World Government by Design
By Steve Bonta The New American, February 25, 2002
America’s subservience to the United Nations and transformation into the world’s policeman is not accidental but is part of a grand design to establish world government.
As with so many of history’s so-called trends, America’s transformation into global policeman isn’t accidental. Official admissions of this little-known truth aren’t commonplace, but they do occur. Take journalist Michael Hirsh’s stunning comments in a recent issue of Newsweek, for example. Buried more than four pages into an otherwise typical anti-isolationism screed entitled “Death of a Founding Myth,” we find the following:
While the isolationists … tempted millions with their siren’s appeal to nativism — the internationalists were always hard at work in quiet places making plans for a more perfect global community. In the end the internationalists have always dominated national policy. Even so, they haven’t bragged about their globe-building for fear of reawakening the other half of the American psyche, our berserker nativism. And so they have always done it in the most out-of-the-way places and with little ado. In December 1917 the Inquiry, a group of eager reformers who included a young Walter Lippmann, secretly met in New York to draw up Wilson’s Fourteen Points. In 1941, FDR concocted the Atlantic Charter in the mists off Newfoundland. The dense woods of New Hampshire gave birth to the Bretton Woods institutions — the IMF and World Bank — in 1944. And a year later the United Nations came to life at the secluded Georgetown estate of Dumbarton Oaks.... So what emerged took us more or less by surprise. We had built a global order without quite realizing it, bit by bit, era by era, with our usual schizoid approach: alternating engagement and withdrawal.... Like it or not — and clearly large numbers of Americans still don’t — we Americans are now part of an organic whole with the world that George Washington wanted to keep distant.
Leaving aside the snide reference to George Washington, and Hirsh’s shifty use of the term “we,” what of the claim that America has been deliberately, semi-secretly maneuvered into globalism, that her “berserker nativism” (i.e., patriotism) has been neutralized by stealth and subterfuge?
Background to Betrayal
Hirsh is absolutely correct. America’s modern obsession with internationalism, including global militarism, is hardly a grass-roots impulse. It all started, as Hirsh observes, with Woodrow Wilson and the war to make the world safe for democracy. Wilson himself was a left-leaning idealist, in step with the progressives and socialists of his day with their heady designs of making America over in their own image. But, as is ever the case with idealists in the arena of practical politics, Wilson was ultimately the tool of other men, men of cunning and ambition far surpassing his own. One of Wilson’s keepers was Edward Mandell House, a longtime political operative from Texas who had learned to work the levers of power behind the scenes. House had been born into wealth and privilege and had no visceral need for fame. The consummate political insider, House manipulated Wilson’s internationalist idealism as a personal confidant to the president but declined any official appointments. House was the real impetus behind the Inquiry, a semisecret group of internationalist intellectuals including Harvard-trained journalist and co-founder of The New Republic Walter Lippmann. Many members of the Inquiry, including both House and Lippmann, were also involved in the negotiations at Versailles following World War I. The Inquiry created the Fourteen Points, the famous set of postwar policy recommendations that included as its centerpiece the League of Nations, the predecessor of the United Nations. Despite a blizzard of propaganda on its behalf, the League of Nations was ultimately defeated in the U.S. Senate, an act that set back the plans of House and his associates. But House, ever the patient pragmatist, joined with many others who had thrown their energy into the League of Nations and formed the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the American counterpart of the London-based Royal Institute of International Affairs. The Council on Foreign Relations aspired to nothing less than creating conditions favorable for the establishment of a world government — although in recent decades, globalist elites have generally avoided using that politically risky phrase. With the outbreak of World War II, internationalists in the CFR and elsewhere had another chance to convince a reluctant American Congress (and public) of the wisdom of a world order. Accordingly, the United Nations was created and this time, the U.S. Senate voted overwhelmingly in favor of the UN treaty. From the beginning, the architects of the UN recognized that, as with all governments, only the ability to exercise force could confer legitimacy. This meant that the UN would have to be given police and military powers. But how? Member nations were jealous of their sovereignty and largely ignorant of the megalomaniacal objectives of UN insiders. They would not easily be persuaded to surrender their weapons or commit their armed forces to UN service. As long as a country as militarily powerful and independent as the United States wielded influence apart from the United Nations, a true world order would be impossible. The infamous Kennedy-era State Department document Freedom from War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World gives a rare glimpse into the mentality of the men who in public always carefully insist that the United Nations and kindred international organizations are but benign “frameworks” or “forums” for peace and cooperation. The document envisages strengthening the United Nations militarily by a careful, step-by-step process while gradually reducing the military might of independent nations, until “no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force.” Clearly, to achieve this objective, the United States must be weakened militarily and persuaded to commit its resources to the United Nations. This has been precisely the outcome of more than a half-century of UN-supervised war-making. American confidence was severely eroded by the Korean stalemate, the original UN “police action” which included capturing, torturing, and successfully brainwashing a surprising number of American servicemen by a brutal Communist foe. And Vietnam was worse: Our troops were placed deliberately in a no-win quagmire with inane rules of engagement precluding victory. The American defeat in Vietnam — the first in our history — devastated our national confidence, even as sundry subversives on the home front sowed the seeds for a cultural revolution in the ’60s and ’70s that blasted American moral values and cultural norms. The Persian Gulf War in 1991 marked the next major turning point. Regarding the UN-supervised war and cease-fire that followed (UN-led wars usually end in “cease-fires,” not “peace treaties”), President George Bush (the elder) fondly recalled:
In the Gulf, we saw the United Nations playing the role dreamed of by its founders, with the world’s leading nations orchestrating and sanctioning collective action against aggression.
After such a precedent, it became a simple matter for eager-beaver internationalists during the Bush and Clinton eras to dispatch American troops to the likes of Somalia, Kosovo, and Bosnia to fight on behalf of the United Nations.
Fast Forward to Today
Now, in the era of George W. Bush, the true objectives of the internationalist set are more transparent than ever. An international UN-mandated peacekeeping force is now being assembled in Afghanistan. UN troops are stationed in much of Africa, most notably in the Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Sierra Leone. Smaller contingents patrol the former Spanish Sahara in Morocco and many other African states. UN forces also wage peace in Cyprus, Korea, the Balkans, and Palestine, and token observer forces are stationed in many other hot spots. But the most significant fact about UN operations is that they seldom end. The UN has kept the Korean peninsula in a state of war for almost fifty years. The UN-mandated campaign against Iraq shows no sign of ending. And even the most credulous observer would now admit that Clinton and his internationalist friends never intended to extricate UN-supervised U.S. forces from Bosnia and Kosovo. But the prize for the globalists remains the United States. Soberingly, the United Nations can now muster the military force to subdue much of the Third World, given an adequate political pretext. And America is being duped into subscribing to the internationalist agenda, as each new UN military adventure strengthens the precedent for U.S. subservience to international authority.
New Page 1
