Stepping Stones to Convergence

Stepping stones to convergence: the recentarms-reduction treaty with Russia and Russia'sentry into NATO are two more steps on the roadto the new world order. (Russia).Print

Author: McManus, John F.

Geographic Code: 1USA

Date: Jul 1, 2002

Words: 1572

Publication: The New American

ISSN: 0885-6540

On May 24th, President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin met inMoscow and agreed to an arms reduction treaty. Less than a week later, on May 28th, thetwo met again in Rome where Russia was welcomed into NATO, not as a full participantbut as a member of a new NATO-Russia Council (NRC). However, neither chief executivecared to mention that these two steps fit precisely into long-standing plans for the UN todominate the world.

In mid-May, senior Bush administration officials announced that an agreement had beenreached with the Putin government to "our nuclear forces to between 1,700 and 2,000operationally deployed nuclear warheads" over the next 10 years. An unnamed WhiteHouse official happily reported that "we have put behind us the notion that Russia is ourenemy, and that we need to structure our forces based on how the Russians structuretheirs."

Implicit in all of the self-congratulatory comments from administration officials is the trustthey place in our "strategic partner" -- the Russian government headed by President Putin.But Putin and his comrades are drawn from the criminal oligarchy responsible for inflictingdecades of tyranny and terror on the long-suffering Russian people; they are also thearchitects of the world terrorist network.

Same Old KGB

Ironically, Zbigniew Brzezinski, a globalist who supports merging "post-Soviet" Russia withthe U.S. and NATO, accurately described Putin's regime. Writing in the Fall 2000 issue ofThe National Interest, shortly after Putin was appointed to succeed Yeltsin, Brzezinskinoted: "President Vladimir Putin's new team is composed of individuals who, with noexception, could now be serving in the higher echelons of the Soviet government

Stepping stones to convergence: the recent arms... http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/PrintArticle...

1 of 4 2014-01-28 23:07

(particularly the KGB) if the Soviet Union still existed."

Putin himself spent a career as a KGB agent tyrannizing his own countrymen andspreading terror and subversion throughout the world. The son of a commando in Stalin'sNKVD, he remained one of the Communist world's chief criminals when the KGB becamethe FSB. As noted in THE NEW AMERICAN for April 8th, Putin boasted soon after beingnamed prime minister that a group of KGB veterans of which he was a part was"dispatched to work undercover in government" and has "successfully completed its firstmission." In other words, the KGB had taken over the Russian government.

Space precludes detailing the history of the crimes of the numerous versions of the Sovietsecret police. In a saner world, anyone connected to either the KGB, its manypredecessors such as the NKVD, or the new FSB, would be considered an archcriminal.But the same U.S. government that continues to pursue 90-year-old exNazi corporals haschosen to ignore the monstrous crimes committed by Putin and the members of hisgovernment. And these are the very individuals with whom National Security AdviserCondoleezza Rice says we should proudly sign agreements because of our "increasinglycommon interests and mutual trust."

This inconsistency ought to set off alarm bells. When the revelations of Anatoliy Golitsyn,perhaps the most important defector ever to come out of the Soviet Union, are added tothis mix, alarm bells ought to get louder. Among his many correct predictions, Golitsynwarned the U.S. 40 years ago that the USSR would undergo a "spectacular andimpressive" reorganization, a change he labeled "false liberalization." He urged the Westnot to allow itself to be disarmed either psychologically or militarily. More recent emigresfrom Russia have tried to send a similar message.

The arms control treaty signed by presidents Bush and Putin reduces the number ofnuclear weapons on each side by two-thirds over the next 10 years. In his criticisms of thispact, national security expert David T. Pyne claims that it amounts to "another in a seriesof major U.S. concessions to reward Putin" for assisting Afghanistan's Northern Alliance indefeating the Taliban government.

Pyne further reports that the U.S. and Russia have agreed to cooperate on a joint missiledefense program. He points out that Bush has assured the Russians that "the plannedmissile defense system will be of a limited nature and will not be effective or capable ofdefending the U.S. from a hypothetical attack by Russian nuclear missiles."

The first task of our nation's government is to defend it. When Bush announced that theU.S. was withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, many of his conservativesupporters hailed this step as proof that Bush was committed to defending our nation froma nuclear missile attack. But this positive step was immediately nullified by the president'sassurances to Russia that he will work to keep our nation vulnerable to such an attack.Furthermore, the joint declaration signed by Presidents Bush and Putin on May 24thannounces that the U.S. and Russia will "study possible areas for missile defensecooperation," including "joint research and development of technologies," mutual


2 of 4 2014-01-28 23:07

observation of missile defense tests, and so on.

The text of the May 24th joint declaration places the "new strategic relationship" betweenthe U.S. and Russia squarely in the context of our "obligations under international law,including the UN Charter." Article V of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty signed onthe same date observes that the treaty "shall be registered pursuant to Article 102 of theCharter of the United Nations"; similar wording has been incorporated in every armscontrol agreement between the U.S. and Russia. These facts underscore a little-appreciated reality: Every arms control agreement, and every move undertaken to mergethe U.S. and Russia, fits nicely into plans laid out many years ago for an all-powerful,UN-dominated world government.

Freedom From War

In 1961, the Kennedy administration unveiled Freedom From War: The United StatesProgram for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World. A long-rangeprogram ending with the UN possessing a monopoly of weapons, its successive steps callfor both the U.S. and the USSR to progressively reduce armaments. A pertinent portion ofthis document reads: "Stocks of nuclear weapons shall be progressively reduced to theminimum levels which can be agreed upon...." That, of course, describes this new treaty.

Almost simultaneously with the Freedom From War proclamation the same KennedyeraState Department commissioned MIT professor Lincoln P. Bloomfield to produce acomprehensive plan entitled "A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations." Thegoal then, and unfortunately the goal of our leaders ever since, was to create conditionsthat will enable the UN to become a global dictatorship.

In 1961, Professor Bloomfield pointed to a seemingly insurmountable problem facing thosewho, like him and the State Department officials who financed his report, wanted the worldin the UN's grip. How could the monopolistic "world government" he favored include suchdiametrically opposed systems as the United States and the Soviet Union? He wasconcerned that his overall goal might not be achievable because fear of Soviet power wasneeded to provide the West with an "incentive" for a UN-controlled world. Those concernshave largely been swept away by the Golitsyn-predicted "false liberalization" in Russia, theelder George Bush's success in creating a "reinvigorated" UN, and the steady stream ofpropaganda about the need to do away with nuclear weapons.

The goals of Freedom From War and the Bloomfield plan are being implemented by pactssuch as the one just signed in Moscow. Nor should the second of Bush's recent moves,the welcoming of Russia into a newly created division of NATO, be seen as any thing otherthan another step toward the world government desired by our nation's internal enemies.

Formed in 1949, NATO's most significant promoter was Secretary of State Dean Acheson.He openly stated at the time that the alliance drew its legitimacy from "Article 51 of theUnited Nations Charter" and that all "provisions of the pact are subject to the overridingprovisions of the United Nations Charter." The NATO treaty, consisting of a preamble and


3 of 4 2014-01-28 23:07

14 short articles, mentions the UN five times.

An unabashed champion of the UN, Acheson delighted in reporting that the NATO treatyhe favored was "an essential measure for strengthening the United Nations." Herecognized that any form of regional government under the UN would usurp nationalindependence while it enhanced the power of the world body. But the American peoplewere led to believe that NATO's sole purpose was to prevent any expansion to the West bythe USSR.

With the passing of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact a decade ago, NATO's militarypurpose evaporated. But Secretary of State Colin Powell told the press in Rome on May28th, "NATO was originally created for a political purpose." Though he didn't expound onhis remark, NATO's political purpose -- "strengthening the United Nations" -- wasproclaimed at the alliance's creation by Dean Acheson.

Seconding Powell's remarks, Bush stated at the opening session of the newNATO-Russian Council held in Rome that the new arrangement "offers Russia a pathtoward forming an alliance with the alliance."

Instead of all this diplomatic and military duplicity, our nation should disentangle itself fromthe UN, NATO, and all such alliances including economic and trade pacts. We shouldremain militarily strong enough to prevent attack, bring our troops home from policing theworld, and mind our own business. If that were our nation's policy, the threat of terrorismwould evaporate dramatically if not completely. And the greater threat of a UN-dominatedworld would disappear.

COPYRIGHT 2002 American Opinion Publishing, Inc.

Copyright 2002, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.


4 of 4 2014-01-28 23:07

Documents

Stepping Stones to Convergence