Chapter 2
Disarmament and Submission
A world effectively controlled by the United Nations is one in which "world
government" would come about through the establishment of supranational
institutions.... [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.1
*** National disarmament is a condition sine qua non for effective UN
control.... The overwhelming central fact would still be the loss of control
of their military power by individual nations.2
— Lincoln P. Bloomfield (CFR), 1962 U.S. Department of
State Study Memorandum No. 7, A World Effectively Controlled By the United
Nations.
In Stage III progressive controlled disarmament ... would proceed to a point
where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively
strengthened U.N. Peace Force.3
— U.S. Department of State document, Freedom From
War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a
Peaceful World, 1961
The fact is, I see no compelling reason why we should not unilaterally get
rid of our nuclear weapons.4
— Paul H. Nitze (CFR), former U.S. arms control negotiator in 1999 New York
Times op-ed
Following World War I, a powerful cabal of one-world internationalists
offered humanity a "solution" to the horrible ravages of
war: world government. The League of Nations was their instrument of
salvation and U.S. President Woodrow Wilson was their prophet. (These
individuals and groups will be examined further in the next chapter.)
"The dream of a world united against the awful wastes of war is ... deeply
imbedded in the hearts of men everywhere," Wilson proclaimed. Wilson
believed that "all nations must be absorbed into some great association of
nations...."5
The new League he proposed would provide "collective
security," i.e., it would use collective force against designated
"aggressors," through some undefined instrumentality.
The U.S. Senate, however, refused to ratify the League of Nations Covenant.
Americans were suspicious of entanglements with the constantly warring
European powers and wanted no part of submersion in a world super-state.
They saw through the sophistry and the seductive "peace" appeals. Any League
strong enough to "enforce peace" globally would also possess the power to
impose tyranny worldwide. There would be no way to limit its power.
Without U.S. membership, the League of Nations was doomed. However, in the
wake of the even more massive death and destruction wrought by World War II,
the organized one-world forces succeeded in pulling the United States into
the League's successor, the United Nations. In the decades since, these
advocates of a "new world order" have been working assiduously to invest the
United Nations gradually with legislative, executive, and judicial powers
that will transform it into a global government.
From the viewpoint of these "Insiders," who plan to be the rulers of this
new world government, providing the UN with unchallengeable military power
is a paramount objective. Tragically, very few Americans realize that the
post-World War II "arms control" process and the various "arms control"
treaties to which we are party have been designed to achieve precisely that
objective.
And this incredible scheme is far closer to final fruition than
most Americans would ever imagine.
A Damning Piece of Evidence
Professor Lincoln P. Bloomfield of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology is very important to our consideration
here for his revelations about this conspiracy for world conquest.
Unintended revelations, we hasten to add. Dr. Bloomfield is the author of
one of the most critical and damning pieces of evidence to fall into our
hands concerning the conspiracy by Insiders in our own government to destroy
the United States and subject the American people, along with the people of
all the world, to an all-powerful United Nations.
What is so astounding is that even four decades after this scheme was
discovered and exposed, Dr. Bloomfield and his coconspirators are not only
still free (in fact they have never even been officially investigated) but
are actively pursuing the same criminal scheme. Even more extraordinary
still, as the reader will soon see, the treasonous scheme Bloomfield devised
is quite obviously still serving as a guiding light to official U.S.
policies.
We are referring to the secret 1962 study Dr. Bloomfield authored for the
Kennedy State Department entitled Study Memorandum No. 7, A World
Effectively Controlled By the United Nations. The title itself is startling,
but the contents are absolutely shocking for their audacity and treachery.
In the study's opening summary, Professor Bloomfield writes:
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.6 [Emphasis added.]
Dr. Bloomfield 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 ... ;
(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....7
In this blueprint for global tyranny financed by the U.S. government,
Bloomfield repeatedly stated a key point, that "it is world government we
are discussing here — inescapable."8 And he leaves no doubt that the scheme
would mean subjecting the U.S. to this omnipotent "contemplated regime" (his
words).9 He emphasizes, for instance, that:
National disarmament is a condition sine qua non for effective UN
control.... The essential point is the transfer of the most vital element of
sovereign power from the states to a supranational government.... The
overwhelming central fact would still be the loss of control of their
military power by individual nations.10
Dr. Bloomfield lamented that it would be extremely difficult to sell this
program for world government to the American people. However, it would be
possible, he wrote, if our national leaders utilized "a grave crisis or war
to bring about a sudden transformation in national attitudes sufficient for
the purpose." The MIT professor went on to suggest that "the order we
examine may be brought into existence as a result of a series of sudden,
nasty, and traumatic shocks."11
The Bloomfield scheme is as old as tyranny itself: Create a crisis and then
offer a solution. That solution always entails, of
course, "temporary" seizure of total power.
Official "Disarmament" Plans
Dr. Bloomfield's study was not just a
professorial pipe dream destined to be unread and forgotten in some musty,
dusty archive.* It describes what has become the operational policy of the
U.S. government. Bloomfield, we should point out, was, and is, a member of
the Council on Foreign Relations, and it was his fellow CFR members in
President Kennedy's CFR-dominated State Department who initiated the
official implementation of this scheme.
* The full text of the Bloomfield study is available electronically from our
Get US out! of the United Nations website: www.getusout.org.
In 1961, the Kennedy administration promulgated the now-infamous disarmament
plan entitled Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and
Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World. Also known as Department of State
Publication 7277, this plan, which is very similar to the Bloomfield study,
presented a three-stage program for the transfer of U.S. arms to the United
Nations.
During Stage II (the stage we are currently in), the document mandates:
"The
U.N. Peace Force shall be established and progressively strengthened."12
This will be accomplished,
"to the end that the United Nations can
effectively in Stage III deter or suppress any threat or use of force in
violation of the purposes and principles of the United Nations."13
This
incredible, treasonous policy — which has been actively but quietly brought
along toward completion during successive administrations — concludes as
follows:
In Stage III progressive controlled disarmament ... would proceed to a point
where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively
strengthened U.N. Peace Force.14 [Emphasis added.]
Pause and reflect for a moment on the enormity of the audacity and treason
involved in such an incredible plot. It says that under the system it
envisions, "no state" (meaning no country, including the United States)
would be able to challenge the UN's power. This means that the U.S., like
every other nation, would become a vassal of an omnipotent UN.
Who would actually be in control of this power?
Thomas Jefferson wisely
admonished:
"In questions of power let no more be heard of confidence in
man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution."15
No human being or group of human beings should be entrusted with the kind of
power contemplated here. Are we to believe that perhaps the UN is populated
with angelic beings? Anything but! The tower on New York's East River is
better known as Terrorists, Tyrants, and Thugs "R" Us. This "House of
Peace," remember, regularly erupts in obscene exaltation for Fidel Castro,
"Butcher of Tiananmen Square" Li Peng, and other leaders of the most brutal
regimes in history.
The disarmament scheme's leading proponents in the U.S. government have
publicly sworn oaths to uphold our constitutional form of government and to
defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic. These same individuals
straight-facedly pretend to be doing exactly that, and the vast majority of
Americans innocently take them at their word. After all, these are
"respected statesmen" whose names and faces have become familiar and who
have been anointed by the Establishment media and political powers. Surely
they would not betray us. Yet, that is precisely what they have done and are
doing.
We do not use the terms treason lightly or loosely; we mean it in the
precise and literal sense intended by the Founding Fathers.
According to our
Constitution:
"Treason against the United States shall consist only in
levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid
and comfort."16
The Freedom From War plan manifestly fits this definition.
It would render all Americans subject to a foreign power (the UN) controlled
by one-world internationalists who have made no
secret of their hostility toward our system of government, and by
totalitarian regimes that clearly mean us harm.
Freedom From War was amplified in April 1962 by another disarmament document
entitled Blueprint for the Peace Race: Outline of Basic Provisions of a
Treaty on General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World. As before,
its third stage calls for the strengthening of the UN Peace Force "until it
had sufficient armed forces and armaments so that no state could challenge
it."17
That is where the current
CFR leadership in the Bush administration, working
together with the heirs of Gorbachev and Yeltsin in Moscow, are planning to
take us with the current round of disarmament talks and the ongoing push to
arm the United Nations with a standing army.
Their true intent is not the
elimination of weapons, but the transfer of weapons and military forces from
nation-states to the UN, creating a monopoly of power that will enable them
to enforce their envisioned
new world order.
A Strange Alliance
On October 19, 1994, former Soviet dictator Mikhail
Gorbachev released the Final Report of the Global Security Project at the CFR's Pratt House headquarters in New York City.18
The Global Security
Project (GSP) is a joint effort of the Gorbachev Foundation and the CFR.
Besides our same Dr. Bloomfield, other CFR "security experts" on the project
include Richard Falk, Saul Mendlovitz, Jonathan Dean, Jeremy J. Stone, and
the arch-subversive Daniel Ellsberg (of the Pentagon Papers infamy). They
were joined by the late Senator Alan Cranston, a longtime proCommunist,19 a
past president of the World Federalists, and a member of the Trilateral
Commission.
The Gorbachev/CFR GSP Final Report calls for the creation of a UN "readiness
force" provided by UN member states. It proposes "drastic cuts by nuclear
weapons states to the level of 100 nuclear warheads, to be achieved within
ten years, by 2005 A.D."20
These reductions would be made "irreversible" by
the
transfer of all weapons-grade "fissile material" to the UN's International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). It also recommends that the UN Security Council
press all other nations likewise to place their nuclear facilities under UN
control — or face "joint punitive action."21
In line with the Bloomfield
study and Freedom From War, the GSP calls for the worldwide abolition of
conventional armed forces by nation-states.22
For those who still can't recognize the obvious, James Garrison, cofounder
and president of the Gorbachev Foundation/USA, candidly admitted the game
plan in a 1995 newspaper interview.
"Over the next 20 to 30 years, we are
going to end up with world government," he said. "It's inevitable," Garrison
continued, "... through this turbulence is the recognition that we have to
empower the United Nations and that we have to govern and regulate human
interaction...."23
An "Independent" Commission?
In the spring of 1995, shortly after the
release of the GSP Final Report, another one-world volley pushing the same
global disarmament program came in the form of Our Global Neighborhood, the
report of the "independent" Commission on Global Governance (CGG).
The CGG
includes among its august membership former presidents and prime ministers,
many of whom are also leaders of the Socialist International, the principal
global organization of Marxist parties promoting world government and
East-West convergence.24 Our Global Neighborhood was released on the eve of
the United Nations Social Summit in Copenhagen, Denmark. The influential CGG
report insists that the UN and other international institutions must be
vested with ever greater legislative, executive, and judicial powers —
including new regulatory, taxing, police, and military capabilities
including a standing UN "peace force."
Interestingly, one of the CGG's key consultants/advisors for this report was
again our same Dr. Bloomfield. In the years between his 1961 study and his
efforts for the GSP and CGG reports, Bloomfield continued to serve the world
government
cause: teaching at MIT, serving as director of global issues for the
National Security Council, sitting on international panels, and authoring
additional pleas to empower the UN.
He is like hundreds of other CFR members
who rotate in and out of "government service" to prestigious (and
profitable) positions in finance and consulting (for instance, Goldman
Sachs, Chase Manhattan, the Blackstone Group, or Kissinger Associates),
academe (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Stanford, MIT, Johns Hopkins,
etc.), think tanks (CFR, the Brookings Institution, the Institute for
International Economics, Rand Corporation, the Woodrow Wilson Institute,
etc.) or the corporate world, which includes many top Fortune 500 companies
whose boards of directors and top officer slots have become heavy with CFR
members.
Harlan Cleveland
Also serving with Bloomfield as consultants to the CGG were
CFR members Michael Clough, Peter Haas, and Harlan Cleveland,25 a notorious
pro-Communist security risk in the Kennedy administration who helped draft
the Freedom From War program for U.S. disarmament.26 Mr. Cleveland was one
of the early UN "founders" at the 1945 San Francisco Conference. In the
student yearbook at Princeton University, he listed himself as a
"Socialist."27
Later, he wrote articles for Pacific Affairs, the journal of
the Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR), an infamous Soviet espionage
operation that played a critical role in delivering China to the Communist
forces of Mao Tse-tung. The IPR was described by the Senate Judiciary
Committee as "an instrument of Communist policy, propaganda and military
intelligence."28
While Cleveland was deputy chief of the United Nations Relief and
Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) mission in Italy, that organization
helped implement "Operation Keelhaul," the treasonous and brutal betrayal
that delivered nearly five million Europeans to Stalin's death squads and
concentration camps. Cleveland's boss at UNRRA was Soviet agent Harold
Glasser.29 Cleveland was later appointed U.S. ambassador to NATO. As we will
see in ensuing chapters, he is typical of the one-world subversives who have
penetrated and infested the top levels of the federal government for several
decades.
Mr. Cleveland has kept active writing and speaking on behalf of the UN,
international socialism, and world government over the past half century. In
1976, he authored The Third Try at World Order: U.S. Policy for an
Interdependent World, published by the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia
and the Aspen Institute, both of which are longtime advocacy centers for
world government, intimately linked with the CFR.
In that book, Cleveland laments that the first try at "world order"
collapsed with the failure to secure U.S. entry into the League of Nations
and that the second failure resulted from a United Nations that was not
invested with sufficient authority and power to enact and enforce world
law.30
According to Cleveland, the third try, now underway, is an attempt to
arrive at world governance piecemeal, by strengthening the UN to deal with
various global crises involving, for instance, the global environment, food reserve[s], energy supplies, fertility rates, military stalemate, and
conflict in a world of proliferating weapons.31
Power of the Purse
Supports the Sword Planners such as Cleveland recognize
that transferring arms alone is not enough to establish a standing UN army.
That and other UN schemes require a steady revenue stream that is not
beholden to the nation states that the UN seeks to dominate.
Since 1991, Cleveland has served as president of the World Academy of Art
and Science. In 1995, besides contributing to the CGG's Global Neighborhood
report for the UN Social Summit in Copenhagen, Cleveland also headed up an
international cast of scholars to produce a special UN anniversary issue of
Futures, the prestigious journal of forecasting.
Entitled "The United
Nations at Fifty: Policy and Financing Alternatives," the report proposed a
number of schemes for global taxation.
In his lead-off essay, Cleveland asserted that,
"we will be relying more and
more [on the UN] for peacekeeping and peaceful
settlement, for the promotion of fairness in the human family, and for
fostering human development.... Financing the UN is no longer an issue to be
ignored, bypassed, or swept aside.... It is high time we looked hard at how
best to finance a widening range of international functions that grows more
obviously necessary with every passing year."32
Rather than relying on "the worn-out policy of year-to-year decisions by
individual governments" on how much of their citizens' money to give to the
UN, said Cleveland, "what's needed is a flow of funds for development which
are generated automatically under international control."33
He suggests, for
instance, UN taxes on passports, on international travel, on ships (for the
use of international waters), on international financial transactions, and
on emissions of CFCs, CO2, methane and other gases.34 When it comes to the
potential sources of global taxation, said Cleveland, "the list is limited
only by the human imagination."35
That naked admission should strike terror into the heart of every taxpayer
familiar with the imaginative capabilities of one-world socialists like
Cleveland. In typical socialist fashion, these globalists see every
productive human effort as a taxable activity, a potential "revenue stream"
for the UN.
The global tax proposal that has won the most support is the so-called Tobin
Tax (after Nobel Laureate economist and CFR member James Tobin), which would
raise hundreds of billions of dollars annually by taxing international
financial transactions. The Tobin Tax and other proposed global taxes would
radically rearrange the entire international system, transferring one of the
most important elements of national sovereignty to global institutions and
providing the UN with independent and unaccountable revenue sources that
would enable its constant expansion.
In the past decade, these proposals have gone from the purely theoretical to
near practical reality. Yet most Americans have no idea that such schemes
are even in the offing. How can it be that something so imminent and
monumentally important could be so
completely unknown?
Harlan Cleveland explains it this way:
"Over the years,
a good deal of thinking has been done, mostly below the surface of public
attention, on this whole subject."36 (Emphasis added.)
You see, in the elite circles of power in which Cleveland and his CFR
associates operate, the internationalists have been discussing and refining
these one-world schemes for many years. They do not spring it on the general
public, though, until they have lined up winning support for it. It's called
getting your ducks in a row.
New World Army
Besides conspiring to deliver our nuclear arsenal to the UN,
one-world architects like Cleveland, Bloomfield, et al., also have been
pushing full tilt to build a globe-straddling UN conventional army. Everyone
who wasn't hibernating for the past 10 years or stranded on a desert isle
has heard of Operation Desert Storm, the massive, U.S.-led, UN-sanctioned
1991 invasion of Iraq, which President
George Bush (CFR) declared was
necessary to liberate Kuwait, stop the "naked aggression" of Saddam Hussein,
and promote "a new world order."37
But how many people have heard of, or remember, Operations Desert Spring,
Laser Strike, Northern Watch, Southern Watch, Eagle Eye, Joint Falcon, Joint
Forge, Deliberate Forge, or Determined Forge? Probably not very many. And
yet these are all ongoing multinational military operations — in Iraq,
Kosovo, Bosnia-Herzegovina — involving large numbers of U.S. military
personnel and assets.
And how many people have heard of, or remember, Operations Shining Hope,
Noble Anvil, Desert Fox, Desert Thunder, Bevel Edge, Noble Obelisk, Joint
Endeavor, Deliberate Guard, Determined Guard, Decisive Enhancement, Decisive
Edge, Desert Strike, Desert Focus, or any of the dozens of other UN, NATO,
and other multilateral deployments of U.S. armed forces throughout the world
over the past decade?
A May 2000 report prepared for the Joint Chiefs of Staff notes:
"Since 1990, the United States military has participated in more than 90
'named' operations around the world."
"Of these," it states, "more than 55
involved the deployment of a substantial number of forces to combat
operations, peacekeeping missions or humanitarian endeavors."38
Such
missions have been costly.
According to the General Accounting Office, these
missions, which it calls "Operations Other Than War" (OOTW), will cost
taxpayers $4.7 billion for Fiscal Year 2000. These wars that are no longer
called wars have cost $21.3 billion since 1991.39
These costly "operations" rob dollars from our defense budget, which should
be reserved for protecting America's national interests. In fact, there is
no constitutional authority for our military to be used for any other
purpose than national defense. Besides consuming scarce defense dollars, the
UN OOTW capers have greatly strained our weapons and personnel resources.
In
July 1999, Congressman Floyd Spence, chairman of the House Armed Services
Committee, warned:
Over the last nine months, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have concluded that the
ability of the U.S. armed forces to meet the requirements of the National
Military Strategy entails "moderate to high risk." This disturbing
assessment was made even before Operation Allied Force commenced in the
Balkans.
As a "major theater war," Operation Allied Force overextended the
U.S. Air Force, placing heavy demands on aerial refueling, reconnaissance
and electronic warfare units.... This "high-risk" strategy is
unacceptable.... Unless our nation fields the forces and provides the
resources necessary to execute the National Military Strategy, we will
surely inherit a more dangerous world in which America's credibility and
resolve are put to the test with alarming frequency.40
"An Air Force that is today forty percent smaller than it was in 1990,"
noted Chairman Spence, "committed over 40% of its assets to Operation Allied
Force, a higher percentage than was committed during Operation Desert
Storm."41
Rep. Spence quoted General Michael Hawley, who was Commander of
the Air
Combat Command during Operation Allied Force.
"We cannot continue to
accumulate contingencies," warned General Hawley. "At some point, you've got
to figure out how to get out of some-thing."42
But more "hot-spots" keep cropping up. Coups, revolutions, wars, and
conflicts — in Fiji, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Congo, Sierra Leone, Sudan,
Nigeria, Rwanda, Kosovo, Bosnia, Cyprus, Lebanon
— guarantee opportunities galore for the global interventionists running
U.S. foreign and military policy. Not surprisingly, these "opportunities"
are being cited by one-world advocates as proof of the need for a standing
UN Army.
On May 15, 2000 Representative James McGovern (D-Mass.) introduced a
resolution calling for the establishment of a 6,000strong UN force that
could quickly be deployed to conflict situations worldwide. According to
McGovern, "a lot of lives could have been saved" in East Timor if the UN had
been equipped with such a force.43
"This force will allow the Security
Council, subject to a US veto, to deploy well-trained peacekeepers within 15
days of a resolution," McGovern said.44
His proposed UN Rapid Deployment
Police and Security Force would only be for short-term deployment ("a few
months," he says) while more permanent coalition forces are assembled.45
As we will see in future chapters, this effort to create a permanent UN army
is gathering steam, with all the usual CFR puppeteers orchestrating a global
"consensus." Tragedy and tumult provide pretexts galore for intervention.
Often these conflicts have been fomented in the first place by
Communist-trained guerrillas who have strong UN support.
And, as we shall
see in Chapter 9, United Nations intervention frequently adds to these
tragedies by helping the worst tyrants crush their opposition and solidify
their power.
Back to Contents