The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World

Sweet Liberty

DEPARTMENT OF STATE
PUBLICATION 7277
Disarmament Series 5
Released September 1961
Office of Public Services
BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

INTRODUCTION

The revolutionary development of modern weapons within a world divided by serious ideological differences has produced a crisis in human history. In order to overcome the danger of nuclear war now confronting mankind, the United States has introduced at the Sixteenth General Assembly of the United Nations a Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.  

This new program provides for the progressive reduction of the war-making capabilities of nations and the simultaneous strengthening of international institutions to settle disputes and maintain the peace. It sets forth a series of comprehensive measures which can and should be taken in order to bring about a world in which there will be freedom from war and security for all states. It is based on three principles deemed essential to the achievement of practical progress in the disarmament field:

First, there must be immediate disarmament action:

A strenuous and uninterrupted effort must be made toward the goal of general and complete disarmament; at the same time, it is important that specific measures be put into effect as soon as possible.

Second, all disarmament obligations must be subject to effective international controls:

The control organization must have the manpower, facilities, and effectiveness to assure that limitations or reductions take place as agreed. It must also be able to certify to all states that retained forces and armaments do not exceed those permitted at any stage of the disarmament process.

Third, adequate peace-keeping machinery must be established:

There is an inseparable relationship between the scaling down of national armaments on the one hand and the building up of international peace-keeping machinery and institutions on the other. Nations are unlikely to shed their means of self-protection in the absence of alternative ways to safeguard their legitimate interests. This can only be achieved through the progressive strengthening of international institutions under the United Nations and by creating a United Nations Peace Force to enforce the peace as the disarmament process proceeds.

There follows a summary of the principal provisions of the United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World. The full text of the program is contained in an appendix to this pamphlet.

SUMMARY

DISARMAMENT GOAL AND OBJECTIVES

The over-all goal of the United States is a free, secure, and peaceful world of independent states adhering to common standards of justice and international conduct and subjecting the use of force to the rule of law; a world which has achieved general and complete disarmament under effective international control; and a world in which adjustment to change takes place in accordance with the principles of the United Nations.

In order to make possible the achievement of that goal, the program sets forth the following specific objectives toward which nations should direct their efforts:

The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace Force;

The elimination from national arsenals of all armaments, including all weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery, other than those required for a United Nations Peace Force and for maintaining internal order;

The institution of effective means for the enforcement of international agreements, and for the maintenance of peace in accordance with the principles of the United Nations;

The establishment and effective operation of an International Disarmament Organization within the framework of the United Nations to insure compliance at all times with all disarmament obligations.

TASK OF NEGOTIATING STATES

The negotiating states are called upon to develop the program into a detailed plan for general and complete disarmament and to continue their efforts without interruption until the whole program has been achieved. To this end, they are to seek the widest possible area of agreement at the earliest possible date. At the same time, and without prejudice to progress on the disarmament program, they are to seek agreement on those immediate measures that would contribute to the common security of nations and that could facilitate and form port of the total program.

GOVERNING PRINCIPLES

The program sets forth a series of general principles to guide the negotiating states in their work. These make clear that:

As states relinquish their arms, the United Nations must be progressively strengthened in order to improve its capacity to assure international security and the peaceful settlement of disputes;

Disarmament must proceed as rapidly as possible, until it is completed, in stages containing balanced, phased, and safeguarded measures;

Each measure and stage should be carried out in an agreed period of time, with transition from one stage to the next to take place as soon as all measures in the preceding stage have been carried out and verified and as soon as necessary arrangements for verification of the next stage have been made;

Inspection and verification must establish both that nations carry out scheduled limitations or reductions and that they do not retain armed forces and armaments in excess of those permitted at any stage of the disarmament process; and

Disarmament must take place in a manner that will not affect adversely the security of any state.

DISARMAMENT STAGES

The program provides for progressive disarmament steps to take place in three stages and for the simultaneous strengthening of international institution.

FIRST STAGE

The first stage contains measures which would significantly reduce the capabilities of nations to wage aggressive war. Implementation of this stage would mean that:

The nuclear threat would be reduced:

All states would have adhered to a treaty effectively prohibiting the testing of nuclear weapons.

The production of fissionable materials for use in weapons would be stopped and quantities of such materials from past production would be converted to non-weapons uses.

States owning nuclear weapons would not relinquish control of such weapons to any nation not owning them and would not transmit to any such nation information or material necessary for their manufacture.

States not owning nuclear weapons would not manufacture them or attempt to obtain control of such weapons belonging to other states.

A Commission of Experts would be established to report on the feasibility and means for the verified reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons stockpiles.

Strategic delivery vehicles would be reduced:

Strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles of specified categories and weapons designed to counter such vehicles would be reduced to agreed levels by equitable and balanced steps; their production would be discontinued or limited; their testing would be limited or halted.

Arms and armed forces would be reduced:

The armed forces of the United States and the Soviet Union would be limited to 2.1 million men each (with appropriate levels not exceeding that amount for other militarily significant states); levels of armaments would be correspondingly reduced and their production would be limited.

An Experts Commission would be established to examine and report on the feasibility and means of accomplishing verifiable reduction and eventual elimination of all chemical, biological and radiological weapons.

Peaceful use of outer space would be promoted:

The placing in orbit or stationing in outer space of weapons of mass destruction would be prohibited.

States would give advance notification of space vehicle and military launchings.

U.N. peace-keeping powers would be strengthened:

Measures would be taken to develop and strengthen United Nations arrangements for arbitration, for the development of international law, and for the establishment in Stage II of a permanent U.N. Peace Force.

An International Disarmament Organization would be established for effective verification of the disarmament program:

Its functions would be expanded progressively as disarmament proceeds.

It would certify to all states that agreed reductions have taken place and that retained forces and armaments do not exceed permitted levels.

It would determine the transition from one stage to the next.

States would be committed to measures to reduce international tension and to protect against the chance of war by accident, miscalculation, or surprise attack:

States would be committed to refrain from the threat or use of any type of armed force contrary to the principles of the U.N. Charter and to refrain from indirect aggression and subversion against any country.

A U.N. peace observation group would be available to investigate any situation which might constitute a threat to or breach of the peace.

States would be committed to give advance notice of major military movements which might cause alarm, observation posts would be established to report on concentrations and movements of military forces.

SECOND STAGE

The second stage contains a series of measures which would bring within sight a world in which there would be freedom from war. Implementation of all measures in the second stage would mean:

Further substantial reductions in the armed forces, armaments, and military establishments of states, including strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and countering weapons;

Further development of methods for the peaceful settlement of disputes under the United Nations;

Establishment of a permanent international peace force within the United Nations;

Depending on the findings of an Experts Commission, a halt in the production of chemical, bacteriological, and radiological weapons and a reduction of existing stocks or their conversion to peaceful uses;

On the basis of the findings of an Experts Commission, a reduction of stocks of nuclear weapons;

The dismantling or the conversion to peaceful uses of certain military bases and facilities wherever located; and

The strengthening and enlargement of the International Disarmament Organization to enable it to verify the steps taken in Stage II and to determine the transition to Stage III.

THIRD STAGE

During the third stage of the program, the states of the world, building on the experience and confidence gained in successfully implementing the measures of the first two stages, would take final steps toward the goal of a world in which:

States would retain only those forces, non-nuclear armaments, and establishments required for the purpose of maintaining internal order; they would also support and provide agreed manpower for a U.N. Peace Force.

The U.N. Peace Force, equipped with agreed types and quantities of armaments, would be fully functioning.

The peace keeping capabilities of the United nations would be sufficiently strong and the obligations of all states under such arrangements sufficiently far-reaching as to assure peace and the just settlement of differences in a disarmed world.

APPENDIX

DECLARATION ON DISARMAMENT
THE UNITED STATES PROGRAM FOR GENERAL AND COMPLETE DISARMAMENT IN A PEACEFUL WORLD

The nations of the world,

Conscious of the crisis in human history produced by the revolutionary development of modern weapons within a world divided by serious ideological differences;

Determined to save present and succeeding generations from the scourge of war and the dangers and burdens of the arms race and to create conditions in which all peoples can strive freely and peacefully to fulfill their basic aspirations;

Declare their goal to be: A free, secure, and peaceful world of independent states adhering to common standards of justice and international conduct and subjecting the use of force to the rule of law; a world where adjustment to change takes place in accordance with the principles of the United Nations; a world where there shall be a permanent state of general and complete disarmament under effective international control and where the resources of nations shall be devoted of man’s material, cultural, and spiritual advance;

Set forth as the objectives of a program of general and complete disarmament in a peaceful world:

(a) The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than those required of preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace Force;

(b) the elimination from national arsenals of all armaments, including all weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery, other than those required for a United Nations Peace Force and for maintaining internal order;

Nations to ensure compliance at all times with all disarmament obligations;

(d) The institution of effective means for the enforcement of international agreements, for the settlement of disputes, and for the maintenance of peace in accordance with the principles of the United Nations.

Call on the negotiating states:

(a) To develop the outline program set forth below into an agreed plan for general and complete disarmament and to continue their efforts without interruption until the whole program has been achieved;

(b) To this end to seek to attain the widest possible area of agreement at the earliest possible date;

(c) Also to seek – without prejudice to progress on the disarmament program – agreement on those immediate measures that would contribute to the common security of nations and that could facilitate and form a part of that program.

Affirm that disarmament negotiations should be guided by the following principles:

(a) Disarmament shall take place as rapidly as possible until it is completed in stages containing balanced, phased and safe-guarded measures, with each measure and stage to be carried out in an agreed period of time.

(b) Compliance with all disarmament obligations shall be effectively verified from their entry into force. Verification arrangements shall be instituted progressively and in such a manner as to verify not only that agreed limitations or reductions take place but also that retained armed forces and armaments do not exceed agreed levels at any stage.

(c) Disarmament shall take place in a manner that will not affect adversely thesecurity of any state, whether or not a party to an international agreement or treaty.

(d) As stated relinquish their arms, the United Nations shall be progressively strengthened in order to improve its capacity to assure international security and the peaceful settlement of differences as will as to facilitate the development of international cooperation an common tasks for the benefit of mankind.

(e) Transition from one stage of disarmament to the next shall take place as soon as all the measures in the preceding stage have been carried out and effective verification is continuing and as soon as the arrangements that have been agreed to be necessary for the next stage have been instituted.

Agree upon the following outline program for achieving general and complete disarmament:

STAGE I

1. To Establish an International Disarmament Organization:

(a) An International Disarmament Organization (IDO) shall be established within the framework of the United Nations upon entry into force of the agreement. Its functions shall be expanded progressively as required for the effective verification of the disarmament program.

(b) The IDO shall have: (1) a General Conference of all the parties; (2) a Commission consisting of representatives of all the major powers as permanent members as permanent members and certain other states on a rotating basis; and (3) an Administrator who will administer the Organization subject to the direction of the Commission and who will have the authority, staff, and finances adequate to assure effective impartial implementation of the functions of the Organization.

(c) The IDO shall: (1) ensure compliance with the obligations undertaken by verifying the execution of measures agreed upon; (2) assist the states in developing the details of agreed further verification and disarmament measures; (3) provide for the establishment of such bodies as may be necessary for working out the details of further measures provided for in the program and for such other expert study groups as may be required to give continuous study to the problems of disarmament; (4) receive reports on the progress of disarmament and verification arrangements and determine the transition from one stage to the next.

1. To Reduce Armed Forces and Armaments:

(a) Force levels shall be limited to 2.1 million each for the U.S. and U.S.S.R. and to appropriate levels not exceeding 2.1 million each for all other militarily significant states. Reductions to the agreed levels will proceed by equitable, proportionate, and verified steps.

(b) Levels of armaments of prescribed types shall be reduced by equitable and balanced steps. The reductions shall be accomplished by transfers of armaments to depots supervised by the IDO. When, at specified periods during the Stage I reduction process, the states party to the agreement have agreed that the armaments and armed forces are at prescribed levels, the armaments in depots shall be destroyed or converted to peaceful uses.

(c) The production of agreed types of armaments shall be limited.

(d) A Chemical, Biological, Radiological (CBR) Experts Commission shall be established within the IDO for the purpose of examining and reporting on the feasibility and means for accomplishing the verifiable reduction and eventual elimination of CBR weapons stockpiles and the halting of their production.

1. To Contain and Reduce the Nuclear Threat:

(a) States that have not acceded to a treaty effectively prohibiting the testing of nuclear weapons shall do so.

(b) The production of fissionable materials for use in weapons shall be stopped.

(c) Upon the cessation of production of fissionable materials for use in weapons, agreed initial quantities of fissionable materials from past production shall be transferred to non-weapons purposes.

(d) Any fissionable materials transferred between countries for peaceful uses of nuclear energy shall be subject to appropriate safeguards to be developed in agreement with the IAEA.

(e) States owning nuclear weapons shall not relinquish control of such weapons to any nation not owning them and shall not transmit to any such nation information or material necessary for their manufacture. States not owning nuclear weapons shall not manufacture such weapons, attempt to obtain control of such weapons belonging to other states, or seek or receive information or materials necessary for their manufacture.

(f) A Nuclear Experts Commission consisting of representatives of the nuclear states shall be established within the IDO for the purpose of examining and reporting on the feasibility and means for accomplishing the verified reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons stockpiles.

1. To Reduce Strategic Nuclear Weapons Delivery Vehicles:

(a) Strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles in specified categories and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be reduced to agreed levels by equitable and balanced steps. The reduction shall be accomplished in each step by transfer to depots supervised by the IDO of vehicles that are in excess of levels agreed upon for each step. At specified periods during the Stage I reduction process, the vehicles that have been placed under supervision of the IDO shall be destroyed or converted to peaceful uses.

(b) Production of agreed categories of strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be discontinued or limited.

(c) Testing of agreed categories of strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be limited or halted.

1. To Promote the Peaceful Use of Outer Space:

(a) The placing into orbit or stationing in outer space of weapons capable of producing mass destruction shall be prohibited.

(b) States shall give advance notification to participating states and to the IDO of launchings of space vehicles and missiles, together with the track of the vehicle. F. To reduce the Risks of War by Accident, Miscalculation, and Surprise Attack: (a) States shall give advance notification to the participating states and to the IDO of major military movements and maneuvers, on a scale as may be agreed, which might give rise to misinterpretation or cause alarm and induce countermeasures. The notification shall include the geographic areas to be used and the nature, scale and time span of the event.

(b) There shall be established observation posts at such locations as major ports, railway centers, motor highways, and air bases to report on concentrations and movements of military forces.

(c) There shall also be established such additional inspection arrangements to reduce the danger of surprise attack as may be agreed.

(d) An international commission shall be established immediately within the IDO to examine and make recommendations of the possibility of further measures to reduce the risks of nuclear war by accident, miscalculation, or failure of communication.

1. To Keep the Peace:

(a) States shall reaffirm their obligations under the U.N. Charter to refrain from the threat or use of any type of armed force – including nuclear, conventional, or CBR – contrary to the principles of the U.N. Charter.

(b) States shall agree to refrain from indirect aggression and subversion against any country.

(c) States shall use all appropriate processes for the peaceful settlement of disputes and shall seek within the United Nations further arrangements for the peaceful settlement of international disputes and for the codification and progressive development of international law.

(d) States shall develop arrangements in Stage I for the establishment in Stage II of a U.N. Peace Force.

(e) A U.N. peace observation group shall be staffed with a standing cadre of observers who could be despatched to investigate any situation which might constitute a threat to or breach of the peace.

STAGE II

1. International Disarmament Organization:

The powers and responsibilities of the IDO shall be progressively enlarged in order to give it the capabilities to verify the measures undertaken in Stage II.

1. To Further Reduce Armed Forces and Armaments:

(a) Levels of forces for the U.S., U.S.S.R., and other militarily significant states shall be further reduced by substantial amounts to agreed levels in equitable and balanced steps.

(b) Levels of armaments of prescribed types shall be further reduced by equitable and balanced steps. The reduction shall be accomplished by transfers of armaments to depots supervised by the IDO. When, at specified periods during the Stage II reduction process, the parties have agreed that the armaments and armed forces are at prescribed levels, the armaments in depots shall be destroyed or converted to peaceful uses.

(c) There shall be further agreed restrictions on the production of armaments.

(d) Agreed military bases and facilities wherever they are located shall be dismantled or converted to peaceful uses.

(e) Depending upon the findings of the Experts Commission on CBR weapons, the production of CBR weapons shall be halted, existing stocks progressively reduced, and the resulting excess quantities destroyed or converted to peaceful uses.

1. To Further Reduce the Nuclear Threat:

Stocks of nuclear weapons shall be progressively reduced to the minimum levels which can be agreed upon as a result of the findings of the nuclear Experts Commission; the resulting excess of fissionable material shall be transferred to peaceful purposes.

1. To Further Reduce Strategic Nuclear Weapons Delivery Vehicles:

Further reductions in the stocks of strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be carried out in accordance with the procedure outlined in Stage I.

1. To Keep the Peace:

During Stage II, states shall develop further the peace-keeping processes of the united Nations, to the end that the United Nations can effectively in Stage III deter or suppress any threat or use of force in violation of the purposes and principles of the united Nations:

(a) States shall agree upon strengthening the structure, authority, and operation of the united Nations so as to assure that the United Nations will be able effectively to protect states against threats to or breaches of the peace.

(b) The U.N. Peace Force shall be established and progressively strengthened.

(c) States shall also agree upon further improvements and developments in rules of international conduct and in processes for peaceful settlement of disputes and differences.

STAGE III

By the time Stage II has been completed, the confidence produced through a verified disarmament program, the acceptance of rules of peaceful international behavior, and the development of strengthened international peace-keeping processes within the framework of the U.N. should have reached a point where the states of the world can move forward to Stage III. In Stage III progressive controlled disarmament and continuously developing principles and procedures of international law would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force (emphasis added) and all international disputes would be settled according to the agreed principles of international conduct.

The progressive steps to be taken during the final phase of the disarmament program would be directed toward the attainment of a world in which:

(a) States would retain only those forces, non-nuclear armaments, and establishments required for the purpose of maintaining internal order; they would also support and provide agreed manpower for a U.N. Peace Force.

(b) The U.N. Peace Force, equipped with agreed types and quantities of armaments, would be fully functioning.

(c) The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes.

(d) The peace-keeping capabilities of the United Nations would be sufficiently strong and the obligations of all states under such arrangements sufficiently far-reaching as to assure peace and the just settlement of differences in a disarmed world.

The end of Publication 7277

THE JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY BULLETIN

Less Government, More Responsibility, And
– With God’s Help –
A Better World

No. 383                     April 1991

Whose Side Are They On?

by
John F. McManus

In the interest of peace, many Americans have been persuaded to support disarmament programs and to create as a substitute for each nation’s military a United Nations Peace Force. Most feel certain that their own rights and the independence of their nation would in no way be placed in jeopardy. But there is a vital question few seem willing or able to ask:

Who would be left to restrain the all-powerful United Nations?

For his Secretaries of State and Defense, President John F. Kennedy selected Dean Rusk and Robert S. McNamara. Each was a member of the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations, a private organization formed in 1921 for the purpose of bringing about a one-world government.

Only nine months into his administration – on September 25, 1961, to be precise – Mr. Kennedy travelled to UN headquarters in New York to present a proposal entitled Freedom From War: The United States Program For General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World. The work of the Rusk-led State Department, with the willing acquiescence of the McNamara-led Defense Department, the proposal was published as “Department of State Publication 7277.”

In his remarks before the UN, President Kennedy asked for a commitment from all nations “not to an arms race, but to a peace race – to advance together step by step, stage by stage, until general and complete disarmament has been achieved.” He did not get any such commitment, yet the United States embarked on the Kennedy-launched program.

Freedom From War (or “7277,” as it is frequently called) proposes three stages of disarmament ending with the transfer of the armed forces of our nation to the United Nations. As Senator Joseph Clark of Pennsylvania approvingly reminded his colleagues in a Senate speech on March 1, 1962, this program is “the fixed, determined and approved policy of the government of the United States.”

A reading of the document itself confirms that disarmament “would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force….” In other words, the only significant military power left in the world would be the United Nations.

The provisions of the treacherous proposal would actually leave our nation defenseless before the UN, and before any other nation that didn’t similarly disarm. And it would place the UN’s superior military power in the hands of the UN’s Undersecretary for Political and Security Council Affairs, the overseer of all UN military activity. This post, by virtue of a secret agreement concluded at the founding of the UN (an arrangement later confirmed by an astonished former UN Secretary General named Trygve Lie), has always been held by a communist. The man who holds it today, is Vasiliy S. Safronchuk of the Soviet Union. Unless our leaders are stopped, they will succeed in turning over our military forces to the United Nations where they will be controlled by a communist.

Since the UN was created, there have been 14 Undersecretaries for Political and Security Council Affairs. All have been communists, and all but one have come from the Soviet Union.

1946-1949 Arkady Sobolev                1963-1965 V.P. Suslov

(USSR)                                  (USSR)

1949-1953 Konstantin Zinchenko          1965-1968 Alexei E. Nesterenko

(USSR)                                  (USSR)

1953-1954 Ilya Tchernychev              1968-1973 Leonid N. Kutakov

(USSR)                                  (USSR)

1954-1957 Dragoslav Protitch            1973-1978 Arkady N. Shevchenko

(Yugoslavia)                            (USSR)

1958-1960 Anatoly Dobrynin              1978-1981 Mikhail D. Styenko

(USSR)                                  (USSR)

1960-1962 Georgy Arkadev                1981-1986 Viacheslav A. Ustinov

(USSR)                                  (USSR)

1962-1963 E.D. Kiselev                  1987-     Vasiliy S. Safronchuk

(USSR)                                  (USSR)

Subverting Our Sovereignty

Are our leaders really implementing this plan? Yes, they are! The Nuclear Test Ban Treaty is part of it; the treaty banning the use of outer space for nuclear weapons is part of it; the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is part of it; and so is the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, signed by President Reagan and Soviet leader Gorbachev and ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1988.

When Freedom From War was first made public, many startled Americans tried to obtain a copy. It was quickly declared “out of print” by federal authorities. Then, it was superseded in April 1962 by a “more precise” statement of the U.S. disarmament policy in a document entitled Blueprint For the Peace Race: Outline of Basic Provisions of a Treaty on General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.

Presented formally to an 18-nation UN Committee on Disarmament meeting in Geneva, the foreword to the Blueprint states that it doesn’t cancel the plans given in Freedom From War. It merely “elaborates and extends the proposals of September 25,” the date that Freedom From War was unveiled at UN headquarters by President Kennedy. In complete accord with Freedom From War, the Blueprint spells out its overall goal in the third of its three stages: “The Parties to the Treaty would progressively strengthen the United Nations Peace Force established in Stage II until it had sufficient armed forces and armaments so that no state could challenge it.”

When questioned about the commitment of the United States to the Blueprint, A. Richard Richstein, General Council of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, stated in a May 11, 1982 letter that “the United States has never formally withdrawn this proposal.” In January 1991, William Nary, the official; historian of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, confirmed again that “the proposal has not been withdrawn.” Mr. Nary also confirmed that “certain features of it have been incorporated into subsequent disarmament agreements.”

In summary, the plan to disarm the United States in favor of an all-powerful United Nations Peace Force is unfolding. It calls for relinquishing virtually all of our nation’s military forces to a UN command whose leader, by agreement between the U.S. and the USSR during the founding sessions leading to the creation of the UN, will always be a communist. In the end, “no state could challenge” the communist-led military power of the United Nations.

This supposed “disarmament” program, therefore, is not as much about weapons elimination as it is about weapons distribution and control. If the program succeeds, only the UN and those nations skirting UN weapons prohibitions will be armed. It is remarkably similar to the drive that would outlaw private ownership of firearms. (emphasis added) If that drive should ever succeed, only the government and those who are outlaws would possess guns. Law-abiding citizens would be at their mercy in the latter case; law-abiding nations would be at the mercy of the UN and outlaw nations in the other.

Background To This Situation

How did we get into such a situation? Who are the individuals promoting such a suicidal proposal? Why is Congress going along instead of repudiating this dangerous program? How do we get out of it before it’s too late?

At the founding of the United Nations in 1945, the delegation from the United States included a young State Department official named Alger Hiss. Widely acclaimed for both his ability and his enthusiasm for the world organization, he rose to become the acting secretary general of the founding UN conference. As a member of the steering and executive committees of the conference, he played a major role in drafting the UN Charter. He also helped to staff the U.S. delegation and was chosen by his peers for the prestigious task of personally transporting the Charter to the President and to the Senate for ratification.

Alger Hiss, however, was later found to have been a secret communist, more loyal to a foreign power than to the nation of his birth. A 1950 State department document named 15 other key U.S. government officials who were responsible for planning the creation of the UN. They, too, were subsequently named as secret communists by official agencies.

Five years after the 1945 founding of the United nations, official records released by the State Department# identified the individuals listed below as key U.S. contributors to the planning for the world organization. Each of the 16 was subsequently identified in sworn testimony before U.S. government agencies as a secret communist.

Alger Hiss                            Nathan Gregory Silvermaster

Harry Dexter White                    Harold Glasser

Virginius Frank Coe                   Victor Perlo

Noel Field                            Irving Kaplan

Laurence Duggan                       Solomon Adler

Henry Julian Wadleigh                 Abraham George Silverman

John Carter Vincent                   William K. Ullman

David Weintraub                       William H. Taylor

# Postwar Foreign Policy Preparation, 1939-1945, U.S. State Department

Not only was the U.S. represented by a sizable number of communists, our nation’s delegation also contained 43 individuals who were then or soon would be members of America’s leading Establishment organization, the privately-run Council on Foreign Relations. Alger Hiss himself was both a communist and a CFR member as was another U.S. member of the UN planning team, Lauchlin Currie. As communists, and as CFR members, they worked diligently to bring the world government into existence, and they labored just as hard to have the United States a part of it.

There were, of course, delegations from the USSR and the other founding nations. These were made up of communists, socialists, one-worlders, and easily manipulated starry-eyed dreamers. All were committed to world government at the expense of national sovereignty. All wanted the United Nations to be supreme. There was to be no more war as soon as the United Nations was given sufficient power, especially unchallenged military power, to keep the peace.

For the past 45 years, intense pro-UN propaganda has convinced many Americans (and many others as well) that the words “peace” and “United Nations” are virtually interchangeable. Anyone who opposes the UN risks being labelled a warmonger. Those who support the UN customarily find themselves showered with accolades.

Peace is so universally desired that almost anything seems reasonable to achieve it. Proposals to empower the UN with the world’s dominant military capability have received widespread support. At first glance, the idea may seem to have some merit. A world police force formed to keep the peace. Wouldn’t it be wonderful!

Suppose, however, that the unchallengeable power of the United Nations fill into the wrong hands? Suppose it ended up at the disposal of Alger Hiss and his comrades? Couldn’t it be used to impose a tyranny on the rest of mankind? Wouldn’t any would-be tyrant gravitate to the organization?

Even if the UN wire not run by communists, socialists, and one-worlders who despise nationhood, wouldn’t the awesome power we are talking about be sufficient to corrupt anyone? Who would be able to bridle any UN leaders who had been given greater power than anyone else on earth?

Don’t Discard Americanism

It can’t be said too often that America is unique. Our nation began with the thunderous assertion in the Declaration of Independence that “men…are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” According to the founding premise of this nation, rights come from God, not from government. And the declaration then declared that governments are formed solely “to secure those rights.” That’s all! Secure God-given rights, not provide for wants, redistribute the wealth, or make dependent serfs out of the people.

With the marvelous foundation laid in the Declaration, the men who formed this unique and wonderful nation the wrote a Constitution whose sole purpose was to govern the government, not the people. America was expected to be a nation where the government was limited by law and the people were limited by freely accepted moral codes such as those found in the Ten Commandments.

Nothing like America had ever existed in all history. And did this nation prosper! Millions left the old world to come here penniless – not to be cared for but to enjoy freedom and opportunity. America became the hope of the world – even for these who were not fortunate enough to live within our borders.

The United Nations, on the other hand, has no place for God. If rights don’t come from God, the presumption is that they are granted by government. The UN actually fosters such a presumption, as can be discovered in its International Covenants on Human Rights.

What must be understood is that a government that presumes to grant fundamental rights – which is what the UN does – is a government that can suspend them at will. If the “self evident ” truths in the Declaration of Independence are canceled or forgotten in favor of the UN’s ways, all rights given us by our Creator will exist only at the extremely dubious pleasure of the United Nations.

The reality here is that the UN turns the entire American system on its head. To consider submitting our nation to the dictates of the anti-American, pro-communist and Godless United Nations is suicidal. Yet, this is exactly what our leaders have been working towards for several decades. Sad to say, it is perfectly obvious that this is precisely what President Bush is talking about when he repeatedly expresses his desire to create a “new world order.”

Unfortunately, the desire for peace has clouded the vision of many otherwise clear-thinking Americans. Many have been persuaded to think only of the concept of “peace,” but not what kind of peace. No one should ever forget that there is the peace of the grave, the peace of submission, and the communist peace that consists of no opposition to communism. Peace with justice, the goal of anyone possessing good will, is as likely under United Nations domination as is the chance that water will flow uphill.

Whenever thoughts such as these are brought to the attention of sensible Americans, enthusiasm for UN-style peace diminishes rapidly. “Let’s keep our independence!” is a common response. “Why should we trust others to look after our well-being?” is another. But too few are aware of the dangers inherent in an all-powerful world government. And too few, therefore, have been guarding against transferring U.S. military forces and U.S. sovereignty to the United Nations.

The “New World Order”

In an exclusive interview published in the December 31, 1990/January 7, 1991 issue of U.S. News and World Report, President Bush called for “a reinvigorated United Nations” that he hoped would bring about the “new world order.” What should be reinvigorated instead are the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

During a January 9, 1991 press conference, Mr. Bush said that the crisis in the Middle East “has to do with a new world order [that] is only going to be enhanced if this newly activated peacekeeping function of the United Nations proves to be effective.” Obviously, he considers our forces in the Middle East to have been under the UN’s peacekeeping jurisdiction. And isn’t it curious that this supposed “peace” organization’s authority was used in starting the war in the Middle East?

Then, in his January 19, 1991 speech to the nation, the President again touted the “new world order,” describing it as “an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the UN’s founders.” He didn’t remind anyone that the UN’s founders were communists, socialists, one-worlders, and starry-eyed dreamers who would happily tear down the unique foundations of the United States and replace them with the UN Charter.

What To Do To Save America

Answers to some of the questions we have already raised, and to others that anyone reading this pamphlet must have, begin with an understanding of the grip on America held by the Council on Foreign Relations. Mr. Bush, a member of the CFR’s Board of Directors as recently as 1979, can point to more than 350 CFR members currently serving as U.S. Government officials. A similar CFR dominance prevailed during the Reagan years and in several previous administrations.

Current U.S. Officials holding membership in the CFR include Secretary of Defense Cheney, National Security Advisor Scowcroft, Joint Chiefs Chairman Powell, CIA Director Webster, and Deputy Secretary of State Eagleburger. Don’t expect any to block furtherentanglement of the United States in the UN.

There are also 16 U.S. senators and a like number of U.S. representatives who hold membership in this organization. Don’t expect them to protect our nation from UN domination.

Realize too, that practically nationally important organ of the news media is led by a CFR member. Any senator or representative who wishes to receive favor from the media goes along with subverting America to internationalist goals. Any senator or representative who tries to keep our nation independent runs the risk of having the media make him seem like a lunatic.

The great majority of the American people who value their freedom and their nation’s independence have to become informed and alarmed about the path down which we are being taken. There will be no change without a rising tide of indignation. And there will be no rising tide of indignation until the frightening details about the ongoing subversion of this nation have been placed in the hands of many more Americans.

Happily, there are reliable sources of information both about President George Bush’s commitment to his “new world order” and about the Council on Foreign Relations itself. We highly recommend two books:

1. The Establishment’s Man, by James J. Drummey, a tastefully written yet devastating expose’ of the political career of George Bush;
2. The Shadows of Power, by James Perloff, a history of the Council on Foreign Relations taken from its own papers and publications.

The enemy is within the gates of our great land. Those who would deliver out nation to a UN-controlled “new world order” have achieved great power and influence. Whether they are stopped in time is up to individuals who will read a pamphlet like this one, books like those recommended above, and a great deal more information that is available to anyone. Once informed, an American worthy of the name will work with others to throw the rascals out of office, and, in the words of George Washington, “put none but Americans” in charge of guarding this nation.

See the material, prepared by Bernadine Smith of the Second Amendment Committee, for documentations of the law.

The ultimate goal to be reached in Stage III of the disarmament process is to “proceed to a point where no state [nation] would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force…”

Anyone who doubts the truthfulness of what has been presented here is free to go to the library and go through the steps which have been outlined above. While you are at it, look up PublicLaw 101-216.

State Department Publication 7277 is available in electronic form as file PUB_7277.ZIP on at least the following bulletin boards:

Paul Revere – San Jose (408) 947-7800 or (408) 279-0872

The Rising Storm       (408) 739-8693

If in future years your children or grandchildren ask why you allowed their freedom to slip through your fingers, no one who has read this material will be able to say; “if only I had known.” Now that you have read this, you know. The questionis; what are you going to do about it?

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/guns/dos7277.htm