Internationalist Support for the UN Is NOT Change

Posted on: May 01, 2009

By Tom Gow

The December 9th Voice of America news clip announcing Susan Rice’s appointment as U.S. Ambassador to the UN promotes numerous myths about the president’s agenda and the UN. Those myths and misrepresentations threaten our liberties. We examine several here:

• Myth: Obama’s election was “a signal to the world that America is on the path to change.”

If one looks at President Obama’s appointments, he is clearly pursuing the same internationalist policies as his predecessors. The appointment of Susan Rice as U.S. Ambassador to the UN and the elevation of her post to Cabinet level rank is just one example.

U.S. executive branch support for the UN is not change. Indeed, U.S. Insiders have supported the UN from its very beginning. Indeed, internationalists from the Council on Foreign Relations (of which Susan Rice is a member) were instrumental in designing and creating the UN. If there is any change, it will be in the level of audacity in promoting U.S. entanglement with the world body.

Susan Rice got her big break in government service during the Clinton administration, moving from the National Security Council staff to Special Assistant to the President and then to U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs.

Professor Carroll Quigley, the mentor of former President Bill Clinton at Georgetown University, confirms that the internationalists do not want any real change in the White House. In his monumental 1966 treatise Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World In Our Time, Professor Quigley wrote:

The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.

When the electorate grows weary of one of the Establishment parties, wrote Professor Quigley, “it should be able to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which … will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.”

Professor Quigley also claimed first-hand knowledge of a secret international Anglophile network that had founded the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) as a public “front for J.P. Morgan and Company in association with the very small American Round Table Group.” This network, Quigley points out, was founded by the South African diamond and gold magnate Cecil Rhodes. Note: the will of Cecil Rhodes established the Rhodes Scholarships, and both Bill Clinton and Susan Rice are Rhodes Scholars.

According to Quigley, this international network (we would call it a Conspiracy) had a far-reaching aim:

[N]othing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in feudal fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret meetings and conferences…. Each central bank … sought to dominate its government by its ability to control treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.

This is a very different goal from what the internationalists proclaim publicly they are trying to accomplish through the public institutions they privately control, such as the UN.

Through the secret “War and Peace Studies Project,” launched in 1939 prior to America’s entry into the war, the Council on Foreign Relations actually became an adjunct of the U.S. government for a time. The project was financed by the Rockefeller foundation and succeeded in giving American foreign policy an internationalist bent.

Pulitzer Prize-winning author Theodore White wrote in his The Making of the President, 1964 that the Council’s “roster of members has for a generation, under Republican and Democratic administrations alike, been the chief recruiting ground for cabinet-level officials in Washington.” That pattern hasn’t changed in the ensuing decades. Ever since World War II, the Council on Foreign Relations has been the chief supplier of executives for top posts in each administration — Republican or Democratic. Indeed, the 2008 Annual Report of the CFR boasted that 458 of its members held positions in government.

Following this all-too-familiar pattern President Obama also tapped CFR members for many of the top posts in his administration. We list here a few. In addition to Susan Rice, there is Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geitner. Obama chose CFR-member Lawrence H. Summers as his director of the National Economic Council. Summers served for two years as President Clinton’s Treasury Secretary. And despite Obama’s pledge to bring change to Washington, he retained CFR-member Robert M. Gates as Secretary of Defense. Gates had been a trusted CFR member in government going back to the Reagan years. In the Bush senior administration, Gates was the deputy national security advisor under Brent Scowcroft. And he succeeded William Webster as Director of the CIA. Gates is clearly not going to rock the Establishment’s boat.

• Myth: The world needs the UN and U.S. leadership in negotiating international cooperation to prevent more Rwandas.

It is widely acknowledged that the UN failed to act to stop the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. In an orgy of mass murder lasting 103 days, more than 800,000 unarmed human beings were slaughtered by killing squads supported by the Hutu-dominated government. As the massacre was unfolding, the UN leadership refused to heed the warnings of the commander of its 3,000 man UNAMIR “peacekeeping” force on the ground, and its commander, Canadian Lt. General Romeo Dallaire, was ordered not to intervene.

In fact, Dallaire argued that the ineffectiveness of the UN mission in Rwanda abetted the genocide.

But the part of the story rarely told is the earlier role of the UN in disarming the civilian population, which set the stage for the genocide. UNAMIR [the UN peacekeeping mission to Rwanda] was deployed in 1993 to administer a cease-fire between the Hutu-dominated government and the Tutsi-led Rwandan Patriotic Front. In accordance with the peace accord administered by the UN and with UN doctrine, the population was to be disarmed. But militia units, under government control, were allowed to keep their arms, and they, along with paramilitary gangs, perpetrated the genocide.

In addition, the Rwandan government had been heavily subsidized by the UN-affiliated International Monetary Fund.

The UN insists that only governments should be permitted to own arms and that civilian populations must trust their governments and the UN to protect them. But civilian disarmament (so-called gun control) carried out by “liberal” regimes in the name of public safety has too often served the murderous tyrants who came after them.

Nor, according to American principles, is it a matter for governments to decide what the people should be allowed. Instead the people decide what authority their government is granted. It is a fundamental right of the people to defend themselves, and, in the American tradition, governments are merely agents of the people not their masters.

• Old Myth reinforced: “The UN is mankind’s last, best hope for peace.”

In addition, the UN is not designed to promote the virtues that Americans honor. Nor was that ever the intention of the internationalists who designed the United Nations and then insisted that the world’s most criminal regimes be represented in an evolving world government.

U.S. policies under Republican and Democratic administrations built up the Soviet Union as a threat, then with the terrifying image thus created, our “leaders” insisted that the Soviets be represented at the UN and that we negotiate with the Soviets to achieve a peaceful world. (Since the “break-up” of the Soviet Union, Russia is now ostensibly our ally in that quest.) And U.S. Insiders have also succeeded in forging U.S. policies that have built up China as an international force. (No longer widely known, following World War II “internationalists” in our State Department actually helped the Reds to gain total control of mainland China — see, for example, May God Forgive Us by Robert Welch.)

Yet our State Department covers for the principal state sponsors of terrorism: the former Soviet Union and Communist China, while ostensibly seeking their cooperation in the fight against terrorism to reign in their surrogate state sponsors, such as Syria. Syria, on the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism, was invited to become a rotating member of the UN Security Council within weeks following the 9/11 terrorist attack on the Twin Towers.

And the Bush administration did not even protest the arrangement, while insisting that the fight against terrorism must be waged through the United Nations. Yet among knowledgeable observers, the UN has earned the reputation of “Terrorists ‘R Us.”

Not advertised to the American public by the Establishment media, the world’s premier terrorist leaders are regularly honored at the UN. Between 1975 and 1979, the Chinese-backed Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot liquidated an estimated three million Cambodians, in what became known as the “Killing Fields.” Incredibly, in 1991 the UN brokered a “peace” agreement in Cambodia, which brought back the Khmer Rouge into a coalition government.

Even worse, the internationalists have planned for the United Nations to evolve into a world government from its very beginning (actually the Council on Foreign Relations was launched to change public attitudes toward international entanglements following the U.S. refusal to join the League of Nations after the first world war).

That means that U.S. leaders in the internationalist Insider pocket would actually like the U.S. to scrap its independence and accept total UN authority. Incredibly, the disarmament goal you have heard about for years really means to disarm the U.S. and other nations, but arm the UN, even with nuclear weapons, as an all-powerful force in the world that no nation, including the U.S. could resist. An excellent presentation of this subversive plan is contained in the confidential study prepared for the Kennedy State Department entitled “A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations.”

How often have we heard the internationalist chant in recent years: “Global problems require global solutions”?

Myth: Rice brings her own independent positive agenda to the position of UN ambassador.

According to a U.S. State Department web page: “Ambassador Rice believes that the United Nations has a vital role in advancing international peace and security and is committed to make the United Nations a more perfect forum to address the most pressing global challenges: to promote peace, to support development and democracy, and to strengthen respect for human rights. She has outlined four primary areas of focus: strengthening the capacity of the UN to undertake complex peace operations effectively; addressing climate change; preventing the spread or use of nuclear weapons and working to meet the goals of the Nonproliferation Treaty; and combating poverty, disease, violence, and genocide.”

Some of those goals sound appealing — unless you look a little deeper. For example, our founding fathers never envisioned that the federal government they were forming would combat poverty in foreign lands. Nor is any such authority included in the Constitution.

Other goals are phrased to obscure their real meaning. The words “strengthening the capacity of the UN to undertake complex peace operations effectively” are reminiscent of recurring proposals to give the UN immediate access to a standing army and military capability.

One of these drives, overlapping Susan Rice’s service in the Clinton administration, began in 1992. The drive was kicked off publicly with the release of An Agenda for Peace, a report by then-UN Secretary General Boutros-Boutros Ghali. Ghali’s proposals were applauded in Establishment publications such as the New York Times and in Foreign Affairs — the journal of the CFR. And President Bill Clinton tried to implement the proposals through his classified Presidential Decision Directives (such as PDD-13), portions of which became public and generated great controversy.

We do not claim to know Ambassador Rice’s heart. But we can glean much of her likely agenda from her career, her alliances, and those who have placed their confidence in her.

Her Rhodes Scholarship to attend Oxford is one red flag, as suggested above. At Oxford, Rice’s classmates and professors “included advocates of the role of the United Nations and international law (Sir Adam Roberts, Benedict Kingsbury), of global economic governance and international economic cooperation (Ngaire Woods, Donald Markwell)….” Source: Wikipedia.

During her subsequent career she joined the “liberal” Brookings Institution as a Senior Fellow, became a member of the Aspen Strategy Group and the Council on Foreign Relations, a director with the Atlantic Council, and a member of the Trilateral Commission. All of these organizations promote the internationalist goal of world government, euphemistically referred to as global governance. To say she has been endorsed by the internationalist Establishment would be an understatement.

Most of Ambassador Rice’s public biographies on the Internet fail to mention her relatively recent membership in the Trilateral Commission, founded by David Rockefeller in 1973. This is a very select group, as membership is limited to 120 for the North American group consisting of 20 Canadian members, 13 Mexican members and 87 U.S. members.

Accordingly, it is indicative of President Obama’s submission to the internationalists that he has appointed at least nine members of the Commission to key positions in his administration. (Note: Trilaterals resign their membership when they go into government service.) Obama’s Trilateralist appointees include: Susan Rice; Deputy National Security Advisor Thomas E. Donilon; and Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg.

Indicative of the narrow circle among which the Obama transition team searched for candidates, we note that James Steinberg was also a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution (along with Susan Rice) and a member of the Aspen Strategy Group (along with Rice), Assistant Secretary of State Kurt M. Campbell was Director of the Aspen Strategy Group (of which Susan Rice was a member) and that is just a sampling. Moreover, each of the above — Rice, Donilon, Steinberg, and Campbell — was also listed on the CFR’s 2008 membership roster.

• Myth: “Someone with an aggressive personality who is willing to really forcefully defend U.S. positions at the United Nations is necessary and vital.”

Necessary, vital? For what? As we have suggested, the debates at the UN amount to little more than professional wrestling matches. The real agendas of the players are not debated publicly at the UN. Moreover, the UN is, in reality, a trap designed to destroy American independence, overcome America’s constitutional constraints on government power, and ensnare her is an emerging world government ruled by elites.

Unfortunately, support for dangerous myths about the UN is not confined to those institutions with a “liberal” image, as we can see from the remarks of Brett Schaefer of the “conservative” Heritage Foundation think-tank.

Another “expert” presented in the Voice of America news clip was Princeton Lyman, identified merely as a former U.S. Ambassador to South Africa and Nigeria (during the Clinton Administration). Would you be surprised to learn that Lyman has been a long-time member of the CFR? Lyman also was a director of the Global Interdependence Initiative at the Aspen Institute. He graduated with a BA from UC Berkeley and a Ph.D. in political science from Harvard.

What is Lyman’s “expert” advice for bringing peace to the Darfur region of the Sudan? Answer: Negotiate with Russia and China to limit their arms shipments to the Sudan — two nations whose regimes owe their ascendance and much of their capability for creating turmoil worldwide to policies of U.S. internationalists. If one realizes that revolutionaries determined to change the political order without public consent require conflict and deception to advance their goals, then what we see unfolding begins to make sense.

• • •

If you would like to learn more and assess the credibility of these claims, we urge you to obtain a copy of Organize for Victory! Organize for Victory! provides a comprehensive well-documented overview of the forces and agendas targeting America and, most importantly, a plan of action for putting America truly on the right course to greater freedom and prosperity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *