies in the succeeding years,
under both Republican and Democratic administrations, indicate that
the mock invasions of the early 1950s do matter and that they do
have a bearing on our lives today. The dress-rehearsal takeovers of
American cities described above occurred just six years after the
founding of the United Nations, while the organization was still
enjoying widespread public support. American military personnel were
at that very time fighting and dying under the UN flag in Korea.
But
as recounted in our previous chapter, a decade later in September of
1961, the President of the United States would propose a phased
transfer of America’s military forces to the UN. Under such a plan,
our Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, even our nuclear arsenal,
would be given over to UN command, making it possible for our
nation’s military forces to be used in a real UN invasion at some
future date anywhere in the world.
Interestingly, the Kennedy Freedom From War plan differed little
from one proposed earlier that same month by the Soviet-dominated
“nonaligned” nations at a conference held in Belgrade, Yugoslavia.4
And it was merely an expansion of the policy enunciated by Secretary
of State Christian Herter (CFR) during the latter days of the
Eisenhower Administration. But few Americans even saw, and fewer
still ever read and understood the incredible disarmament document.
For those who did see, read and understand it, however, there could
be no doubt that it created a path leading to global .
If the American public had been aware of Freedom From War and a
number of then-classified government studies being prepared at that
time - each of which spelled out even more explicitly the intent of
government and Establishment elitists to surrender America to an
all-powerful United Nations - there may well have been a popular
uprising that would have swept all of the internationalist schemers
from public office and public trust.
In February 1961, seven months before the President released the
Freedom From War plan to the public, his State Department, led by
Secretary of State Dean Rusk (CFR), hired the private Institute for
Defense Analyses (contract No. SCC 28270) to prepare a study showing
how disarmament could be employed to lead to world government. On
March 10, 1962, the Institute delivered Study Memorandum No. 7, A
World Effectively Controlled By the United Nations, written by
Lincoln P. Bloomfield (CFR).5
Dr. Bloomfield had himself recently
served with the State Department’s disarmament staff, and while
writing his important work was serving as an associate professor of
political science and director of the Arms Control Project at the
Center for International Studies, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. This Bloomfield/IDA report is especially significant
because the author is uncharacteristically candid, eschewing the
usual euphemisms, code words, and double-talk found in typical
“world order” pronouncements meant for public consumption. The
author believed he was addressing fellow internationalists in a
classified memorandum that would never be made available for public
scrutiny. So he felt he could speak plainly.
Here is the document’s opening passage, labelled SUMMARY:
A world effectively controlled by the United Nations is one in which
“world government” would come about through the establishment of
supranational institutions, characterized by mandatory universal
membership and some ability to employ physical force. Effective
control would thus entail a preponderance of political power in the
hands of a supranational organization.... [T]he present UN Charter
could theoretically be revised in order to erect such an
organization equal to the task envisaged, thereby codifying a
radical rearrangement of power in the world.
Dr. Bloomfield was still fudging a little as he began. The phrase
“some ability to employ physical force” was more than a slight
understatement, as the bulk of the report makes abundantly clear. He
continued:
The principal features of a model system would include the
following: (1) powers sufficient to monitor and enforce disarmament,
settle disputes, and keep the peace - including taxing powers - with
all other powers reserved to the nations; (2) an international
force, balanced appropriately among ground, sea, air, and space
elements, consisting of 500,000 men, recruited individually, wearing
a UN uniform, and controlling a nuclear force composed of 50-100
mixed land-based mobile and undersea-based missiles, averaging one
megaton per weapon; (3) governmental powers distributed among three
branches...; (4) compulsory jurisdiction of the International
Court....6
“The notion of a ‘UN-controlled world’ is today a fantastic one,”
the professor wrote. “... Political scientists have generally come
to despair of quantum jumps to world order as utopian and unmindful
of political realities. But fresh minds from military, scientific,
and industrial life ... have sometimes found the logic of world
government - and it is world government we are discussing here -
inescapable.”7
Dr. Bloomfield then cited Christian Herter’s speech of February 18,
1960, in which the Secretary of State called for disarmament “to the
point where no single nation or group of nations could effectively
oppose this enforcement of international law by international
machinery.”8 To this CFR-affiliated academic, who had recently
worked for the disarmament agency where Herter’s speech had most
likely been written, there was no question about the meaning of the
Secretary of State’s words. “Here, then,” said Bloomfield, “is the
basis in recent American policy for the notion of a world
‘effectively controlled by the United Nations.’ It was not made
explicit, but the United States position carried the unmistakable
meaning, by whatever name, of world government, sufficiently
powerful in any event to keep the peace and enforce its judgments.”9
Then, to be absolutely certain that there would be no confusion or
misunderstanding about his meaning, he carefully defined his terms:
“World” means that the system is global, with no exceptions to its
fiat: universal membership. “Effectively controlled” connotes ... a
relative monopoly of physical force at the center of the system, and
thus a preponderance of political power in the hands of a
supranational organization.... “The United Nations” is not
necessarily precisely the organization as it now exists.... Finally,
to avoid endless euphemism and evasive verbiage, the contemplated
regime will occasionally be referred to unblushingly as a “world
government.”10 [Emphasis added]
If government is “force” - as George Washington so simply and
accurately defined it - then world government is “world force.”
Which means that Bloomfield and those who commissioned his report
and agreed with its overall recommendations wanted to create a
global entity with a monopoly of force - a political, even military
power undisputedly superior to any single nation-state or any
possible alliance of national or regional forces. It is as simple as
that.
“The appropriate degree of relative force,” the Bloomfield/IDA study
concluded, “would ... involve total disarmament down to police and
internal security levels for the constituent units, as against a
significant conventional capability at the center backed by a
marginally significant nuclear capability.”11 Again and again as the
following excerpts demonstrate, the study drives its essential
points home:
-
“National disarmament is a condition sine qua non for effective
UN control.... [W]ithout it, effective UN control is not
possible.”12
-
“The essential point is the transfer of the most vital element of
sovereign power from the states to a supranational government.”13
-
“The overwhelming central fact would still be the loss of control
of their military power by individual nations.”14
Putting Theory Into Practice
While Dr. Bloomfield was still writing his treatise for global rule,
the hapless residents of a small corner of Africa were experiencing
the terrible reality of “a world effectively controlled by the
United Nations.” The site chosen for the debut of the UN’s version
of “peacekeeping” was Katanga, a province in what was then known as
the Belgian Congo. The center of world attention 30 years ago, the
name Katanga draws a complete blank from most people today.
Katanga and its tragic experience have been expunged from history,
consigned to the memory hole. The
region appears on today’s maps as the Province of Shaba in Zaire.
But for one brief, shining moment, the
courageous people in this infant nation stood as the singular
testament to the capability of the newly independent Africans to
govern themselves as free people with a sense of peace, order, and
justice. While all around them swirled a maelstrom of violent,
communist-inspired revolution and bloody tribal warfare, the
Katangese distinguished themselves as a paradigm of racial, tribal,
and class harmony.15 What they stood for could not be tolerated by
the forces of “anti-colonialism” in the Kremlin, the U.S.
State Department, the Western news media, and especially the United
Nations.16
The stage was already set for the horrible drama that would soon
unfold when Belgium’s King Baudouin announced independence for the
Belgian Congo on June 30, 1960. The Soviets, who had been agitating
and organizing in the Congo for years, were ready. Patrice Lumumba
was their man, bought and paid for with cash, arms, luxuries, and
all the women, gin, and hashish he wanted. With his Soviet and Czech
“diplomats” and “technicians” who swarmed all over the Congo,
Lumumba was able to control the Congo elections.17
With Lumumba as
premier and Joseph Kasavubu as president, peaceful independence
lasted one week. Then Lumumba unleashed a communist reign of terror
against the populace, murdering and torturing men, women, and
children. Amidst this sea of carnage and terror, the province of
Katanga remained, by comparison, an island of peace, order, and
stability. Under the able leadership of the courageous Moise Kapenda
Tshombe, Katanga declared its independence from the central
Congolese regime. “I am seceding from chaos,” declared President
Tshombe, a devout Christian and an ardent anti-communist.18
These
were the days when the whole world witnessed the cry and the reality
of “self determination” as it swept through the African continent.
Anyone should have expected that Katanga’s declaration of
independence would have been greeted with the same huzzahs at the UN
and elsewhere that similar declarations from dozens of communist
revolutionary movements and pip-squeak dictatorships had evoked.
But it was Tshombe’s misfortune to be pro-Western, pro-free
enterprise, and pro-constitutionally limited government at a time
when the governments of both the U.S. and the USSR were supporting
Marxist “liberators” throughout the world. Nikita Khrushchev
declared Tshombe to be “a turncoat, a traitor to the interests of
the Congolese people.”19 American liberals and the rabble at the UN
dutifully echoed the hue and cry.
To our nation’s everlasting shame, on July 14, 1960, the U.S. joined
with the USSR in support of a UN resolution authorizing the world
body to send troops to the Congo.20 These troops were used, not to
stop the bloody reign of terror being visited on the rest of the
Congo, but to assist Lumumba, the chief terrorist, in his efforts to
subjugate Katanga. Within four days of the passage of that
resolution, thousands of UN troops were flown on U.S. transports
into the Congo, where they joined in the campaign against the only
island of sanity in all of black Africa.
Smith Hempstone, African
correspondent for the Chicago Daily News, gave this firsthand
account of the December 1961 UN attack on Elisa, the capital of
Katanga:
The U.N. jets next turned their attention to the center of the city.
Screaming in at treetop level ... they blasted the post office and
the radio station, severing Katanga’s communications with the
outside world.... One came to the conclusion that the U.N.’s action
was intended to make it more difficult for correspondents to let the
world know what was going on in Katanga....
A car pulled up in front of the Grand Hotel Leopold II where all of
us were staying. “Look at the work of the American criminals,”
sobbed the Belgian driver. “Take a picture and send it to Kennedy!”
In the backseat, his eyes glazed with shock, sat a wounded African
man cradling in his arms the body of his ten-year-old son. The
child’s face and belly had been smashed to jelly by mortar
fragments.21 The 46 doctors of Elisabethville - Belgian, Swiss,
Hungarian, Brazilian, and Spanish - unanimously issued a joint
report indicting the United Nations atrocities against innocent
civilians.
This is part of their account of a UN attack on a
hospital:
The Shinkolobwe hospital is visibly marked with an enormous red
cross on the roof.... In the maternity, roof, ceilings, walls, beds,
tables and chairs are riddled with bullets.... 4 Katangan women who
had just been delivered and one new-born child are wounded, a
visiting child of 4 years old is killed; two men and one child are
killed....22 The UN atrocities escalated. Unfortunately, we do not
have space here to devote to relating more of the details of this
incredibly vicious chapter of UN history - even though the progress
toward establishing a permanent UN army makes full knowledge of
every part of it more vital than ever.
Among the considerable body
of additional testimony about the atrocities, we highly recommend
The Fearful Master by G. Edward Griffin; Who Killed the Congo? by Philippa Schuyler; Rebels, Mercenaries, and Dividends by Smith
Hempstone; and 46 Angry Men by the 46 doctors of Elisabeth. In 1962,
a private group of Americans, outraged at our govern’s actions
against the freedom-seeking Katangese, attempted to capture on film
the truth about what was happening in the Congo.
They produced
Katanga: The Untold Story, an hour-long documentary narrated by
Congressman Donald L. Jackson. With newsreel footage and testimony
from eyewitnesses, including a compelling interview with Tshombe
himself, the program exposed the criminal activities and brutal
betrayal perpetrated on a peaceful people by the Kennedy
Administration, other Western leaders, and top UN officials. It
documents the fact that UN (including U.S.) planes deliberately
bombed Katanga’s schools, hospitals, and churches, while UN troops
machine-gunned and bayoneted civilians, school children, and Red
Cross workers who tried to help the wounded. This film is now
available on videotape,23 and is “mustviewing” for Americans who are
determined that this land or any other land shall never experience
similar UN atrocities.
After waging three major offensive campaigns against the fledgling
state, the UN “peace” forces overwhelmed Katanga and forced it back
under communist rule. Even though numerous international observers
witnessed and publicly protested the many atrocities committed by
the UN’s forces, the world body has never apologized for or admitted
to its wrongdoing. In fact, the UN and its internationalist cheering
section continue to refer to this shameful episode as a resounding
success.24 Which indeed it was, if one keeps in mind the true goal
of the organization.
Following the Policy Line
Why did the government of the United States side with the Soviet
Union and the United Nations in their support of communists Lumumba
and Kasavubu and their denunciation of Tshombe? Why did our nation
supply military assistance to and an official endorsement of the
UN’s military action against Katanga? The answer to both questions
is that our government was guided by the same “world order” policy
line laid out by the New York Times in its hard-to-believe editorial
of August 16, 1961:
[W]e must seek to discourage anti-Communist revolts in order to
avert bloodshed and war.
We must, under our own principles, live with evil even if by doing
so we help to stabilize tottering Communist regimes, as in East
Germany, and perhaps even expose citadels of freedom, like West
Berlin, to slow death by strangulation.25
Further elaboration on
this theme is revealed in a 1963 study conducted for the United
States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency by the Peace Research
Institute. Published in April of that year, here’s what our tax
dollars produced:
Whether we admit it to ourselves or not, we benefit enormously from
the capability of the Soviet police system to keep law and order
over the 200 million odd Russians and the many additional millions
in the satellite states. The break-up of the Russian Communist
empire today would doubtless be conducive to freedom, but would be a
good deal more catastrophic for world order....26
“We benefit
enormously?” Who is this “we”? Certainly not the American taxpayer,
who carried the tax burden for the enormous military expenditures
needed to “contain” Soviet expansionism. And who determined that
freedom must be sacrificed in the name of “world order”? Dr.
Bloomfield, in the same classified IDA study cited earlier, again
let the world-government cat out of the bag. If the communists
remained too militant and threatening, he observed,
“the
subordination of states to a true world government appears
impossible; but if the communist dynamic were greatly abated, the
West might well lose whatever incentive it has for world
government.”27 (Emphasis added)
In other words, the world order
Insiders were faced with the following conundrum: How do we make the
Soviets menacing enough to convince Americans that world government
is the only answer because confrontation is untenable; but, at the
same time, not make the Soviets so menacing that Americans would
decide to fight rather than become subject to communist tyrants? Are
we unfairly stretching these admissions? Not at all. Keep in mind
that from the end of World War II, up to the very time these
statements were being written, the communists had brutally added
Albania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia,
North Korea, Hungary, East Germany, China, Tibet, North Vietnam, and
Cuba to their satellite empire and were aggressively instigating
revolutions throughout Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle
East.
And, as was later demonstrated by the historical research of Dr.
Antony Sutton and other scholars, all of these Soviet conquests had
been immeasurably helped by massive and continuous transfusions from
the West to the Kremlin of money, credit, technology, and scientific
knowledge.28 It was arranged for and provided by the same CFR-affiliated
policy elitists who recognized in the “communist dynamic” they
created an “incentive” for the people in the West to accept “world
government.”
Project Phoenix
The U.S. Departments of State and Defense funded numerous other
studies about U.S.-USSR convergence and world order under UN
control. In 1964, the surfacing of the Project Phoenix reports
generated sufficient constituent concern to prompt several members
of Congress to protest the funding of such studies.29 But there was
not enough pressure to force Congress to launch full investigations
that could have led to putting an end to taxpayer funding of these
serious attacks on American security and our constitutional system
of government.
Produced by the Institute for Defense Analyses for the U.S. Arms
Control and Disarmament Agency, the Phoenix studies openly advocated
“unification” of the U.S. and USSR.30 The following passages taken
from Study Phoenix Paper dated June 4, 1963 leaves no doubt about
this goal:
Unification - ... At present the approach ... may appear so radical
that it will be dismissed out of hand; nevertheless, its logical
simplicity ... is so compelling that it seems to warrant more
systematic ....
Today, the United States and the Soviet Union combined have for all
practical purposes a near monopoly of force in the world. If the use
and direction of this power could somehow be synchronized, stability
and, indeed even unity might be within reach.31 The Phoenix studies,
like many other government reports before and after, urged increased
U.S. economic, scientific, and agricultural assistance to the Soviet
Union. These recommendations are totally consistent with the
long-range “merger” plans admitted to a decade before by Ford
Foundation President Rowan Gaither. And both Republican and
Democratic administrations have followed the same overall policy
ever since. But world order think-tank specialists like Bloomfield
realized that the incremental progress made through these programs
was too slow. He even lamented that reaching the final goal “could
take up to two hundred years.”32
Bloomfield then noted that there
was “an alternate road” to merger and eventual world government, one
that “relies on a grave crisis or war to bring about a sudden
transformation in national attitudes sufficient for the purpose.”33
The taxpayer-funded academic explained that “the order we examine
may be brought into existence as a result of a series of sudden,
nasty, and traumatic shocks.”34 Incredible? Impossible? Couldn’t
happen here? Many Americans thought so 30 years ago - before
“perestroika,” the Persian Gulf War, propaganda about global
warming, and other highly publicized developments. But by the fall
of 1990, Newsweek magazine would be reporting on the emerging
reality of,
“Superpowers as Super” and “a new order.... the United
States and the Soviet Union, united for crisis management around the
globe.”35 (Emphasis added)
In a seeming tipping of his hat to Bloomfield, President Bush would
state in his official August 1991 report, National Security Strategy
of The United States: “I hope history will record that the Gulf
crisis was the crucible of the new world order.”36 The CFR’s house
academics were already beating the convergence drums. Writing in the
Winter 1990 issue of Foreign Policy (published by the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace), Thomas G. Weiss (CFR) and Meryl
A. Kessler exhorted: “If Washington is to seize the full potential
of this opportunity, it will have to ... begin to treat the Soviet
Union as a real partner.” The long-planned partnership began to take
form officially with the signing of “A Charter for American- Russian
Partnership and Friendship” by Presidents Bush and Yeltsin on June
17, 1992. Among the many commitments for joint action in this
agreement, we find the following:
-
“... Summit meetings will be held on a regular basis”
-
“The United States of America and the Russian Federation
recognize the importance of the United Nations Security Council” and
support “the strengthening of UN peace-keeping”
-
The parties are determined “to cooperate in the development of
ballistic missile defense capabilities and technologies,” and work
toward creation of a joint “Ballistic Missile Early Warning Center”
-
“In view of the potential for building a strategic partnership
between the United States of America and the Russian Federation, the
parties intend to accelerate defense cooperation between their
military establishments ...”
-
“The parties will also pursue
cooperation in peacekeeping, counter-terrorism, and counternarcotics
missions”37
Before this charter had even been signed, however, our
new “partners” were already landing their bombers on American soil.
Airman, a magazine for the U.S. Air Force, reported in large
headlines for the cover story of its July 1992 issue: “The Russians
Have Landed.” The cover also featured a photo of the two Russian
Tu-95 Bear bombers and an An-124 transport which had landed on May
9th at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana. An accompanying
article noted that the Russians were given,
“a rousing salute from a
brass band and a thrilled gathering of Air Force people and
civilians who waved U.S. and Commonwealth of Independent States
flags.”
The long-standing plan of the Insiders calls for a merger of the
U.S. and the USSR (or Commonwealth of Independent States as it has
become) and then world government under the United Nations (see
Chapter 5). Details leading to completion of the plan are unfolding
week after week, month after month, before an almost totally unaware
America.
Notes
1. Smith Hempstone, Rebels, Mercenaries, and Dividends (New York:
Frederic A. Praeger, 1962), p.
190. 2. Graham Hancock, Lords of Poverty: The Power, Prestige, and
Corruption of the International Aid Business (New York: Atlantic
Monthly Press, 1989), p. 108. 3. V. Orval Watts, The United Nations: Planned Tyranny (New York:
Devin-Adair, 1955), pp. 7-8. 4. Adlai E. Stevenson, “Working Toward a World Without War” in
Disarmament: The New U.S.
Initiative, United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
Publication 8, General Series 5,
released September 1962 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office), p. 19. 5. Lincoln P. Bloomfield, A World Effectively Controlled by the
United Nations, Institute For Defense Analyses, March 10, 1962.
Prepared for IDA in support of a study submitted to the Deparment of
State under contract No. SCC 28270, February 24, 1961. 6. Ibid., p. iv.
7. Ibid., p. 1. 8. Ibid., p. 2. 9. Ibid., pp. 2-3.
10. Ibid., p. 3. 11. Ibid., p. 19. 12. Ibid., p. 23.
13. Ibid., p. 25. 14. Ibid. 15. See, for example, Philippa Schuyler, Who Killed The Congo? (New
York: Devin-Adair, 1962.) 16. See, for example, G. Edward Griffin, The Fearful Master: A
Second Look at the United Nations (Appleton, WI: Western Islands,
1964), Part I, “Katanga: A Case History,” Chapter 4, “The
Moderates.” 17. See, for example, Griffin, p. 11. 18. See, for example, Griffin, Chapter 3, “Seceding From Chaos.”
19. Hempstone, p. 68. 20. UN document S/4347. See also: Griffin, p. 16; and Hempstone, pp.
110-111. 21. Hempstone, pp. 190-93. 22. The 46 Civilian Doctors of Elisabethville, 46 Angry Men
(Belmont, MA: American Opinion, 1962; originally published by Dr. T.
Vleurinck, 96 Avenue de Broqueville, Bruxelles 15, 1962), pp. 60-63.
23. Congressman Donald L. Jackson (narrator), Katanga: The Untold
Story, available on video (VHS, 59 minutes) from American Media,
Westlake Village, CA. 24. See, for example: Richard N. Gardner, “The Case for Practical
Internationalism,” Foreign Affairs, Spring 1988, p. 837. 25. “Protest Over Berlin,” New York Times editorial, August 16,
1961. 26. “The Political Control of An International Police Force,” by
Walter Millis. Published by the Peace Research Institute, Inc. April
1963 under U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency Grant ACDA/IR-8,
Volume II, p. A-14. 27. Bloomfield, p. 12. 28. See, for examples: Medford Evans, The Secret War for the A-Bomb
(Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1953); Joseph Finder, Red Carpet (New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1983); George Racey Jordan, USAF (Ret.),
Major Jordan’s Diaries (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1952); Charles
Levinson, Vodka Cola (London and New York: Gordon & Cremonesi,
1978). And see especially the following works by Antony C. Sutton: Western
Technology and Soviet Economic
Development, 1917-1930 (Stanford University, Stanford, CA: Hoover
Institution, 1968); Western
Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1930-1945 (Stanford
University, Stanford, CA: Hoover
Institution, 1971); Western Technology and Soviet Economic
Development, 1945-1965 (Stanford
University, Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution, 1973); National
Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union
(New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House, 1973); The Best Enemy Money Can
Buy (Billings, MT: Liberty
House Press, 1986). 29. See, for example, Glenard P. Lipscomb (R-CA), quoted in
Congressional Record - House, February 10, 1964, pp. 2720-24. 30. See, for example, Vincent P. Rock, “Common Action for the
Control of Conflict: An Approach to the Problem of International
Tension and Arms Control,” July 1963, summary document of a Project
Phoenix Study performed by the Institute for Defense Analyses for
the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. Also see “Study
Phoenix Paper, June 4, 1963,” p. 33, quoted in Congressional Record
House, May 13, 1964. 31. Ibid. 32. Bloomfield, p. 21. 33. Ibid., p. 22.
34. Ibid. 35. Douglas Waller and Margaret Garrard Warner, “Superpowers as
Superpartners,” Newsweek, September 17, 1990, p. 27. 36. National Security Strategy of the United States, The White
House, August 1991, p. v. 37. A Charter for American-Russian Partnership and Friendship,
signed by Presidents Bush and Yeltsin on June 17, 1992 (seven-page
document released by the White House, Office of the Press Secretary,
June 17, 1992), pp. 2, 4-5.
Back to
Contents
|