Click here to visit www.CharlesECarlson.com for recent postings.
We are not updating WHTT.Org while we upgrade this website, however, may still use this site to search our 11 years of archives.
Thank You for visiting us, Chuck Carlson and WHTT Team.
Understanding the Internationalist's Triangle; The United Nations, Foreign Aid and Terrorism
C. E. Carlson, November 1996 Dec 30, 2004
We are witnessing a quarrel never before seen on the floor of the United Nations, a battle for control between the USA that created it, and the rest of the world, who have for 56 years been along for the ride. In the interest of understanding we offers this paper from our archives. In reading it we ask that you keep in mind when it was written.-editor
Understanding the Internationalist's Triangle; The United Nations, Foreign Aid and Terrorism
"What is this animal," asked the blind men, as they touched the elephant. "It is like a tree" said one, feeling its leg; "It is like a broom said another," feeling its tail; "It is like a wall," said another feeling the elephantТs side and flank.
What is the United Nations? The answers are as varied as the elephant fable. To the United Nations Organization Association volunteer, dutifully contacting schools and civic-minded citizens to promote it, the UN is the benighted in its misunderstood nobility. To the local UN volunteer it is UNICEF, "50 Years of Caring for the World's Children" or the latest speech scheduled, "Arizona in a Global Perspective." The UN is population control in what the volunteer sees as a hopelessly crowded world; it is a hope of justice in an age that many agree is racked with wars, the origin and purpose of which seem beyond understanding.
What is the United Nations to the career politician in Washington, to the news media and to academia? The worlds best hope that never quite achieves its stated purpose, peace; the UN is a bottomless pit, a hungry bird demanding more food, a political harangue in a hundred tongues But the UN is more to the Washington politician and big city journalist. It is a sometimes useful tool to promote ideas that are unpopular. The UN makes good print on such matters as international conflict and tends to focus attention off the domestic mess. The politician realizes wars come in handy. Generally the congressmen, the media and academia have little more understanding of the United Nations than does the volunteer. A Congressman soon learns the UN has fearfully powerful friends within the beltway, and because it causes him little personal vexation, he instinctively know it is best to say little that is negative about the United Nations. Hear little evil, see little evil, speak little evil is the resulting position of Congress, the press and academia when it comes to the UN.
The UN has its natural predators. The hard right activists, the "Christian right," with their much publicized "paranoia of world government," openly state they want the Congress to opt out of the UN community, to let it go its own internationalist way. To most of its enemies the United Nations is considered a free standing international organization that is the embodiment of evil. It is a mysteriously managed world government that threatens each citizen by threatening to take over our own governmentТs military taxing authority. To some of these groups the United Nations is the ultimate threat, more dangerous than inflation, crime, abortion or federal schools. It is a threat to national sovereignty, meaning that the United Nations would be granted control over our government with the United Nations Covenants ruling over our Constitution. Then, the hard right tells us, the UN would then exert its unbridled will over our people. The right wing answer is often get out of the United Nations, shun it and let it go its evil way.
Lastly, there is a far larger group than all of these combined. The countless millions who fit into none of the above but are simply apathetic to the United Nations confusion. The UN makes little sense to them so they do not try to understand it. They do not understand those starry eyed idealists who support the UN, and the public's five senses do not provide clear insight as to why it is feared as a potential master. If they are concerned at all it is with more immediate threats, such as their declining standard of living. In a word, to most people, nothing significant adds up for either side of the UN controversy. They have heard the proclamation of the blind men feeling the elephant, and they doubt what all say.
Is it possible all of these views are true of the United Nations, that there is a synergism of these views that makes sense of the matter. Or is it more likely that there is simply a missing piece to the puzzle that makes the entire matter appear out of focus to most people, and without that missing piece the actions of the United Nations are incomprehensible regardless of the viewers standpoint? Let us first reexamine the UN from the perspective in the area of control, and then reexamine its mission.
A logical way to begin the search for the missing piece of the puzzle is to ask the basic questions about who really controls the United Nations. The volunteer would contend it is entirely democratic, with everyone having a vote. The politician, the media and academia give a variety of unintelligible answers if any answers at all. When is the last time you heard the press debate who is making UN policy? The answer is probably, they never discuss it. The hard right says the communists and the former communists still control the UN. During the Cold War the era, they say, control was wielded through the unbalanced, pro communist Security Council and high appointed officers in the UN bureaucracy. This argument has lost more creditability in recent years because most observers now believe the communists, while still alive, are broke and on the receiving end of welfare, so logic does not support the idea that they control anything as important and as competitive as the United Nations. The mass of apathetic public would say they don't know who controls the UN and they don't care, but they suspect it is controlled by big money like everything else.
Big money does control the UN, so let us look at whose big money, and how it is passed around. If we arrive at how the UN is financed, we will have no problem finding out who runs the UN. It will of course be the same people. Then and we will reexamine the real business activities of the UN in terms of dollars spent.
Senator Robert Dole is an internationalist who does not object to the UN but recently reminded us that we pay 34% of the UN budget. Not only does the American taxpayer pay for most of the UN, but we contribute the money for the dues of most of the other members through foreign aid and other mechanisms. And this is why foreign aid fits into the UN equation. A thoughtful examination reveals the UN is totally dependent on U.S. Foreign Aid. A practical definition of foreign aid might be, "the use of taxpayer money to buy other governmentsТ cooperation."
Foreign aid is inescapably linked to the United Nations. Congressman Terry Everett, Republican of Alabama, estimated 1994 foreign aid at $13.5 billion (Congressional Research Services on U.S. Military, Development and Humanitarian Assistance). That does not include the U.S. dues to the UN, nor does it include about $12 billion for World Bank operations. In 1995, the State of Israel received about $3 billion in direct foreign aid, about 20% of the total, all paid in cash. That is about $750 for every citizen of Israel. Egypt received $2.15 billion dollars, also cash; the CIS (former USSR) got $707 million and Turkey was next with $526 million. In other words, the string-pullers who control foreign aid buy the favors of Israel and the two most cooperative Islamic nations for an almost identical sum of $3 billion per side. Congress voted to cut foreign aid 11% in 1996, except for Israel and Egypt, so nothing really changed.
Even more interesting is the fact that these three mid-eastern states, plus the old USSR, received a combined $6.83 billion, which was over 40% of the total $15.5 billion US Foreign Aid. The rest of the so called humanitarian aid is scattered over 130 countries and virtually every one of them is a UN member. Simply stated, the taxpayers appear to be paying to keep other governments in power through foreign aid. We provide cash for the vast armaments of Israel, Turkey and Egypt. Israel, as an example, does not deny having 200 nuclear weapons. What does the U.S. taxpayer receive in exchange?
For the answer we shall examine voting control of the General Assembly of the United Nations. Do you think for a minute President Netanyahu of Israel and Hosni Mubarac of Egypt can afford to pay their United Nations dues from the foreign aid they receive from the US taxpayer. It is not illogical to think they would also vote their pocket book. Virtually all of the 130 recipients of US Foreign Aid are UN members. What a coincidence! And in every case they receive more than their UN dues by several times. As an example, neither Israel nor Egypt pay enough UN dues and assessments to even rate a line on the UN budget summary. The 1995 foreign aid budget shows that all the 165 "have not" countries combined paid only about $300 million to the UN. Israel alone receives ten times that amount in annual foreign aid from the US taxpayers. Egypt could pay everyone's dues and assessments and still have a profit of $1.7 left from its annual foreign aid welfare check, and isn't it convenient that Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the UN President, just happens to be an Egyptian. Could it be that we taxpayers are paying everyone's way, and providing someone in our government with proxies to control all votes with foreign aid welfare checks?
But the General Assembly, with all its noise, is also only a front. The United Nations is really controlled by the five permanent members of the Security Council, each of whom has a veto. These members also pay much smaller dues to the UN than does the US, and they receive even larger subsidies. One of those with veto power is China, which probably explains why all recent past presidents have insisted on "Most Favored Nation" status for China, with its favorable tariffs and duty structure. Russia's has veto power, and as we have seen, its vote is bought with the foreign aid. The other permanent members are France and Great Britain. They receive enormous trade and military benefits from the USA, as witnessed by the decline of our dollar. For instance, 75% of the planes used in Bosnia are US, 25% French. The US has maintained NATO in Europe for 50 years. It is not hard to see how President Clinton can muster the majority of votes in the Security Council and be 100% veto proof. The US taxpayer buys all the votes.
A reasonable thesis, which we will now examine, is that The United Nations is entirely 100% controlled by the persons who control the American government. Of course, we have all been taught that the UN is "a democracy of world states," but simplest of logic should convince us otherwise. Please note, I did not say it is controlled by the U.S. Congress, or even by the President of the U.S., but by those few who actually control our government from behind the scenes. The United Nations and the Warmakers (as we shall call them) who dominate the U.S. Executive Branch, are one and the same; they are as two fingers of the same hand. The United Nations is for all practical purposes 100% paid for by you, the American taxpayer.. Foreign aid and the United Nations are two barrels of the same gun. To better examine this thesis, you are now asked to shift gears to a familiar historic event to consider the workings of the criminal mind. For as you will soon see, it is criminal activity we are talking about.
The Hillside Strangler was a perverted serial killer who preyed on young girls in the Los Angeles area in the late 1970s. His given name was Binki, and he was finally caught and convicted of murder. Nightline made a case history of the trial of Binki, called The Criminal Mind, a remarkably insightful look at the nature of the pathological liar in action. For the smooth and disarming Binki, lying was an art form; he not only depended on his ability to deceive to maintain his freedom, but his life itself was a series of endless lies.
Binki was one of the first criminals to rely on and plead the defense that has become known as Multiple Personality Defects. He claimed his evil acts were in fact the work of vicious and apparently pathological "Steve," the other personality that lurked within. Steve and Binki staged lengthy arguments with each other for the benefit of the press, psychiatrists and court. The Hillside Strangler's lawyers pleaded he was two separate persons, a good Binki, and a bad "Steve." How could the court punish the innocent personality for the acts of the violent one?
Binki learned his bizarre defense from a psychology textbook with which he managed to fool almost everyone, except for a skeptical judge and one clever psychiatrist, who demonstrated that Binki was making up Steve and other personalities as needed.
Now consider the United Nations and try to see it as a puppet show. Someone behind the scenes is manipulating and controlling the good acts and the bad acts. If this is true, the UN is itself a front, like one of the Strangler's invented personalities. If this is the case, the UN does not have a personality or agenda of its own; like "Steve," everything the UN does is simply an act to hide the agenda of those who control it, and UNICEF, Population Control and the environmental movement are nice guy fronts to cover the real purposes of the UN.
A logical extension of this argument is to view the United Nations as, in fact, a private army owned and operated by those who also control the actions of the U.S. State Department and the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government. Is it possible that the United Nations is and was created to be a terrorist organization? By "terrorist," I mean that the United Nations that routinely and by design kills and starves noncombatant men, women and children to make a political point or cause, or to force a change in someone's government.
In support of this terrorist thesis, let us examine The World Peacekeeping Map and report, published by none other than the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The caption tells us the map was made with information available January 31, 1994. The United Nations, by their own admissions and boasts, as reported by the CIA, was then operating a war plan for 36 targeted countries, which are excerpted in the attached, Appendix A.
Let us first examine Haiti and El Salvador, presently the only peacekeeping targets in North America. The caption for Haiti tells us there were ten UN observers in Haiti in January, 1994, and "participation of U.S. Personnel is planned." Since the Haitian invasion did not take place until the fall of 1994, almost a year after the report was published, you should wonder who did the planning. The question one should ask is, did the US go into Haiti on orders from the UN, or was it the other way around. We know who the CIA work for, why not the UN also?
The UN activities can be very popular for some. In April, 1996, Brown and Root (B&R), the huge multinational oil service firm, announced they took in $115 million in the first calendar quarter of 1996 serving meals and washing the clothing for the UN Peace Keepers in Haiti, under a contract with the United Nations. B& R told their stockholders it finds the United Nation's wars a very profitable business and is seeking more. It is not hard to see how Brown and Root and other multinationals would support the War in Haiti.
A much larger UN terrorist action has been played out in Bosnia. The Bosnian tragedy is not complicated if we put the correct labels on the parties. The Bosnian Serbs are not all bad guys, as we are told. But it was financed by the old, bankrupt, Yugoslavian Communist Government. Slobodan Milosevic is said to be the boss. "Bosnia" is not a religion, but is in fact, a new nation, which declared its independence from Yugoslavia on February 29, 1992, shortly after Croatia and Serbia and Macedonia all declared independence. At the time it declared itself a nation, Bosnia was about 55% Muslim, though it is not apparent how many of these actually practiced their religion. Bosnia was immediately recognized by the USA. After all, isn't that the American way?
Amazingly, the UN, playing the bad guy role, then embargoed Bosnia with Yugoslavia. The U.S. State Department, led by Warren Christopher, stated the U.S. was committed to going along with the UN embargo. The arms and supply embargo became the primary cause of civilian genocide in Bosnia. Bosnia is tragically affected because it is a mountainous landlocked island surrounded by its enemy. Later, the UN invented "safe havens" as reservations protected by the UN for the starving Bosnian victims of the embargo. But after the Bosnians surrendered their arms to the UN troops guarding the safe areas, the UN, feigning impotence, failed to provide protection and the safe havens became death traps where disarmed Muslims were slaughtered. The Associated Press reported on July 16, 1995, that fifteen thousand men and boys are missing after the Srebrenci safe area was overrun and captured by Bosnian Serbs. The State Department subsequently produced photos and confirmed mass graves of those murdered .
There can be little doubt about the availability of UN firepower to defend Bosnia if they wanted to. According to the Los Angeles Times article on June 22, 1994, the UN Force has a Life of Its Own (facts confirmed from the World Peacekeeping Map, published by the CIA), over 40,000 United Nations troops are permanently stationed in Croatia only a few miles from Bosnia. The UN employs 3000 civilian employees living in permanent high rises, operates it own airline to Sarajevo, and has 11,000 vehicles and a $1.5 billion budget. Furthermore, the arms embargo continued because the President vetoed the Senate effort to lift it.
Finally, after the genocide of the Bosnian Muslims was complete, Secretary of State Warren Christopher has brought in NATO, supposedly to beat the Serbs into a negotiating mood. It goes without saying, the NATO bombs and missiles will kill civilians of any religion. The result of all this was the Dayton conference that turned Bosnia into another partitioned Palestine, as it is today.
If we pause to consider the likelihood that all these multiple personalities who play the war game take their orders from the same individual or group, then the true intent of the United Nations terrorism unfolds. It can only be to continue the war in Bosnia as long as possible, regardless of the cost in human life and irrespective of religion, while confusing whoever will be fooled, including Congress, about who is responsible.
Let us look at another part of the world. According to the World Peacekeeping Map, published by the CIA every year until 1995, eight war zones are being manned by United Nations troops in the Middle East. Six of these are being policed by the UN to prevent further wars between Israel and its neighbors. Total cost of above war actions involving Israel and Egypt is $389 million per year. Other UN actions in the region are Kuwait and Cyprus. The six mid-east "peacekeeping" targets surround the state of Israel, which still occupies these captured lands upon which most of the UN troops are encamped. One of the first of these is Israel's neighbor and foe, Lebanon, where, according to the caption, the UN has been since March of 1978, with 5,247 troops under a Norwegian General Trond Furuhovda, who is chewing up $153 million of your money per year.
The newest UN position (CIA map number 35) established as the "Golan Heights Observers," is also on Israeli "occupied territory" with an estimated 500-1,000 personnel to "monitor compliance with peace accords--" But a closer look reveals the UN has been in the Golan heights since 1974, and in Jerusalem since 1948. Congress (Senate Foreign Affairs Committee) has already been asked to approve massive American troops for the Golan Heights.
Perhaps the most wasteful mission, from a taxpayer perspective, is the Sinai, where for 13 years the UN has spent millions each year to prevent fighting between Israel and Egypt, which both receive billions each year in U.S. taxpayer foreign aid. Why does not Congress simply advise both parties what we would tell our children, that if they fight they will lose their Foreign Aid? It is important to remember that all the Mid-eastern peacekeeping actions began with the partitioning of Palestine by the United Nations in 1947. The peacekeeping action has never been ended.
The second largest concentration of UN activity is along the southern flank of the old USSR and Eastern Europe, the Muslim Republics. Most of them are seeking independence from the old Soviet regime, and its former communist satellites, such as Yugoslavia. The CIS is sick, but not yet a corpse; and is fighting to hold on to the "Stans," as they are called by American visitors. According to "The Statesman Yearbook 1993," (published in Foreign Affairs) the following countries are majority Muslim: Bosnia, Albania, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan. Chechnya was not mentioned, but borders Azerbaijan near the Black Sea and is predominantly Muslim.
Tajikistan, is "policed" by a 24,000 man Russian "Peacekeeping Force" with an "unknown" cost, but we are told Russian General Pyankov is running the show and the CIS (formerly the USSR) is providing the Peacekeepers with what the UN calls "counterinsurgency operations." Translated into UN lingo, that means the CIS is afraid the Tajik Muslim majority will take over political control of the country and throw out the Soviet puppet who has been running things for 50 years. This is a good place to note that the American foreign aid to the CIS puppet Tajik government is $ 9.2 million. The US taxpayer has become an unwitting financial partner with the UN and the CIS in imprisoning the Muslim majority. Of course, you have heard about little Chechnya which is fighting for its life. It is located right next to Azerbaijan, which has a UN force to make sure the freedom movement does not spread there.
An example of a perpetual war in Africa is Zaire, where there is "an Observer or Buffer Force," of 200 UN troops, with a cost of $100 million per year. That is $500,000 per UN soldier per year. The UN goes first class. The map fails to tell us how long the UN has been in Zaire or why, except to say it is "opposed by President Mobutu." But we know Zaire used to be known as "The Belgian Congo". In December 1961 the United Nations literally invaded Katanga Province, killing hundreds of civilians and causing the subsequent starvation of untold numbers. Katanga attempted to secede from the Soviet influenced Congo and the UN sided with the USSR. The story of this brutal invasion and the subsequent occupation of the Congo is well documented. Civilian Doctors serving at the hospital in Elizabethville provided a murder by murder account of the invasions, with gory pictures, in a book called 46 Angry Men, published August 1962. These civilian doctors witnessed the UN overthrow of the lawful government of Katanga, an act of pure terrorism against a civilian population. In 1995 Zaire was removed from the world peacekeeping map after 45 years, but the neighboring state of Rwanda (and Burundi) have been added and are undergoing civil war and slaughter today as Katanga suffered under the UN in 1961. Only the name appears to have changed, UN terrorism continues.
Somalia cost the UN supporters $1.5 billion in 1994. The actions of the UN force in Somalia, under Italian leadership, was dubious at best. Both American and Canadian soldiers were court-martialed and convicted for the torture of Somali civilians. UN troops, using American helicopter gunships, were also photographed firing rockets into a crowd of unarmed women and children at point blank, killing 123 in one reported event, where the Italian commander told the press that the crowd was "interfering with his mission." Such acts have been truly rare in the American military; however, this is the kind of atrocities we can expect under world government where there is no national accountability. In this one act, the UN killed about as many innocent Somali women and children as were killed in the Oklahoma City blast. This one act alone should qualify the UN for the title "terrorist organization." Let us look deeper for the reason the UN commits terrorist acts.
It is time to rename those internationalists who control the United Nations from behind the scenes. We shall henceforth name them for what they do and refer to them as "Warmakers." A Warmaker is a serial killer found only in government. Warmakers do not kill for land or money, as do common thugs. It is raw power and prestige that causes men like George Herbert Walker Bush and William Jefferson Clinton, Warren Christopher and others to become unrepentant "Warmakers." William Jefferson Clinton bombed Baghdad in late 1991 with 23 Cruise Missiles. Those missiles incinerated a sleeping civilian target, reportedly killing eight Iraqi civilians. One of the network commentators stated, "Bill earned His Bones." He correctly used a Mafia term for a first kill.
It is a reasonable conclusion that the Warmakers use foreign aid to buy other governments. If a government is not for sale there is the United Nations war machine, completely controlled by the Warmakers, standing ready to apply pressure. Examples of stubborn governments have been Haiti, El-Salvador, South Africa and Taiwan. The latter two are not UN members. But South Africa has shown up on the 1996 U.S. foreign aid list for the first time with a whopping $132 million for the new Mandela government, presumably to help keep it in power. But most persistently stubborn of the not for sale governments are the Muslim republics, referred to by the press as the "Muslim Fundamentalists." Muslim majorities resent having their lives run by outsiders, and they repeatedly demonstrate they are willing to fight and even die for what they consider self determination.
A close look at the Congressional Budget indicates the governments of some Muslim countries with secular leadership, such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, are probably kept in power by the U.S. taxpayer. As you might guess, the present governments of Turkey and Egypt, which share about $3.5 billion of foreign aid, viciously persecute Islamic Fundamentalists. They, like Nelson Mandela of South Africa, deal with the Warmakers rather than having to deal with the UN. Of these 36 so called UN trouble spots where "Peacekeeping Operations" are being conducted, about 20 are predominantly Muslim, according to The Statesman Yearbook, published in Foreign Affairs Magazine, spring 1993. It is demonstrable, from the CIA's report that the size and scope of the wars have increased year after year.
Let us compare the countries where the UN is operating "Peacekeeping Operations" with the American foreign aid figures to see who the Warmakers are helping and which governments they are targeting.. One might start by asking how much foreign aid Congress gave to Palestine. The answer appears to be zero. But in 1996, $76 million is budgeted for UN peacekeeping in Gaza and the West bank on Palestinian territory. Congress is also actively considering sending American troops to the Golan Heights to police territory belonging to the nation of Palestine, without Palestinian permission. With this in mind, perhaps you will be less surprised if you hear about some Palestinian who does not trust our government.
We do not justify anyone using terrorism as a response to terrorism, but it should surprise no one to find out Palestinians were involved in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. Terrorism always begets terrorism. It is interesting to note one of the "crimes": Sheikh Abdel Rahman, the Egyptian Muslim Cleric now in prison in Springfield, Missouri, was convicted not of being involved in the World Trade Center Bombing, but of being favorably inclined toward blowing up the UN building.
Let us look further. How much foreign aid have we given Bosnia and Chechnya in their wars for independence? Again, the answer is zero. Iran, Iraq and Libya all remain under embargo. But we taxpayers did indeed give $707 million to the former USSR, now known as the CIS, which is annihilating the Chechens. The latest war in Chechnya has been carried out by the CIS without a serious objection by the UN or the U.S. State Department. The CIS has been encouraged to crush the freedom seeking population of this Muslim country without so much as a UN sanction or a harsh word for Boris Yeltsin. President Clinton made a state visit to Russia on May 7, 1995, and Secretary of State Warren Christopher announced, "foreign aid (to the CIS) should not be held hostage on this one issue." He was talking about the wholesale slaughter of Chechens. Any reasonable observer must recognize that the US State Department and the United Nations are on the side of the CIS. What has happened to the American ideal of helping imprisoned or subjugated peoples to gain their freedom?
Another example of UN sanctioned terrorism is found in Kashmir, where The UN and American Foreign Aid join hands to cause perpetual war. CIA's World Peacekeeping Map includes Kashmir province, in northern India, where independence has been sought by the Islamic majority for years. The UN budget is $8 million for the year and it is probably no coincidence the UN has been in Kashmir since 1948. Muslim publications provide plausible accounts of the Indian Army arresting and killing civilians to maintain political power, while the UN looks on. We Americans provide about $132 million per year to India in foreign aid, and none for Kashmir. Most of us don't have the foggiest idea of where Kashmir is, or why we should provide aid to the socialist government of India. Kashmir is another political mirror image of Bosnia.
Consider: a dictatorship by definition is a condition of government under which the Executive Branch has gained control over the military. What has already happened to our nation is the worst event any Republic can suffer. The Executive Branch has in effect gained exclusive, unfettered control of its own private international warmaking machine, the United Nations. The UN, like the Hillside Strangler, pretends to be an international democracy, but it is completely controlled by those Warmakers who control President Clinton, and the Bush administration before him. If Mr. Dole and his stated candidate for Secretary of State, Colin Powell, are elected, history indicates the Warmakers will doubtless also control them. The UN is nothing more than a private army for the Warmakers, a super CIA in disguise. Because it is so cleverly disguised to have the appearance of an international democracy, no one appears to be responsible for its acts. UN is one of the Multiple Personality Defects the Warmakers plan to use to enslave us.
If the American people suspected the UN was only a front to a political power group they would demand that it be abolished. It is significant that we "abolish" the United Nations, not merely get out of it. To abolish suggests the fact that the Americans actually do and can control the UN. One would not say, "we should get out of the Department of Education, or the EPA." We must not fall for the pretense that the UN is an independent democracy of states.. It is time the public stop being fooled by the WarmakersТ puppet show and look for the ventriloquist who is pulling its strings and making the sounds. If we are serious about what we say we must demand abolishment of the UN and perhaps the CIA and that the Warmakers be brought to justice for genocide against all peoples.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO WIN? Any reasonable person might ask if or whether it is possible to win against such an entrenched foe as the Warmakers. If there is a hope of exposing the Warmakers to the wrath of the American people it must be for one principal reason largely ignored by the American people. The Warmakers have and will always underestimate people who behave as if they believe in God sacrificially. As satanic atheists, the Warmakers can no more understand the true nature of someone who would die for his religion, than we are able to understand the Warmakers' craving for absolute power. The Warmakers are not prepared for the courage and patience they are already encountering in places like Somalia and Chechnya, where women and children have placed themselves in the path of tanks.
Recent actions of Congress are reflecting increased support for American Christians who will not accept abortion and other anti-Christian programs in our own country. Simply stated, the truth has a life of its own. In the fall of 1993, the American people demonstrated they can be aroused when the Senate was flooded with calls demanding we get out of Somalia after the unnecessary loss of 18 American men in a fire fight that killed 400 Somalis, mostly civilians, and wounded a thousand more. There is every reason to believe the movement back to decency and away from perpetual war, with its mass murder, is approaching a critical mass. It is time to combine education with political action against the Warmakers domination of American thought.
We can tie foreign aid to the terrorist activities of The United Nations. We can best catch the attention of our slumbering neighbors through their pocketbooks. No more funds for the UN and no more appropriations for foreign aid to anyone. In the absence of American funding, the UN will fail overnight because few countries will pay their dues or come to meetings. Without the UN, world terrorism will disappear and with it most domestic terrorism. This is one thing your congressman can do that will not cost one American job, except those of the overpaid, tax exempt UN employees.
Your congressman may argue that direct foreign aid is small, a mere drop in the bucket compared to loan guarantees and the domestic spending fiasco. We must point out that foreign aid creates, not prevents, war, and wars are expensive. How much do we spend on defense that would not be needed if it were not for all the UN sponsored wars? Our $5 trillion national debt would be a lot smaller if it were not for 45 years of exaggerated military spending and unnecessary foreign aid.
Your congressman may try to convince you there should be "strategic exceptions for our closest allies." He will tell you there is a very special relationship between the United Nations and the State of Israel. That means he has already given his word he will not cut aid for the three big Warmaker favorites, Israel, Egypt and the USSR. In answer to your congressman you must make it clear he must accept no compromise. Our congressmen must stop bribing and arming other governments. That includes the biggest foreign aid case of all, Israel, which is the center of the UN hotbed of wars in the Middle East. There is no way to cut without cutting from the top down. The worldТs strongest foreign aid lobbies will be campaigning directly against you; heading this list is American Israeli Public Affairs Council (AIPAC), which effectively campaigns for big foreign aid and for every UN activity. Organizations like AIPAC put tremendous pressure on your Congressman to continue foreign aid and to fund the United NationsТ activities. You need to understand that this is a political power that cannot be ignored and that he must contend with every day in Washington. Ask him about the foreign aid lobby, and watch your congressman's body language when he answers.
Our new congressmen must be headed off before they become too ingrained or beholden to the Warmaker's system. Examples come to mind of congressmen who, in their first term voted for the foreign aid package, subsequently accepted a junket to Israel compliments of AIPAC. We must be understanding of our congressman's problem, but we must also hammer some courage into our congressmen to say no to these powerful international lobbies. Use letters to the editor and to all elected official and church leaders, talk radio and pamphleteering to tie foreign aid to the United Nations and the UN to world terrorism. We must be willing to talk truthfully about blood.
Most important of all, don't give up. Muslim publications often remind their frightened readers many of whom live with fear of death, "don't be afraid to speak out, fear Allah." The Old Testament Israelites said, "Fear Jehovah." Jesus Christ said in the 10 chapter of Hebrews, "the Lord shall judge his people, it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." So may we fervently pray, as did Abraham at the gates of Sodom and as did our forefathers at a similar time of peril, that all Americans will demand justice and stand for protection of innocent human life and that He will provide the means and resolve to rid our land of the incredibly evil Warmakers who design to hold us captive!
Peacekeeping Operations, 1993
Directorate of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, EUR 92- 10027, by Frederick H. Fleitz, available from National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161 703-487-4650
List of countries present or proposed:
Cyprus, Croatia, El Salvador, Angola, Somalia, Sudan , Liberia, Eritrea (Ethiopia), South Odessa (Georgia), Abkahazia , Sinai, Rwanda, Cambodia, Jerusalem, Western Sahara, Mosambique, Lebanon, Republic of South Africa(proposed mandate), Bosnia-Herzegovina, Haiti, Moldovia, Tajikistan, Golan Heights, Kashmir, Kuwait, `Sri Lanka, Solomon Islands. 1993 additions are, Zaire and Togo. 1994 additions # 35 Occupied Territories (Palestine), 500-1000 men, $50 million, # 36 Losotho (RSA)