A WEEKLY COMMENTARY
Year Twenty-Nine ... Number Forty-One ... October 22, 1982
BUT WHERE WAS THE UNITED NATIONS?
There must be millions of Americans who, if they thought it over seriously, would agree that our government missed a golden opportunity to help this Nation, when it failed to take advantage of a threat to stop funding the UN, get out of the UN, even get the UN out of the U.S. That golden opportunity came about when the UN's International Telecommunication Agency, about to meet in Nairobi, Kenya, decided to exclude Israel from the meeting because of that Nation's wanton invasion of Lebanon and Beirut, destroying property and killing innocent people as it did. The Nations of the Arab League and all the other habitually anti-Zionist countries took advantage of the situation and were about to vote to expel Israel out of the UN itself at the General Assembly meeting of October 25th. As would be expected, Secretary of State George Pratt Shultz, still treating Israel as our fifty-first State, immediately stepped in to stop the move, warned that "the United States will suspend participation in the International Telecommunications Union -- and halt financial support -- if Israel is excluded at the group's conference in Nairobi. He said U.S. payments will also be cut off if Israel's credentials are rejected later this month by the UN General Assembly." There was the hint that the US would even get out of the UN if Israel were kicked out. To base our retirement from the UN on Israel's rejection of the UN may seem somewhat childish, but any excuse would be justified in the opinion of this reporter. Of course, figures representing money are so astronomical these days that no ordinary person can understand what the figures really mean. But We the People of the United States pay a little more than 25 percent of the UN's budget every fiscal year. Since most other nations are usually in arrears in their payments of that other 75 percent, the loss of the U.S. donation would be a real blow to the world organization. And lack of US participation in the UN would assure the slow and meaningless death of that great "hope of mankind," even as lack of U.S. participation assured the slow death of its predecessor, the League of Nations.
But, think how wonderful it would have been if Shultz had gone all the way, setting the wheels in motion to actually get us out of the UN? That 25 percent woudl have gone a long way toward wiping out some of the deficit that our federal government keeps building onto every fiscal year. Or, if our government insists that it must take on Lebanon as a second "client state" in the Middle East, just imagine how many homes could have been built for those homeless Lebanese with that 25 percent. Furthermore, since We the People of the United States are going to be forced to pay Israel's military expenses that were incurred in its occupation of Lebanon, and since we also will have to pay the costs of repairing all the damage done by that invasion; it would have been nice to have that 25 percent we've been paying to keep the UN solvent, used instead to keep our two (yes, now there are two) client states alive in the Middle East.
There would be much justification in relinquishing our habit of maintaining the UN, since that organization hasn't lived up to a single one of its purposes or promises since being created in the Cow Palace in San Francisco in 1945. We were there for a spell, a foreign correspondent for Mutual Broadcasting System, waiting for State Department clearance to rejoin General MacArthur in Manila. We met acting secretary general Alger Hiss who headed some 45-odd other members of the Council on Foreign Relations, who were there to collaborate with the Soviet delegation in framing and approving an organization that gave one vote to every member nation, regardless of its size and inportance, except to the USSR, which was given three votes. Also, and this was so very important that it was never made public: there was a tacit agreement between the American and the Russian delegations to the UN, that future Secretaries-General (replacing the temporary Alger Hiss) would be elected by the Security Council; but the post of Undersecretary for Political and Security Affairs would always be a Communist! More about this later.
As we suggested, the United Nations was born officially in the Cow Palace in San Francisco. Somewhat reminiscent of George Orwell's other book, The Animal Farm. This idea of the UN as a beast was carried to an allegorical extreme in a recent "Letter to the Editor" by Linda Hoskinson of Lake Park, Florida. She wrote (or perhaps we should say, the newspaper printed this as what she wrote, Letters to the editor are often edited before being presented to the reading public), and we quote:
"Time is always on the side of truth. Today the United Nations is regarded not as a sacred cow, but as a troika composed of a white elephant, a Trojan horse, and a Judas goat. White elephants are rare albino pachyderms traditionally belonging to Siamese kings, who would present them to courtiers they did not like. White elephants were not allowed to work, could not be disposed of without offending the King, had enormous appetites, which would eventually reduce the courtier to ruin. The UN, a gift to our country from its founders, has had the same destructive impact. The decline of our national honor, influence and independence since 1945 has resulted in part from the manner in which our foreign policy and much of our domestic policy has been molded to meet UN specifications.
"The Trojan horse was presented as an offering of peace filled with Athenian warriors bent on Troy's destruction. However, the Trojans didn't know the horse contained their enemies; while the UN, with the full knowledge of our country's leaders, allowed key posts to be contained by communists who have been given diplomatic immunity for their operations within our borders.
"Judas goats are animals trained to lead other animals peacefully to slaughter. They keep the victims deluded about actual situations until it is too late to do anything. Propagandists for the UN have misled the American people regarding the true nature of this world body. Deception has always been the feature of the UN's operations and (the UN) could not survive without it. Because Americans are finally catching on to the UN subterfuge, they are now in hot water. The UN is not the road to peace but the path toward a Marxist-oriented government." (Unquote).
As we wandered from stall to stall in the Cow Palace in April 1945, we were greatly impressed with the opening words of the Charter that had been drawn up to deceive us all. It began: "The purposes of the United Nations are: To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace ...."
These stated purposes of the UN were meant to deceive. For the UN has never maintained "international peace and security," has never prevented a war. In fact, it has been the promoter of wars. The UN itself made one such admission. In its UNESCO Courier for 1970 there was published the report that "More than 100 wars or other international conflicts have occurred since the end of the Second World War." It listed some of the major conflicts, none of which the UN was able to stop or prevent: Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Uganda, Angola, Mozambique, Rhodesia, Southwest Africa, Ethiopia, Somalia, South Yemen, Israel, Egypt, Nicaragua, Morocco, Northern Ireland, Poland, El Salvador, the Falklands, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and most especially the Korean Police Action which was a UN War, one which American and allied troops were not allowed to win, one which is not settled even today.
But, more to the point at this time is the UN involvement in Israel and Lebanon. It was decided by the powers that be that the UN should recruit a "peace keeping force" in Lebanon, to form a buffer between the PLO and Israel. This "peace keeping" action began in 1978. But what happened? Whenever the PLO made a raid into Israeli-held territory, or whenever Israeli forces invaded Lebanon to attack PLO positions in that country, where was this UN force? All we ever heard about it was that about seventy of them were killed by sniper action. When Israeli forces invaded Lebanon in strength, destroying cities, towns and villages, and finally moving into Beirut itself, where was this UN peace keeping force? Where were they when there was the murder of Palestinians in those two refugee camps? There was one item which we know was published: an American officer attached to the UN force was killed, supposedly when his Jeep ran over a mine.
"Why this failure of the UN to keep the peace?" asks on intelligence source. It's answer: "An examination of its actions reveals that the United Nations is not a peace-keeping, but a revolutionary and destabliizing organization. It delivers one nation after another to Marxism and the Soviets -- for the profit of the internationalists who lend money, then sell their products to these now economically unviable countries. The UN has been, since the beginning, financed and structured for this purpose."
This change becomes more believable when we recall what we wrote about the second most important office in the UN: that of the Undersecretary-General for Political and Security Council Affairs. This person has the job of controlling all military and police functions of the UN's "peace keeping" forces, and supervises all UN-led disarmament programs. Since the UN was created in 1945, nine men have occupied that position, and all of them have been Communists: Arkady Sobolev, USSR; Konstantin Zinchenko, USSR; Ilya Tchemychev, USSR; Dragoslav Protich, Yugoslavia; Anantoly Dobrynin, USSR; Georgi Arkadev, USSR; Eugeny Kiselev, USSR; Vladimir Suslov, USSR; Mikhail Systenco, USSR. It was Trygve Lie, the first Secretary-General of the UN who revealed that through a secret agreement between the US and the USSR, this position would always be held by a Soviet general.
We mention all of this because, in spite of the UN's total ineffectiveness in "maintaining international peace and security" for the past 37 years of its existence, this attempt at world government is suddenly coming into prominence because of the Middle East situation. Much has been made by our State Department over the attempt of the Arab and Third World Nations to drive Israel out of the UN. More importantly, when the new Lebanese President seemed assured of a longer life than he might have expected, and when he made the usual world tour to seek financial and military aid, his first stop was at the United Nations. There among other appeals, he asked that the totally ineffective UN "peace keeping" force be maintained and strengthened in Lebanon. After the UN delegates voted to extend the life of that UN force which was supposed to act as a buffer between Israel and Lebanon, then Amin Gemayel went to Washington. There he made the usual appeal for financial aid (there is a rumor that the amount of $10 billion was mentioned). And he also made a strange request: that all foreign troops be withdrawn from Lebanon, but that more U.S. Marines be sent to Lebanon. Then he went to Paris and conferred with that Socialist government, asking that all foreign troops be withdrawn from Lebanon, but that more French troops be sent to his country. From there he went to Rome for an audience with the Pope and a further request was made, that all foreign troops be evicted, but that more Italian troops be sent into Lebanon. The request for more troops is to be expected, because what there is of a Lebanese army is just as ineffective as was that UN force. The Lebanese Army can't even maintain security in Beirut, not considering the rest of the country. Also, despite all promises to the contrary, there are still units of the Syrian army in Lebanon, and tens of thousands of Israeli troops that have never left the country. But, the semantics is all mixed up. Gemayel wants all foreign troops to be kicked out of Lebanon, but he wants more American troops sent into Lebanon. Likewise with the French and Italian troops, as well as the UN forces. This would lead one to believe that this American-French-Italian multinational force is looked upon, not as foreign troops, but as an international army, perhaps a UN army, as our forces were looked upon in Korea when a five-star American general, Douglas MacArthur, was reduced to being a United Nations Commander under the supervision of Konstantin Zinchenko of the USSR, who at that time was UN Undersecretary-General for Political and Security Council Affairs. What we're suggesting is that a situation similar to that in which we found ourselves in Korea in the 1950s could be repeated in the Middle East in the 1980s.
Further disturbing is a highly regarded British intelligence system which has contacts in all of the European capitals. It points to the Islam-Israel controversy as the most dangerous development of the 1980s, this especially so because of USSR interest in that part of the world. We quote from that intelligence report which we cannot identify by name:
"Whatever one's opinion may be about the rival merits of the Palestinian and Zionist causes, had the Soviet Union not armed the Palestinians, the Syrains, etc., Israel would not have been anything like so nervous nor the United States so pushed and pressed between the two causes.
"Within the context of a perplexing muddle only the following things have become clear during the dangerous summer months of 1982:
So, this is the multifaceted dilemma: Islam is on the offensive, has declared Jihad, or religious war against Israel. Meanwhile, Israel is determined to take over all the lands once ruled by King Solomon. At the same time, the atheistic Soviet aims to complete its push to the Indian Ocean, while also taking over the oil-rich Middle East. And situated in the middle as a peace-keeping force, and at the same time a protector of Multinational Oil interests, is the United States government. And yet they cry peace when there is no peace, even in little Lebanon.
Extra copies of this Newsletter: 1 copy: 25 cents, 10 copies: $1.50, 20 copies: $3.00, 30 copies: $4.50, 40 copies: $6.00, 50 copies: $7.50, 100 copies: $10.00. More than 100 copies: 10 cents each. Please include extra if 1st class postage is desired. Subscription rates: $24 per year. Foreign airmail: $30 per year. DON BELL REPORTS Weekly, emphasizing the Christian American point of view. Address all orders: DON BELL REPORTS, P.O. BOX 2223, PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33480